Evaluation Essay• You will be writing an essay explaining and defending your

SCARAB rubric score for your lowest-scoring source. Think of this as a persuasive paper to convince me your score was correct.

• THIS ESSAY IS DUE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2 by 3:00 EVEN IF YOU ARE ABSENT. I will grade whatever is on your GoogleDoc at 3pm.

• FEEDBACK WILL BE GIVEN ON A DAILY BASIS!!!!!! EXTRA HELP IS AVAILABLE AFTER SCHOOL AND DURING GUIDED STUDY!!!!!

Google Docs

• You will write your essay on Google Docs.• When you get to the lab, open Moodle and Google

Docs.• Start a new document.• Title it: Your Name Hour Whatever Evaluation

Essay• Share it with me. If you don’t know how to do

this, ask me.• Then, start writing!

Essay Info:• 2 pages typed, double spaced (MAX)• 4 paragraphs—you will only write about Authority,

Relevance, Accuracy and Bias• Paragraphs should be in order, top to bottom (Authority

first, Relevance second, etc.)• EVERY SINGLE paragraph should have evidence from

the article. This means a quote.• Use CEW format• You do not need an intro or conclusion• Turn in a clean copy of the article with the essay

(It must include the citation, summary, AND scored SCARAB rubric)

Essay Rubric:4: Exceeds Standard: Meets all “Meets” criteria, plus:• Essay includes multiple pieces of evidence from the article in each paragraph• Warrant is especially clear, compelling, or thorough• Warrant is especially interesting or thoughtful3: Meets Standard• Evaluation Essay is written about the lowest-scoring article.• Evaluation Essay includes 4 paragraphs—one for ARAB of the SCARAB rubric.• Evaluation Essay uses clear CEW format.

– Each paragraph begins with a topic sentence stating the claim of the paragraph. This sentence will indicate the score the article earned in that category.

– Evaluation Essay includes at least one supporting piece of evidence (quote) from the source in EVERY SINGLE paragraph.

– Each paragraph includes warrant: explanations of HOW each example PROVES the source is a 2 (or 3, or 1, or whatever). Explanations are clear, strong and thorough.

• Evaluation Essay is free of any distracting typos or mistakes in grammar, spelling, and mechanics.

2: Partially Meets Standard: Meets 4-5 “Meets” criteria, or more criteria but in a general rather than specific way.1: Minimally Meets Standard: Meets only 3 or fewer “Meets” criteria, or is especially undeveloped.0: Redo: Essay is not scorable.

A word about each category• Authority: As you construct your paragraph you will

have to do some research on your author and source (where it came from). The information you discover will be used as your evidence. So unless your article already has some background info about your author and source, you won’t rely on your article for evidence.

• Relevance: As you construct your paragraph, you will rely heavily on your article for evidence to support what you have to say about the score.

A word about each category• Accuracy: If you didn’t print out all the bibliographic

information (the stuff at the end of some of your articles), then you will have to go back and find this information from the original database. This bibliographic information will be used as evidence to support your score. Also, like you did with Authority, you may have to Google the source and the bibliographic information to help with your evidence.

• Bias: As you construct your paragraph, you will rely heavily on your article for evidence to support what you have to say about the score.

Thesis of your paragraph

• You will have the same kind of “thesis” for every paragraph, but it will change with the score and category. Here is the setup for your thesis statement:

• I scored the article a _fill in score here_ on ___(fill in category here)__________. • Every paragraph will start this way!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I scored the article a 2 on substance. I scored the substance on the article a 2 because it seems to be written for a general public. For example it is written in The American Spectator and this is a magazine that is for a conservative audience according to its website. It is not meant for a scientific group. Also, the writer seems to be speaking to a general public when he writes, “It was less than fours years ago that biotech researchers told us that all they wanted…” Because the magazine is meant for a wider audience and because the author seems to be addressing the reader directly, the substance feels more personal like he is specifically talking to me. This gives the article a more informal tone and less of an academic one. That is why I scored it a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. So the information is written with the general public in mind because the writer assumes the reader comes with some background knowledge. In addition, he also alludes to “cloning technology used to create Dolly the sheep” without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth and understanding. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. For example, the tone of the essay is quite informal. The author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level because of the language mentioned above, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level.

CEW

Claim, Evidence, WarrantEvery paragraph will be set up using

this format and guidelines.

Claims: If you scored a 1 or a 2, you will have 3 claims

• Your first sentence of each paragraph will look like this: I scored this article a (2) on (relevance) because…– Explain why this article DOES fit everything in the 2 box.

• When you finish saying why the article fits in the 2 box, then move on to your next claim: I didn’t score this article lower on (relevance) because…– Explain why this article DOES NOT fit the things in the 1 box.

• When you finish saying why the article is NOT a 1, then move on to your final claim: I didn’t score this article higher (relevance) because…– Explain why this article DOES NOT fit the things in the 3 box.

Claims: If you scored a 0 or a 3, you will have two claims

• Your first sentence of each paragraph will look like this: I scored this article a (0)(or 3) on (relevance) because…– Explain why this article DOES fit everything in the 0 (or 3)

box.• When you finish saying why the article fits in the 0

(or 3) box, then move on to your next claim: I didn’t score this article a (1) (or lower) on (relevance) because…– Explain why this article DOES NOT fit the things in the 1

box.

I scored the article a 2 on substance. I scored the substance on the article a 2 because it seems to be written for a general public. For example it is written in The American Spectator and this is a magazine that is for a conservative audience according to its website. It is not meant for a scientific group. Also, the writer seems to be speaking to a general public when he writes, “It was less than fours years ago that biotech researchers told us that all they wanted…” Because the magazine is meant for a wider audience and because the author seems to be addressing the reader directly, the substance feels more personal like he is specifically talking to me. This gives the article a more informal tone and less of an academic one. That is why I scored it a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. So the information is written with the general public in mind because the writer assumes the reader comes with some background knowledge. In addition, he also alludes to “cloning technology used to create Dolly the sheep” without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth and understanding. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. For example, the tone of the essay is quite informal. The author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level because of the language mentioned above, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level.

Evidence:• Quotes from the text– Make sure to introduce each quote with “for

example,” or “the author states” or “In addition, the author mentions” or something like that. Don’t just plop evidence into the paragraph

– All evidence that you take from the article must be in quotation marks “”!

• Use separate pieces of evidence for each claim within your paragraph (some for why you didn’t score it higher, some for why you didn’t score it lower)

I scored the substance of this article as a 2. I scored the substance on the article a 2 because it seems to be written for a general public. For example it is written in The American Spectator and this is a magazine that is for a conservative audience according to its website. It is not meant for a scientific group. Also, the writer seems to be speaking to a general public when he writes, “It was less than fours years ago that biotech researchers told us that all they wanted…” Because the magazine is meant for a wider audience and because the author seems to be addressing the reader directly, the substance feels more personal like he is specifically talking to me. This gives the article a more informal tone and less of an academic one. That is why I scored it a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. So the information is written with the general public in mind because the writer assumes the reader comes with some background knowledge. In addition, he also alludes to “cloning technology used to create Dolly the sheep” without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth and understanding. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. For example, the tone of the essay is quite informal. The author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level because of the language mentioned above, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level.

Warrant:

• Explain HOW the evidence supports your claim.• Explain even things you think are obvious.• Restate why you gave the score you gave.• The warrant is usually is at least 2 sentences in

length and maybe longer. It should be longer than the evidence you are explaining.

• Repeat language from SCARAB rubric when necessary.

I scored the article a 2 on substance. I scored the substance on the article a 2 because it seems to be written for a general public. For example it is written in The American Spectator and this is a magazine that is for a conservative audience according to its website. It is not meant for a scientific group. Also, the writer seems to be speaking to a general public when he writes, “It was less than fours years ago that biotech researchers told us that all they wanted…” Because the magazine is meant for a wider audience and because the author seems to be addressing the reader directly, the substance feels more personal like he is specifically talking to me. This gives the article a more informal tone and less of an academic one. That is why I scored it a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. So the information is written with the general public in mind because the writer assumes the reader comes with some background knowledge. In addition, he also alludes to “cloning technology used to create Dolly the sheep” without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth and understanding. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. For example, the tone of the essay is quite informal. The author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level because of the language mentioned above, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level.

Pulling it all together

• Make good use of transition words:– For example…– In addition,…– On the other hand,…– However,…– Finally, …

• See next slide for more ways to introduce ideas.

Some transition words that you can use to indicate you are explaining your evidence and warrant.

The author says . . . The author notes . . .

The author believes . . . The author observes . . .

The author comments . . . The author relates . . .

The author declares . . . The author remarks . . .

The author discusses . . . The author reports . . .

The author explains . . . The author reveals . . .

The author expresses . . . The author states . . .

The author mentions . . . The author acknowledges . . .

The author suggests . . . The author thinks . . .

The author points out . . . The author responds . . .

The author shows . . . The author confirms . . .

I scored the substance of this article as a 2. I scored the substance on the article a 2 because it seems to be written for a general public. For example it is written in The American Spectator and this is a magazine that is for a conservative audience according to its website. It is not meant for a scientific group. Also, the writer seems to be speaking to a general public when he writes, “It was less than fours years ago that biotech researchers told us that all they wanted…” Because the magazine is meant for a wider audience and because the author seems to be addressing the reader directly, the substance feels more personal like he is specifically talking to me. This gives the article a more informal tone and less of an academic one. That is why I scored it a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. So the information is written with the general public in mind because the writer assumes the reader comes with some background knowledge. In addition, he also alludes to “cloning technology used to create Dolly the sheep” without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth and understanding. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. For example, the tone of the essay is quite informal. The author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level because of the language mentioned above, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level.

Another example: Authority• I scored the article a 1 on Authority. I scored it a 2 because the author, Wesley Smith,

is an expert on this topic. For example, according to the Discovery Institute’s website, he is a “senior fellow” with their organization. A fellow according to Wikipedia is an elite group of scholars and academics. Also the Discovery Institute is an organization dedicated to advancing science and culture. So since is he a fellow at this institute of science he is clearly an expert on cloning and other science information. That is why I gave it a two. I didn’t score this a 1 or a 0 because he is not just a journalist. Like I mentioned earlier, he is an expert on these types of topics. According to my article, he is also a “consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture” and has written books such the “Consumer’s Guide to a Brave New World.” So since he is actively involved with the science community and he is an academic and not just a journalist and the article mentions his byline at the top, I scored this a 2 and not lower. I didn’t score this a 3 because the magazine it comes from is for the general public and not a scientific journal. The American Spectator, according to its website, is a conservative magazine that will accept manuscripts from anyone about anything, but specifically would like stories “that provide new information or draw upon rare expertise.” So since this journal is not specific to science and is about many broad topics, it is not an expert on this field. That is why I didn’t give it a score of 3.

Your Task• Take your lowest scoring essay and write a

paragraph using what you have learned today. • You will ONLY write about Authority, Relevance,

Accuracy and Bias. CHOOSE one for practice today and turn in at end of hour for feedback from me.

• If you don’t get done, it is homework. We will work with this practice paragraph tomorrow!

• Bring 3 different colored highlighters tomorrow!