DRAFT
For those of my peers reviewing this; I most want to make sure that the reference guide is understandable to someone who hasn't been reading up on this topic for a week or more and to make sure that the language of the piece is accessible to those who may want to read it. I ask that you advise me on how perhaps I may make my project even more seemingly a true QRG.
Happy Reading!
 |
| Brown, Owen W. "FACEBOOK LIKE" 08/03/2010 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic |
Hey Alexis! Just so you're aware, my computer cannot handle Google Drive, so I'm just going to give you the totals for each section and everything here as a comment, because I've literally spent 45 minutes trying to make it work.
ReplyDeleteContent:
Who: 7 (I bet it's hard to describe these stakeholders so I don't really blame you for not painting an incredibly detailed mental picture of them)
What: 9
Why: 9
When & Where: 7 (Although again I'm sure it's next to impossible to describe the setting for a scientific paper in such great detail so this isn't your fault either)
Content total: 39 (Only for reasons that are likely beyond your control)
Form: 44
Project total:83 :)
I think this is a wonderfully constructed QRG! And as someone who didn't spend weeks learning everything there is to learn, it still made complete sense! The only issues I could find are with regard to setting, time period, and essentially all of the descriptive business. I completely understand that those things don't really go along with your controversy, though. I just wouldn't want you to get marked down for not igniting 3 of Sean's 5 senses. Know what I mean? If there's any way to add those sorts of elements, I think your QRG is unstoppable! Excellent work!
I also didn't mean to give you the exact same total project grade as you gave me. It just so happened that way. :)
DeleteHi Alexis! I really enjoyed reading your QRG! Here is my rubric :)
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1BKGbxHfTm-tYRfTMQguZsaZ6m8jONxerZCLkeTG5zNI/edit?usp=sharing