Analysis 2 Attempt In Progress NEXT UP: Submit assignment Add comment Unlimited Attempts Allow ...
Analysis 2 Attempt In Progress NEXT UP: Submit assignment Add comment Unlimited Attempts Allowed Available: 17 Jan 2025 8:00 until 2 Feb 2025 23:59Available: 17 Jan 2025 8:00 until 2 Feb 2025 23:59Details Directions Remember to complete the assigned reading/watching from Week 3 and watch the recorded lectures. Follow the prompt below and submit your digestion by Sunday at 11:59pm. No AI Policy One-Week Extension Policy Guidelines Read the rubric to understand how assignments are graded (scroll down the page) This is not a research project, so outside sources are not allowed. Use of outside sources may result in a loss of points or a "0" grade. The goal is to demonstrate an understanding of the assigned reading by applying course concepts to real world issues. However, perhaps you could cite a small example from an outside source, but it should not be at the expense of addressing the prompt and demonstrating your understanding of the assigned reading. Check with me if you are ever unsure. No AI Policy Formatting: 12 point font, Times New Roman, 1 inch margins, number your responses to the prompt questions, and organize your writing into paragraphs when appropriate (long blocks of text are confusing and hard to read). File Type: Only .doc or .docx files are accepted in this course. Citations: Use in-text citations when citing or explaining evidence from the assigned reading/watching. Be sure to explain any quotations in your own words. When citing evidence, use in-text citations: include the author's name and the page number (if applicable). For example, (author name 88). If citing evidence from a video, then cite the time-stamp. For example, "Quotation from the assigned video" (author name time stamp). Pro Tip: it's ok to shorten the passages. You can include [...] when you are omitting unnecessary text from the passage to shorten it. Analysis Questions (The entire response must be within 600-800 words) Number and respond to all prompt questions below. Support your reasoning using only evidence from the relevantmaterials assigned this week. Be sure to explain any quotations in your own words. Read the rubric for an explanation of the grading criteria. Aim to be clear and concise: There is a small penalty for going over or under the word limit. When citing evidence, use in-text citations: When citing from the readings, include the author's name and the page number. For example, "quotation from the assigned reading" (Marcuse page#). When citing from the Black Mirror episode, cite the time stamp. For example, 'explain the scene from the episode' (0:45:30). Be sure to watch the podcasts for a fuller understanding of the reading. Don't forget to write your total word count at the end! If you watched "Fifteen Million Merits" then respond to the two questions below and skip Section B: How are Marcuse’s concepts, “technological rationality” and "one-dimensional thinking," demonstrated in the Black Mirror episode, “Fifteen Million Merits”? Explain three specific scenes from the episode to support your claims and cite the video time stamps for these scenes. Be sure to clarify the meaning of Marcuse's concepts through your explanation of the scenes from this episode. Is Bing “one-dimensional” in the final scene of the episode? Explain your reasoning. (This is open to interpretation, so I am judging how strong your evidence is in support of your claim.) If you watched "Nosedive" then respond to the two questions below and skip Section A: How are Marcuse’s concepts, “technological rationality” and "one-dimensional thinking," demonstrated in the Black Mirror episode, “Nosedive”? Explain three specific scenes from the episode to support your claims and cite the video time stamps for these scenes. Be sure to clarify the meaning of Marcuse's concepts through your explanation of the scenes from this episode. Is Lacie “one-dimensional” in the final scene of the episode? Explain your reasoning. (This is open to interpretation, so I am judging how strong your evidence is in support of your claim.) View Rubric Digestion Rubric (F23) (1) Digestion Rubric (F23) (1) Criteria Ratings Points Critical Analysis view longer description 15 pts Meets Standards This is a deeply engaged analysis that demonstrates a clear understanding of the material and its practical implications. The submission displays strong logical reasoning. There are no significant interpretive errors. 12 pts Approaching Standards This displays partial understanding of the ideas and arguments from the assigned reading and lectures. The submission requires deeper analysis and closer attention to the focus of the prompt questions. There might be also some interpretive errors or logical fallacies. 10.5 pts Below Standards There is only superficial or minimal engagement with the ideas and arguments from the assigned reading and lectures. This submission requires a deeper and clearer understanding of the material. There are significant interpretive errors. 0 pts ChatGPT Responses earn 0 points This response is nearly entirely written by AI according to GPTZero. As a result, it does not address the prompt, relate the ideas to real-world examples, and does not demonstrate having read the assigned reading nor watched the lectures. / 15 pts Citing Evidence view longer description 10 pts Meets Standards The submission cites the relevant section(s) of the assigned reading when analyzing its ideas and arguments. Sufficient citations include the page number(s) from an assigned reading or video timestamp when appropriate. Direct quotations are short (if any), and when present, they don't constitute more than 10% of the submission. All textual evidence is relevant and strengthens the reasoning in support of your claims. 7 pts Approaching Standards The submission includes some textual evidence, but they may lack relevance to the prompt questions or they may only partially support your claims. Textual evidence might be vague, decontextualized, or irrelevant, which detracts from the strength and clarity of your arguments. Textual evidence might be missing proper citations or there may be an over-reliance on direct quotations instead of your own analysis. 3 pts Below Standards The submission contains little to no textual evidence. References to the assigned reading are vague, decontextualized, or irrelevant and therefore do not strengthen the reasoning in support of your claims. In some cases, there may be an over-reliance on direct quotations without sufficient context and analysis for how these ideas support your reasoning. / 10 pts Word Count view longer description 2 pts Meets Standards This is within the word count range specified in the prompt 1 pts Approaching Standards This misses the word count by 1-50 words. 0 pts Below Standards This misses the word count by more than 50 words / 2 pts Grammar, Mechanics, & Formatting view longer description 3 pts Meets Standards Excellent spelling, mechanics, and formatting. All prompt questions are numbered. 1.5 pts Approaching Standards A couple significant errors with spelling, mechanics, and formatting. 0 pts Below Standards Lots of errors that affect readability and comprehension / 3 pts
