Before a paper is published in an academic journal or accepted for an academic conference, a group of peers—respected writers and researchers in the same field—review the paper to determine if it qualifies for publication. We will follow a similar process in this class. To prepare your paper for peer review, use your own review and feedback from trusted readers to revise and edit your paper. Your instructor and peers will evaluate your paper and determine whether it qualifies for publication.
Review the call for papers.
Does your paper effectively address the rhetorical situation?
Does your paper provide a clear thesis: the one sentence answer to your research question? If not, revise your thesis statement.
Check your paper’s organizational pattern. Does it follow this classical argument pattern? Revise as necessary.
Introduction: This section of your paper introduces your issue. While the length of this section will vary, it should be comprised of several well-developed paragraphs designed to accomplish the following three tasks:
Engage readers’ interest in your issue.
Provide the background readers need to understand your issue and how it is connected to previous work in this area.
Present your thesis statement—the answer to your research question.
Lines of Argument: This is the main body of your essay and will easily comprise two-thirds of your paper. In this section, strive to do the following:
Establish the reasons for your thesis.
Make a strong case for each reason, working to persuade readers that your views are worth considering or even adopting.
Appeal effectively to logos, ethos, and pathos without committing logical fallacies.
Support each reason with substantive evidence.
Provide two to three pieces of evidence to support every claim you make.
Opposing Views: In this section, summarize and respond to your opposition’s most significant arguments. Be fair in how you present their arguments. It will enhance your credibility. You will most often respond to counterarguments in one of two ways:
You will concede that your opponent has a good point while explaining why you are not moved—why your claim remains the better option.
You will refute the opposing view by pointing out flaws in the argument, offering evidence to discount the argument, or providing a convincing alternative explanation.
Conclusion: Leave a strong last impression. If your introduction launches your reader into your paper, your conclusion launches readers out of your paper and into the world to act. Consider one of these options:
Help readers understand what will happen if the argument you’ve presented is not addressed.
What will be the consequences?
Help readers see the potential of your research.
How will it make a difference if implemented?
Help readers take the next step.
Now that you have convinced them your argument has merit, what can they do with this knowledge?
Have you supported your argument with at least 10–12 credible sources—sources that others in your field might consult, read, or reference in their own writing?
Have you integrated each source in your text and cited it accurately using APA format?
Ask two critical readers to review your paper.
Ask one to focus on the paper’s content and ask the second to focus on proofreading and editing.
Use their feedback to revise your paper.
Read your finished paper aloud. Make any final revisions.
Submit your paper for peer review and evaluation.
Happiness – Fulfillment in Family: Importance of Fathers in a family. Parent – child relationships are MOST important followed by…
I – Relationships – inter-family – how personal relationships can bring fulfillment? 2 sources
II – Community – how does community involvement bring fulfillment? 2 sources
III – Other factors –
A- Exercise 1-2
B- Nutrition 1-2
Opposing Viewpoints
Different – better for kids in some cases to go with one parent
Before a paper is published in an academic journal or accepted for an academic conference, a group of peers—respected writers and researchers in the same field—review the paper to determine if it qualifies for publication. We will follow a similar process in this class. To prepare your paper for peer review, use your own review and feedback from trusted readers to revise and edit your paper. Your instructor and peers will evaluate your paper and determine whether it qualifies for publication.
Review the call for papers.
Does your paper effectively address the rhetorical situation?
Does your paper provide a clear thesis: the one sentence answer to your research question? If not, revise your thesis statement.
Check your paper’s organizational pattern. Does it follow this classical argument pattern? Revise as necessary.
Introduction: This section of your paper introduces your issue. While the length of this section will vary, it should be comprised of several well-developed paragraphs designed to accomplish the following three tasks:
Engage readers’ interest in your issue.
Provide the background readers need to understand your issue and how it is connected to previous work in this area.
Present your thesis statement—the answer to your research question.
Lines of Argument: This is the main body of your essay and will easily comprise two-thirds of your paper. In this section, strive to do the following:
Establish the reasons for your thesis.
Make a strong case for each reason, working to persuade readers that your views are worth considering or even adopting.
Appeal effectively to logos, ethos, and pathos without committing logical fallacies.
Support each reason with substantive evidence.
Provide two to three pieces of evidence to support every claim you make.
Opposing Views: In this section, summarize and respond to your opposition’s most significant arguments. Be fair in how you present their arguments. It will enhance your credibility. You will most often respond to counterarguments in one of two ways:
You will concede that your opponent has a good point while explaining why you are not moved—why your claim remains the better option.
You will refute the opposing view by pointing out flaws in the argument, offering evidence to discount the argument, or providing a convincing alternative explanation.
Conclusion: Leave a strong last impression. If your introduction launches your reader into your paper, your conclusion launches readers out of your paper and into the world to act. Consider one of these options:
Help readers understand what will happen if the argument you’ve presented is not addressed.
What will be the consequences?
Help readers see the potential of your research.
How will it make a difference if implemented?
Help readers take the next step.
Now that you have convinced them your argument has merit, what can they do with this knowledge?
Have you supported your argument with at least 10–12 credible sources—sources that others in your field might consult, read, or reference in their own writing?
Have you integrated each source in your text and cited it accurately using APA format?
Ask two critical readers to review your paper.
Ask one to focus on the paper’s content and ask the second to focus on proofreading and editing.
Use their feedback to revise your paper.
Read your finished paper aloud. Make any final revisions.
Submit your paper for peer review and evaluation.
let me find the rubric
15m ·
Sure, take your time
12m
C9
Academic Paper Rubric
Academic Paper Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction
5 pts
Distinguished
Engages readers’ interest in the issue and provides the background readers need to understand the issue.
4 pts
Proficient
Introduces the issue and provides the background readers need to understand the issue.
3 pts
Developing
Introduces the issue but may not provide sufficient background to understand the issue.
2 pts
Minimal
Introduces the issue but does not provide the background necessary to understand the issue.
1 pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not adequately introduce the issue or provide necessary background information.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThesis Statement
5 pts
Distinguished
Presents a clear, narrowly focused, argumentative thesis.
4 pts
Proficient
Presents a clear argumentative thesis.
3 pts
Developing
Presents an argumentative thesis.
2 pts
Minimal
Presents a topic statement.
1 pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not provide a clear focus for the academic paper.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLines of Argument
10 to >8.0 pts
Distinguished
Establishes clear, persuasive reasons to support the argument’s thesis.
8 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
Establishes some persuasive reasons to support the argument’s thesis.
6 to >4.0 pts
Developing
Suggests some reasons to support the argument’s thesis.
4 to >2.0 pts
Minimal
Does not adequately connect the reasons to the argument’s thesis.
2 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not offer clear reasons to support the argument’s thesis.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLines of Argument
10 to >8.0 pts
Distinguished
Effectively supports each reason with substantive, credible evidence. Provides two or three pieces of evidence to support each claim.
8 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
Supports each reason with substantive, credible evidence. Provides at least one or two pieces of evidence to support each claim.
6 to >4.0 pts
Developing
Supports each reason with some evidence, though some evidence may not be substantive or credible.
4 to >2.0 pts
Minimal
Does not adequately support reasons with credible evidence.
2 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not support reasons with evidence.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLines of Argument
10 to >8.0 pts
Distinguished
Appeals effectively to logos, ethos, and pathos without committing logical fallacies.
8 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
Appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos without committing serious logical fallacies.
6 to >4.0 pts
Developing
Makes some appeal to logos, ethos, and pathos. One or two logical fallacies undermine key arguments.
4 to >2.0 pts
Minimal
Makes scattered appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos. Reasoning may rely on some logical fallacies.
2 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Argument ignores appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos or relies on fallacious reasoning.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOpposing Views
10 to >8.0 pts
Distinguished
Accurately and fairly summarizes and responds to the oppositions’ most significant arguments
8 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
Accurately and fairly summarizes and responds to some of the oppositions’ most significant arguments.
6 to >4.0 pts
Developing
Summarizes and responds to some of the oppositions’ arguments.
4 to >2.0 pts
Minimal
Summarizes some of the oppositions’ arguments without providing a clear response.
2 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not accurately summarize or respond to the oppositions’ arguments.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOpposing Views
10 to >8.0 pts
Distinguished
Supports concessions or refutations with sound reasoning and/or convincing evidence.
8 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
Supports most concessions or refutations with sound reasoning and/or convincing evidence.
6 to >4.0 pts
Developing
Supports some concessions or refutations with reasoning and/or evidence.
4 to >2.0 pts
Minimal
Does not support concessions or refutations with reasoning and/or evidence.
2 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not concede or refute the oppositions’ arguments.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion
5 pts
Distinguished
The conclusion leaves a strong, lasting impression and moves readers to act on the argument.
4 pts
Proficient
The conclusion encourages readers to act on the argument.
3 pts
Developing
The conclusion adequately summarizes the argument.
2 pts
Minimal
The conclusion is incomplete or inadequate.
1 pts
Unsatisfactory
The argument does not include a conclusion.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Format
10 to >8.0 pts
Distinguished
Flawless to almost perfect APA format including title page, in-text citations, and references. Lists 10-12 credible sources.
8 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
Minor errors in APA format. Lists 10-12 sources, but one or two may not be credible.
6 to >4.0 pts
Developing
Substantive errors in APA format. Four or more listed sources are not credible or the list includes only 8-10 sources.
4 to >2.0 pts
Minimal
Major flaws in APA format. Half of the listed sources are not credible or the list includes only 5-7 sources.
2 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Citations do not follow a clear style guide or do not exist. The majority of the sources are not credible or the list includes less than 5 sources.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRhetorical Context
5 pts
Distinguished
Writer recognizes the rhetorical context and effectively positions his/her appeal within that context.
4 pts
Proficient
Writer recognizes the rhetorical context but does not effectively positions his/her appeal within that context.
3 pts
Developing
Writer does not adequately consider rhetorical context.
2 pts
Minimal
Writer mistakes the rhetorical context.
1 pts
Unsatisfactory
Writer does not consider rhetorical context.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStyle
10 to >8.0 pts
Distinguished
Clear, concise, confident style enhances communication.
8 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
Clear, concise style enables communication.
6 to >4.0 pts
Developing
Cluttered style hinders communication.
4 to >2.0 pts
Minimal
Unwieldy, cluttered style impedes communication.
2 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Unintelligible style prevents clear communication.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEditing
10 to >8.0 pts
Distinguished
Flawless to almost perfect; inconsequential mechanical or grammatical errors.
8 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
Minor mechanical or grammatical errors.
6 to >4.0 pts
Developing
Average; 3-4 substantive grammatical or mechanical errors.
4 to >2.0 pts
Minimal
Fair; numerous mechanical or grammatical errors; sloppy.
2 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Unreadable; mechanical and grammatical errors throughout.
10 pts
Total Points: 100
COPYRIGHT 2022 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVER
