Description Analysis 4 (SUN 2/9) Directions Please complete the Week 5 reading and watch the lectu ...
Description Analysis 4 (SUN 2/9) Directions Please complete the Week 5 reading and watch the lectures Follow the prompt below and submit your digestion by Sunday at 11:59pm. FINAL DEADLINE: This course ends on Thursday, February 13th at 11:59pm. This is the last day that I will accept the Week 5 assignments. I will not accept these assignments after 2/13--no exceptions will be made. Please plan accordingly. 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 examples from the relevant Week 5 materials. Be sure to explain any quotations in your own words. 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" (Selinger ###). When citing from a video, cite the time stamp. For example, "information from the video" (0:05:10). Be sure to watch the lectures for a fuller understanding of the reading. Don't forget to write your total word count at the end! PROMPTS: Explain the three experiments that Collins presents in Part 1 of the reading to support his minimal embodiment thesis. Why does Collins think that these examples disprove Dreyfus' social embodiment thesis? What is Selinger's critique of Collins' argument from Part 1 of the reading? In Part 2, Collins claims that "[t]he embodiment thesis pretty well is the minimal embodiment thesis" (736). How does Collins justify this claim? In Part 4, Collins argues that interactional expertise can be acquired from conversations. Why do Collins and Dreyfus still disagree on this point? View Rubric Analysis Rubric W25 Analysis Rubric W25 Criteria Ratings Points Course Context 10 pts Meets Standards Demonstrates deep understanding of the context from the assigned texts and the “podcasts.” 8.5 pts Approaching Standards Shows a good understanding of the text’s context but may lack depth or overlook important nuances that were discussed in the “podcasts.” 7 pts Below Standards Significantly flawed or incomplete understanding of the text’s context. The context is not informed by the information from the “podcasts.” This doesn’t fully address the prompt questions or the assigned texts. / 10 pts Citing Evidence 15 pts Meets Standards Textual evidence is clearly integrated, relevant, and effectively supports the claims made in the analysis. Direct quotations are short (if any), and when present, they don't constitute more than 10% of the submission. All evidence is cited using in-text citations. 12.75 pts Approaching Standards The submission includes some textual evidence, but it may lack relevance to the prompt questions, or they may only partially support your claims. It might rely too much on direct quotations instead of your own analysis for how the evidence supports your claims. 10.5 pts Below Standards Little to no textual evidence is cited, or evidence is irrelevant or too vague to support the claims in the argument. In some cases, there may be excessive reliance on direct quotations without sufficient context and analysis for how these ideas support your reasoning. / 15 pts Critical Analysis 20 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. 15 pts Approaching Standards This displays partial understanding of the ideas and arguments from the assigned reading and “podcasts.” The analysis requires greater depth and closer attention to the focus of the prompt questions. There may be some interpretive errors or logical fallacies. It may show some original thought but may include too much summary and description. 10 pts Below Standards There is only superficial or minimal engagement with the ideas and arguments from the assigned reading and “podcasts.” This submission requires a deeper and clearer understanding of the material. There may be significant interpretive errors, too much summary in the style of a book report, or vague explanations of course concepts as opposed to critical analysis. / 20 pts Original Writing Style 15 pts Meets Standards Demonstrates originality, a strong human writing voice, and there is no evidence of AI use. 11.25 pts Approaching Standards Mostly original-sounding work but may have a few sections that appear formulaic or unoriginal. There is no overt use of AI, but it’s possible that AI was consulted in the writing process. 7.5 pts Below Standards (half credit) The analysis is weakened by a generic and formulaic style. The writing style resembles the quality of AI generated text and likely includes many of the commonly used terms that AI is known to employ. The style may also appear to have been revised from an AI generated response. / 15 pts Language Mechanics & Formatting 5 pts Meets Standards Excellent mechanics and formatting. All responses to the prompt questions are numbered and the text is organized in paragraph form (no long blocks of text). The total word count is written at the end. 4.25 pts Approaching Standards A couple significant errors with spelling, mechanics, and formatting; the submission might not be organized into paragraphs; the responses might not be numbered; or the total word count might be missing. 3.5 pts Below Standards Lots of errors that negatively affect clarity and comprehension. / 5 pts Word Count 5 pts Meets Standards The total word count is within the range specified in the prompt. 3 pts Approaching Standards The total word count is over or under the range specified in the prompt by 1-50 words. 0 pts Below Standards The total word count is over or under the range specified in the prompt by more than 50 words. / 5 pts Plagiarism Detected 0 pts AI Plagiarism Significantly AI-generated text that does not reflect the student’s own thinking. There is likely information cited in the submission that does not exist in the assigned reading/watching (i.e. AI hallucinations). 0 pts Non-AI Plagiarism Plagiarism from online sources, submissions from former students, or a purchased assignment.
