FIELD TRIP REACTION PAPER
GRADING PROTOCOL
21 March 2006
Proper Format:
- The document should have a three-line header that
appears on the top left of each page, citing the author's name on the first
line, the name of the assignment on the second, and the composition date
on the third line. This heading should appear on every page, including the
first one; no additional title for the paper is necessary. Page numbers
should appear at the top right of each page of the essay.
- All references should follow The Chicago Manual
of Style.
|
| |
1 |
Author's name, name of assignment, and composition date appear on the first
page of the essay |
| |
1 |
Essay conforms to the word limits for the assignment (i.e., 400-500 words) |
| |
3 |
Essay follows the basic structure of an academic paper (introduction, body,
conclusion) |
| |
2 |
Footnotes and bibliographic references are complete and correctly follow the
Chicago Manual of Style |
| |
3 |
Introduction includes: a clear and succinct thesis statement, a synopsis of
the author's assumptions before the tour and expectations of what it would show,
and a brief outline of the ways in which the tour overturned or confirmed those
assumptions/expectations |
Part One: Synopsis of the Tour, e.g.,
What unique features of the Ancient Near Eastern or Roman World did you discover
(or re-discover) through this field trip? What are the most interesting points
raised or illustrations used? What connections do you
see between your Field Trip discoveries, the Biblical
texts, and other class materials so far? |
| |
5 |
Clear, succinct, and accurate synopsis of the tour, including discussion of
specific artifacts that you examined, specific foods that
you tasted, and other details of the experience, and clear connections to the
course material. Clear, succinct, and accurate description of connections
between specific Field Trip discoveries, specific Biblical
texts, and other class materials. |
| |
4 |
Clear and accurate synopsis of the tour, including discussion of specific
artifacts that you examined, specific foods that you tasted,
or other details of the experience. Clear and accurate but wordy description
of connections between specific Field Trip discoveries,
specific Biblical texts, and other class materials. |
| |
3 |
Good synopsis of the tour, including discussion of specific artifacts that
you examined, specific foods that you tasted, or other
details of the experience. Accurate but wordy description of vague
connections between Field Trip, Biblical texts, and class
materials. |
| |
2 |
Weak synopsis of the tour, giving only vague descriptions or omitting one
of the following: specific artifacts that you examined,
specific foods that you tasted, or other details of the experience. Diffuse
description of connections between Field Trip discoveries,
Biblical texts, and class materials. |
| |
1 |
Poor synopsis of the tour, omitting two of the following: specific artifacts
that you examined, specific foods that you tasted, or
other details of the experience. Barebones description of connections
between Field Trip, Biblical texts, and class materials. |
| |
0 |
Synopsis of the tour either is inaccurate or omits all three of the following:
specific artifacts that you examined, specific foods that
you tasted, or other details of the experience. Inaccurate (or no) description
of connections between Field Trip,
Biblical texts, and class materials. |
Part Two: Evaluation
of the Tour
- What concepts do you think are the most important for our studies?
- What do you see as the three most important contributions of this field
trip to understanding the New Testament
- What would be your one-sentence synopsis or "sound
bite" to help other students remember the main concepts of this assignment?
- What further questions did this experience raise for you?
|
| |
5 |
Clear, succinct, and interesting responses to all four of these questions |
| |
4 |
Clear, succinct, and interesting responses to three of these four questions |
| |
3 |
Vague responses to 3–4 of these questions |
| |
2 |
Clear, succinct, and interesting responses to two of these four questions |
| |
1 |
Vague responses to 1–2 of these questions |
| |
0 |
No responses to these questions |
Composition: Grammar,
punctuation, spelling, etc. |
| |
5 |
Perfect work |
| |
4 |
One or two punctuation mistakes OR one spelling or grammatical error |
| |
3 |
Three or more punctuation mistakes OR two spelling or grammatical errors |
| |
2 |
Three spelling or grammatical errors OR several punctuation mistakes and one
or two spelling or grammatical errors |
| |
1 |
Four spelling or grammatical errors OR several punctuation mistakes and three
spelling or grammatical errors |
| |
0 |
More than four spelling or grammatical errors OR several punctuation mistakes
and four spelling or grammatical errors |
| |
Total Points (of 25) |
| |
less points for late submission |
| |
Net Points |