VisualDNA-Who am I Critiques

Please use at least three additional resources.
Please read files I upload carefully. The focus question is in the description.

1 PSYA02 - Introduction to Psychology, Part 2 Grading Rubric Create and Revise Phases TAs will consider the following major components when grading the peerScholar assignment. Note that there is not a specific point value assigned to each of these items – this is simply the list of the factors that will be assessed when assigning points to your first and final drafts. • Does the student briefly summarize the quiz and its aims? Is the summary approximately 1/3 of the length of the final paper? Does this summary address the points in the assignment description and/or raise other points? • Does the student assess the quiz’s validity and back up their assessment with evidence from the quiz and/or external sources? What does the quiz do to increase its validity? • Does the student suggest ways in which the quiz could increase its validity? • Does the student describe how the quiz addresses formal aspects of personality as discussed in class or in external sources? • Are claims supported by cited research? (in-text citations, with an APA style reference list at end) o Students are expected to use at least two primary sources (journal article or book chapters) for their research, and will most likely need to use more than two primary sources. Any claim to external knowledge that is not by backed by appropriate academic research should be considered un-supported, and will negatively impact the effectiveness of the argument. • Did the student cite all external sources (including the personality inventory analyzed) using APA style? • Grading Notes: o Perfect marks reflect a very high standard and should be awarded sparingly. Simply adhering to the project’s instructions do not constitute an A. A-level marks are reserved for papers that go above and beyond and that represent work that is exemplary and outstanding for the first-year level. • Academic Integrity: o Any suspected plagiarism should be brought to the attention of the Course Coordinator immediately. Comments to Peers • Student must provide one positive comment and one constructive criticism for each peer assigned to them. • Mark for this section is based on the constructive criticism: o Were their comments helpful? Were they deep (i.e., not just mechanical)? o Did they indicate where a peer did not follow instruction, or indicate where there is room for improvement in one of the criteria from the assignment prompt? o Did they suggest HOW to improve? • Grading Notes: o Marks should be assigned only for comments containing depth (i.e. comments that deal with the content/approach). Shallow comments (e.g., poor grammar, sentence structure, etc.) do not count. o It is not sufficient to claim that there is no room for improvement in a peer’s paper. 2 Phase 1: Create (Quality of Draft) 0 points 1 point 2 points • Any of the following: o No submission or blank submission o Massively under word count (0-400 words, including reference list and citations) o No citations present intext or in reference list o Submission in outline or bullet format • Any of the following: o Significantly under word count (400- 800 words, including reference list and citations) o Missing one or two of the three required citations (two scholarly sources, one personality quiz) • Complete, proofread submission • At least two scholarly sources cited in-text and in reference list • Personality inventory cited in-text and in the reference list 3 Phase 2: Assess (Quality of Comments to Peers) (fractional points are possible) Marks for this section are based only on the constructive criticism question. 0 points • Any of the following: o 5 or more of the submitted reviews are shallow or incomplete (e.g., mechanical; student says that there is nothing to improve) 1 point • 2-3 complete, deep criticisms o Draw on examples from the author’s work and from the assignment prompt o Give guidance to author to fix problems • Remaining 3-4 criticisms are shallow or lacking detail 2 points • 4 complete, deep criticisms o Draw on examples from the author’s work and from the assignment prompt o Give guidance to author to fix problems • Remaining 2 criticisms are shallow or lacking detail 3 points • 5 complete, deep criticisms o Draw on examples from the author’s work and from the assignment prompt o Give guidance to author to fix problems • Remaining 1 criticism is shallow or lacking detail 4 points • 6 complete, constructive, detailed criticisms that reference the assignment prompt o Draw on example from the author’s work and from the assignment prompt o Give guidance to author to fix problems 4 Phase 3: Reflect/Revise Quality of Final Essay (fractional points are possible) 0 points • Any of the following: o Final draft of the essay is missing three or more of the major components from pg. 1 above (“Does the student...?) o Final draft of the essay is significantly under the word count (0-400 words) o Both parenthetical citations and reference list are missing entirely o No scholarly sources are cited 1 point • Any of the following: o Final draft of the essay is missing one or two of the major components from pg. 1 above (“Does the student…?) o Final draft of the essay is significantly under the word count (400-800 words) or significantly over the word count (1200- 1400 words) o Final draft is missing either in-text citations or reference list o Major mechanical/proofreading errors throughout, including in APA format o Only one scholarly source is cited 2 points • Final submission addresses all components of the assignment from pg. 1 above (“Does the student…?) • There may be some mechanical errors, including in APA format • Although all major components are addressed, three to four may be addressed superficially (e.g., without linking them to the remainder of the argument) or may be addressed without following instructions completely • Most papers will score between 2 and 3 points 3 points • Final submission addresses all components of the assignment from pg. 1 above (“Does the student…?) • Mechanical errors are minor and few, including in APA format • Although all major components are addressed, one or two may be addressed superficially (e.g., without linking them to the remainder of the argument) or may be addressed without following instructions completely • Most papers will score between 2 and 3 points 4 points • Final submission addresses all components of the assignment from above (“Does the student…?) • Final submission flows logically from one idea 5 to the next • All arguments are supported by scholarly references • Scholarly sources are used frequently (i.e., more than two or three sources used, not including the personality inventory) • Submission is free from mechanical errors and is written at the University level • Very few papers will score a full 4 points. This is exemplary, A+ level work that goes above and beyond the requirements of the assignment. Phase 3: Reflect/Revise Quality of Final Reflection (fractional points are possible) 0 points • Either of the following: o Student did not complete reflection questions o Student did not incorporate feedback and did not justify why feedback was not included 1 point • Student addressed some but not all peer feedback o Described where feedback was incorporated o Described where feedback was not incorporated and why 2 points • Student addressed all peer feedback o Described where and how feedback was incorporated o Described where feedback was not incorporated and why