Orientation to Gordon Rule Writing Assignments

CTD300Reference 413948

Gordon Rule Orientation

This online workshop is an orientation to the new

Gordon Rule Writing State requirements for all

faculty teaching a Gordon Rule Course.

Each participant needs to complete a sample writing

assignment that meets the Gordon Rule criteria.

Objectives

As a result of completing this workshop,participants will be able to:

– Describe the new State-mandated Gordon Rule Writing Requirements at Miami Dade College.

– Explain how standard criteria for college level writing assignments will lead to consistency in assuring that students complete writing assignments at the college level.

– Embed the descriptors for the Gordon Rule Rubric into a variety of college level writing assignments.

– Delineate writing assignments that would normally not fulfill the Gordon Rule and explain why they don’t.

Gordon Rule Criteria

The following descriptors will be used as the

MDC criteria for “college-level writing”.

The writing will:• have a clearly defined central idea or thesis;• provide adequate support for that idea;• be organized clearly and logically;• utilize the conventions of standard edited American

English;• be presented in a format appropriate to the

assignment.

Rubric

Demonstrates Emerging

College-Level Writing

1

Demonstrates Satisfactory

College-Level Writing

2

Demonstrates Proficient

College-Level Writing

3

Demonstrates Exemplary

College-Level Writing

4

Demonstrates

Effective

Development:

Thesis

Statement,

Main

points,

Supporting

information

Thesis evident but support very general and/or inconsistent.

Several factual errors

Thesis evident but supported by a mixture of generalizations and specific detail.

Some factual errors

Thesis, stated or implied, presents a plan of development that is carried out.

Effective supporting details.

Consistent development.

No factual errors.

Stated or implied thesis developed logically, coherently and extensively with convincing, specific supporting details.

Strong evidence of critical thinking.

No factual errors.

Rubric

Demonstrates Emerging

College-Level Writing

1

Demonstrates Satisfactory

College-Level Writing

2

Demonstrates Proficient

College-Level Writing

3

Demonstrates Exemplary

College-Level Writing

4

 

Demonstrates Effective Organization of Content

Loose focus on central idea, contains some repetition and digression.

Paragraphstructure weak.

Central idea evident.

Paragraph structure sometimes supports content.

Consistency, logic and transitions show some weaknesses.

Central idea clear.

Paragraph structure uniformly supports content.

Consistency, logic and transitions well managed

Central idea clear.

Paragraph structure consistently and effectively supports content.

Clear logic and effective transitions

Rubric

Demonstrates Emerging

College-Level Writing

1

Demonstrates Satisfactory

College-Level Writing

2

Demonstrates Proficient

College-Level Writing

3

Demonstrates Exemplary

College-Level Writing

4

 

Employs

Effective

Language

Frequent errors in word choice.

Sentence structure and mechanics seriously affect clarity.

Word choice correct but simple/ without variety.

Errors in mechanics and/ or usage do not obscure content of assignment.

Word choice accurate, varied.

Occasional errors in sentence structure, usage and mechanics do not hinder writer’s ability to communicate purpose.

Choice of language consistently precise, purposeful.

Nearly flawless sentence structure, usage, mechanics contribute to writer’s ability to communicate purpose.

Rubric

Demonstrates Emerging

College-Level Writing

1

Demonstrates Satisfactory

College-Level Writing

2

Demonstrates Proficient

College-Level Writing

3

Demonstrates Exemplary

College-Level Writing

4

 

Addresses Purpose and Audience 

Wavers in purpose, incompletely addresses assigned topic or directions, shows need for more study of issues.

Style uneven.

Adheres to purpose, fulfills assignment, shows adequate understanding of key issues.

Style generally appropriate to intended audience.

Communicates purpose clearly.

Shows full understanding of issues.

Style consistently effective for intended audience.

Communicates purpose with sophistication.

Beyond understanding of issues, shows insight.

Style engages audience, establishes writer’s credibility.

Creating Effective Assignments• A detailed a writing assignment will help students write more

effective papers.

• Directions should be explicit for students because they will treat assignments as though they were step-by-step instructions.

• The following explicit directions should appear on the syllabus or

an "assignment sheet":

• type of writing expected • scope of acceptable subject matter • length requirements • formatting requirements • documentation format• amount or type of research expected (if any)

Creating Effective Assignments

Defining the writing task should include:

• Guidance about the paper's main focus

• Purpose of the assignment (e.g., inform, analyze, explain, persuade).

• Required format/ structure (e.g., essay, report, business plan)

• Mode for the assignment (e.g., description, analysis, persuasion)

Creating Effective Assignments

Defining the evaluative criteria should include the quality

of:  • organization • focus • critical /original thinking • logic/ reasoning • structure and format • research and sources • grammar and mechanics • style/ tone • correct use of course concepts and terms • depth of coverage

Gordon Rule and the Course Syllabus

The MDC criteria for “college-level writing” ideally

should appear in the course syllabus, either embedded as

guidelines/directions for each “college-level writing assignment”

(criterion #1 of the MDC Gordon Rule requirements) or as

general requirements for passing the course.

Let’s look at how one MDC professor has done this.Syllabus

Gordon Rule and the Assignment Sheets

Additionally, the MDC criteria for “college-level

writing” should appear on assignment sheets that

provide directions and guidelines.

Let’s look at some examples of assignments that

provide evidence of college-level writing .

Writing assignments that normally provide evidence of college-level writing

Essays Interviews

Process Papers Reviews

Reports Journals

Project plans Case studies

Lab reports Feasibility Studies

Business plans Manuals

Written examinations Evaluated drafts

Research papers Discussion question responses

Portfolios

Writing assignments that do not provide evidence of college-level writing

Resumes Freewriting

Emails Brainstorming

Creative Writing Annotations

PowerPoint Presentation One-Minute Paper

The following types of writing assignments do not fulfill the Gordon Rule requirement because they do not meet the five criteria (central thesis; adequate support; organization; grammar/punctuation; format/style).

Review of Learning Objectives– A task force was appointed to define criteria for multiple college level

writing assignments, and to draft a rubric and guidelines.

– Students must successfully complete a minimum of three college level writing assignments

– The five criteria for college level writing used in the Gordon Rule rubric have been identified: thesis, development, organization, language, format

– Samples of a variety of writing assignments show how the criteria in the Gordon Rule Rubric can be embedded in detailed assignment sheets and course syllabi.

– Samples of some writing assignments show what types of assignments normally do not fulfill the Gordon Rule requirements.

– Overall, the use of the rubric and detailed assignment descriptions lead to consistency and uniformity in the standards of students’ college level writing assignments.

Assignment

To successfully complete the Gordon Rule Orientation workshop each

participant will need to post a writing assignment to SharePoint that

meet the Gordon Rule criteria for writing assignments.

Design or construct a writing assignment for your Gordon Rule class

that fulfills the MDC Gordon Rule Requirement using detailed

guidelines and instructions like those in the sample assignments

provided.

ReferencesEssay Assignment Gil, Teri and Laura Ciancanelli. “Unit #2 - Description and Analysis of a Remembered Person or Place.” Compu/Com: Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 5 Dec. 2006. http://www.siu.edu/~compcomp/compucomp/Prompts/Prompts.htm

Process Paper Assignment Trella, Katherine. “English 12 – Academic Process Analysis Essay.” Tippecanoe School Corporation. http://www.wvec.k12.in.us/harrison/ktrella/Process%20Analysis%20essay.doc

Report AssignmentErnie Enchelmayer. “Creating a Report.” Compu/Com: Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 5 Dec. 2006. http://www.siu.edu/~compcomp/compucomp/Prompts/Prompts.htm

Project Plan Assignment“CIS375 Assignment.” College of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan Dearborn. 6 Dec. 2006. http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis375/planproj.f01.html

Business Plan AssignmentJenquin, Kathy. “Writing 109EC: Business Plan Assignment.” Writing Program, University of California Santa Barbara. 5 Dec. 2006. http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/courses/109EC/lbas1.htm

ReferencesWritten Examinations AssignmentBeckett, Katherine. “Sociology 372: Crime, Politics & Justice Final Essay Exam Questions.” Sociology, University of Washington. 5 Dec. 2006. http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/kbeckett/final%20questions.pdf

Research Paper AssignmentBuranen, Lise. “The Research Paper Assignment.” University Writing Center. CAL State, L.A. 5 Dec. 2006. http://www.calstatela.edu/centers/write_cn/sbtermpap.htm

Portfolio AssignmentMcNeil, Kenneth. “Writing Portfolio Assignment.” Eastern Connecticut State University. 5Dec. 2006. http://www.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/personal/faculty/mcneilk/portfolio_assign.html

Interviewing Assignment Sullivan, Amy. “Informational Interview Assignment.” Queens University of Charlotte. 5 Dec. 2006. http://www.queens.edu/internships/worldofwork/II-Assignment.asp

Review AssignmentDorsey, Bruce. “Book Review Assignment. History 41: The American Colonies Swarthmore College. 5 Dec. 2006.http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41syl/bkrev.html

ReferencesJournal AssignmentSoule, Molly and Andresse St. Rose. “Journal Writing :Bungee Jumping for the Brain.” Hamilton College. 5 Dec. 2006. https://my.hamilton.edu/academics/resource/wc/Journal_Writing.PDF

Case Study AssignmentRichardson, Tim. “Case Study Assignment.” University of Toronto at Scarborough. 5 Dec. 2006. http://www.witiger.com/universityoftoronto/MGTD06/assignmentsMGTD06.htm

Feasibility Study AssignmentClemens, Linda. “Rhetoric 3562 Assignment #5: Collaborative Feasibility Study— Report and Oral Presentation.” Department of Rhetoric, University of Minnesota. 5 Dec. 2006.http://www.rhetoric.umn.edu/foundation_courses/rhetoric_3562/Archive/Assignments/Clemens/Clemensreport.pdf

Manual AssignmentGoeller, Michael. “The User Manual.” Business and Technical Writing: Rutgers University. 5 Dec. 2006. http://bizntech.rutgers.edu/courses/322/user_manual.html

Discussion Question Responses AssignmentStone, Maureen and Polle Zellweger. “Reading Responses and Discussion Questions.” Information Visualization and Aesthetics, University of Washington. 5 Dec. 2006. https://courses.washington.edu/info424/Reading%20Responses.pdf

Resume AssignmentOvergaard, Nicky. “Resume Assignment.”University of Minnesota, Crookston. http://webhome.crk.umn.edu/~novergaa/Resume%20Assignment.doc

ReferencesEmail AssignmentWarnick, Quinn. “Email Assignment Constructing an Effective Email Message.” ISUComm: Iowa StateUniversity. 5 Dec. 2006. http://isucomm.iastate.edu/emailassignment

Creative Writing AssignmentsMacAuley, William. “Suggestions for Creative Writing Assignments.” Faculty Resources. The College of Wooster. 5 Dec. 2006. http://www.wooster.edu/writing_center/facassignments.html

PowerPoint Presentation AssignmentBourgeois, Christina. “Assignment Sheet: PowerPoint Presentation ECE 2301: Digital Design Lab.” Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Tech. 5 Dec. 2006. http://upcp.ece.gatech.edu/classes/2031/content/design_project/assignment_sheet_powerpoint_prespdf

Freewriting AssignmentUlrich, Melanie R. “Freewriting.” University of Texas. http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~ulrich/rww03/freewriting.htm

Brainstorming AssignmentWallace, David. “Brainstorming.” Product Engineering Processes, MIT. 5 Dec. 2006. http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/assignments/Brainstorming.html

Annotation/commentary AssignmentCooper, Elizabeth J. “Writing Assignment for the Annotation/commentary on a Major Article in the Field.” Virginia Commonwealth University. http://www.courses.vcu.edu/ENG636-ejc/annotation.htm

One Minute paper AssignmentPimple, Kenneth. “Using Short Writing Assignments in Teaching Research Ethics1.” Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions, Indiana University Bloomington. 5 Dec. 2006. http://poynter.indiana.edu/tre/kdp-writing.pdf

Web Resources • College Term Papers, Homework Help, http://www.gethomeworkhelp.com/

• Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/

• Gordon Rule, http://www.registrar.ufl.edu/catalogarchive/00-01-catalog/academic-advising/AA_006_Gordon-Rule.htm#A006

• Gordon Rule Guidelines, http://inst.sfcc.edu/~often/e_index/gordonru.htm

• Internet Public Library, Styles and Writing Guides, http://www.ipl.org/div/subject/browse/ref73.00.00/

• Teaching and Learning Links, http://inst.sfcc.edu/~often/e_index/teachlearn.htm

• The Owl Family of Sites, Purdue University, http://owl.english.purdue.edu/

• Writing Guides @ Colorado State University, http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/index.cfm?guides_active=starting&category1=21