can you build a website for me?

Due Dates:

  • Final Draft: April 26th at 11:59pm

Word Count:

  • Minimum of 500 words for the Reflective Statement
  • Minimum of 75 words for the Process Note on Revision
  • Minimum of 75 words for the Artifact Note

Documentation Style:

  • The revised Project 1 or 2 & class artifacts should be crafted using MLA or APA, Times New Roman, 12 pt. font, double-spaced.

Prompt:

  • An electronic writing portfolio, or e-Portfolio, is typically a collection of writing samples that showcases your best work. A writing portfolio is created by collecting, selecting, and reflecting on writing that is completed at the end of a given period of timea unit, a course, a program, even a career. In this class, you will create an e-Portfolio that includes a globally revised version of one of the major writing projects, supporting documents reflecting your particular composing practices and writing skills, and a reflective statement that articulates what you have learned about writing by completing the major projects in the course.
  • It is important to note that global revision of a composition entails the review of the entire composition, adding, deleting, and moving text as necessary. In contrast, local revision refers to minor editing changes, usually at the level of the sentence.
  • The following items need to be included in your portfolio:
  • A revised, edited, and polished version of either Project 1 or Project 2.
  • At least 2 artifacts of your own design (in-class activity, homework assignment, or even notes explaining a concept) that reflect your composing practices or the development of a particular writing or communicative skill that was focused on in this class.
  • A reflective statement on what was learned about genres, composing, and rhetorical strategies in the process of completing the course’s three major projects. There are many possible approaches you might take to writing this reflection. This assignment is intended to allow you to process the information and ways of thinking you acquired over the course of the class. You will not be assessed on adherence to a specific format, rather on the clarity and sincerity of the ideas you express.

Assignment Instructions

Revision Component:

  • For your revised submission of Project 1 or 2, highlight the revisions you made.
  • At the end of the revision, include a process note discussing the changes you made in your draft and way. You should address specific comments from your peers and/or my notes on your drafts. This note should be at least 75 words.

Class Artifact Component:

  • At the end of each artifact from the class (homework, in class activity, notes), include a note on why this activity was helpful and what you gained from it. This note should be at least 75 words.

Reflection Component:

Although there is no one specific format you might take, here are some ways of approaching the assignment that you might consider:

  • You might choose to write about your experience with writing over your college career so far and think about how this class connects to your understanding of writing or adds to it in some way.
  • You might define what you consider writing/composing to be for yourself.
  • You might consider how you think or how you process information.
  • You might consider explaining how your writing process connects to your thinking process.
  • You might choose an example of one skill or technique or challenge from Project 1, 2, or 3 and write about only that specific element/success/struggle/skill.

Rubric

Project 4 Final Rubric (1)

Project 4 Final Rubric (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWeb Design
40 to >30.0 pts

Excellent

The portfolio is thoughtfully curated in an accessible form, with selections offering a comprehensive overview of the students work. The portfolio demonstrates an awareness of design principles discussed throughout class such as thoughtful selection of font, color palettes, and positioning of various elements. Overall, the portfolio is visually appealing and design elements complement the students chosen course topic.

 30 to >20.0 pts

Solid

The portfolio is purposefully curated in an accessible form, however, items included might not present a comprehensive overview of the students work. While the portfolio presents appropriate content, it might lack variety. The portfolio may exhibit some design elements discussed in class, but it may be unclear how the visual rhetoric of the portfolio compliments the students chosen course topic. The portfolio may rely on templates which may not be adequately customized so as to tell a cohesive story.

 20 to >10.0 pts

Weak

The portfolio lacks a key item or presents the same type of document throughout. It might also pose some barriers to accessibility (unreadable font, etc). The contents are not well organized and do not offer a comprehensive overview of the students work over the course. The portfolio doesnt exhibit effective elements of design or may over-rely on templates and resist originality. The textual and visual rhetorics of the portfolio do not tell a cohesive story.

 10 to >0 pts

Poor

The portfolio lacks more than one key item. The items included are haphazardly arranged or inaccessible. The portfolio neglects elements of effective design, forcing content into a ready-made template.

40 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProject Revision
30 to >23.0 pts

Excellent

The revised project evinces a global revision in which a review of the entire composition, adding, deleting, and moving text as necessary, has been conducted. The changes made to the draft are clearly marked.

 23 to >16.0 pts

Solid

The revised project evinces some elements of global revision, however, a few key errors identified in peer/instructor feedback remain in the revised text. Changes made to the draft are marked, though possibly not in keeping with the assignment instructions.

 16 to >9.0 pts

Weak

The revised project is composed mostly of local revisions at the level of grammar or syntax. Multiple significant issues identified in peer/instructor feedback remain in the revised text. Changes are not clearly marked.

 9 to >0 pts

Poor

It is unclear whether or not the project has been revised. Revisions are not marked, and those that have been performed seem concerned entirely with local issues.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflection
20 to >15.0 pts

Excellent

The reflective statement offers insight into what the student learned about writing, research, and thought over the course of the class. The statement evinces a sincere and thoughtful quality in keeping with principles of personal/reflective writing discussed in class. There is evidence of revision.

 15 to >10.0 pts

Solid

While the reflective statement offers insight into the students learning experience, the language is at times too vague to coherently connect the students experience to specific course components. While there are elements of sincerity and thoughtfulness, the reflection either offers unearned praise of the course, or otherwise consists of elements an imagined teacher might want to hear. There is some evidence of revision.

 10 to >5.0 pts

Weak

The reflective statement is too vague to offer insight into the students experience. It may be composed of general observations about writing or other filler language. The statement might be under the word count. There is no evidence of revision.

 5 to >0 pts

Poor

The reflective statement is absent or severely under the word count. It is unclear how the experiences described capture the students learning in the course. There is no evidence of revision.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProcess Notes
5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

All process notes are included and offer insight into the revisions conducted and the class artifacts chosen. The notes demonstrate thoughtful reflection on the students learning throughout the course.

 4 to >3.0 pts

Solid

All notes are included, but may be slightly under the required word count. The notes might rely on common knowledge/general observations about writing, rather than reflecting on the students particular experience in the course.

 3 pts

Poor

All notes might be missing, or are severely under the word count. No insight is offered into the students learning.

 3 to >0 pts

Weak

One note is missing, or both notes are significantly under the required word count. The notes are too vague to offer insight into the students learning and are comprised of filler language not related to process.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUsage & Mechanics
5 pts

Excellent

Minor errors of usage and mechanics may be present, but overall the prose demonstrates clarity of expression and precision of word choice.

 4 pts

Solid

Some errors of usage, mechanics, and punctuation are present, but they do not impede the overall readability of the prose.

 3 pts

Weak

There are several errors of usage, mechanics, and punctuation that impede the overall readability of the prose.

 2 pts

Poor

There are numerous errors of usage, mechanics, and punctuation that impede the overall readability of the prose.

5 pts

Total Points: 100