Reference no: EM131541247

These are weekly extra/alternative credit assignments open to everyone.

These assignments should take the form of a short essay with references. See the Critical Writing Rubric (Course Resources Module, below) for more details. They should be typed-up as a word document (.doc, .docx) and uploaded to Canvas by the posted due date.

PROMPTS/QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL WRITING ASSIGNMENT

1. Research a mine (active or abandoned) near where you live. Find at least one article on the mine.

2. Summarize what is mined there, how much economic activity it supports, what environmental issues arise from the mine, and what if anything is being done about it (find a second article if the first one doesn't address this).

3. Do you think that the mine is 'worth it'? What do you think could be done better, if anything?

4. Use the CRITICAL WRITING GUIDELINES AND RUBRIC (see below) to evaluate the authors and apply skepticism to their positions.

CRITICAL WRITING GUIDELINES

Use the instructions below when submitting a Critical Writing assignment. The rubric for scoring is included at the end.

Each critical writing assignment will consist of two parts, a response to the prompts or questions posed, including supporting citations from your own independent research, and a critical evaluation of the sources that you chose to use.

SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES

Each submission should include:

I. CRITICAL WRITING RESPONSE TO PROMPTS AND QUESTIONS

Follow the instructions provided for the assignment. Be sure to put everything in your own words. Summarize the topic and the content of any sources you cite.

II. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SOURCES

Publisher/Organization/Author

1. Name/Title of organization/publisher

2. Type (government, educational, NGO, etc.)

3. Name of author

4. Authors qualifications, credentials

5. Is this source credible? Purpose/Agenda/Bias

1. Does the source have an obvious purpose?

2. Does this lead to a biased view of the issue?

3. Does this bias affect the credibility of their position?

4. If you believe the source is unbiased, explain why Skepticism

1. Are you skeptical about anything in this source?

2. Is any information confusing or misrepresented?

3. Is anything missing?

4. Does the author provide sources? Are they credible? Citations

1. Author's name, Title of article/video, Year published, URL

GUIDELINE DETAILS

Below is a more detailed explanation of the expectations.

V. CRITICAL WRITING RESPONSE TO PROMPTS AND QUESTIONS

Respond thoroughly and succinctly, using citations, including news stores, research articles, websites, or videos, to support your position. IF A SPECIFIC READING WAS ASSIGNED, DISCUSS IT EXPLICITLY.

Summarize the main points of the source(s) that you cite. Use complete sentences and correct grammar. Please note that a submission that is poorly written will be returned to the student ungraded until it is revised. If you would like help improving your writing, please contact me! I am happy to go over assignments and provide detailed feedback if requested.

Keep in mind that I take plagiarism very seriously and will report academic dishonesty. Feel free to work with other students, but be sure to submit your own work in your own words. NEVER COPY-PASTE MATERIAL FROM THE INTERNET; paraphrase the source in your own words and cite it.

W. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SOURCES

In addition to responding to the prompts or questions, you will be asked to provide an evaluation of the source(s) you used. This is intended to help you practice your information literacy. Use the template below to complete this portion of the assignment.

Publisher/organization

• Name/Title

• Type: government (.gov), educational institution (.edu), organization/ industry (.org, .com), individual (.com), spoof or fake (.com.co, etc.)

Author

• Name (if there is no specific author, as on some government websites, use the organization name)

• Education, credentials, experience in this field

o Is this author qualified?

Note that reporters are often not science ‘experts' but it is their job to present the information accurately.

Purpose/agenda/bias

Each of us bring a certain level of bias along with our worldview; whether or not this hinders our ability to make rational, evidence-based choices depends upon the situation. It is thus critical that we are able to not only identify bias, but understand where it comes from and why.

• Does the author have a specific agenda?

Sometimes this is implicit, sometimes explicit (i.e., ‘discrediting myths about GMO's, or ‘promoting conservation', or ‘promoting economic prosperity in America', etc.)

• Are they trying to discredit another group or argument? This can lead to emotional appeals that lack credible evidence.

• If you believe the author/publisher is not biased, provide a second article that confirms the information in the first (this is how fact checking is done).

• I invite you to find sources with positions that differ from your own and evaluate them!

Skepticism

Skepticism is not the same thing as doubt or cynicism; it is the first step to evaluating gaps in knowledge and how we can fill them! It is critical that we each apply skepticism to every issue, including those we hold most dear. Without critical evaluation our arguments can be too easily discredited.

When evaluating an article, please consider:

• Does the author leave anything out? Key evidence, a crucial viewpoint?

o For instance, if the article is exposing an environmental issue, does the author consider the economic and social impact, and vice versa?

• Does the author misrepresent anything, either by intent or ignorance?

• Is there anything you did not understand, or that you think needs to be investigated more deeply?

Citations

Author/organization, year, title, URL For example:

X. Steffen, W. Broadgate, L. Deutsch, O. Gaffney and C. Ludwig (2015), The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: the Great Acceleration, The Anthropocene Review. Map & Design: Félix Pharand- Deschênes/Globaïa,