Topic Proposal with Tentative Thesis Statement
The topic proposal introduces your readers to your knowledge of the topic, and it should be written as though it is the first page of your research paper. Explain your position on the subject, what more you would like to find out and why. It should be 1 page in length with two paragraphs. In paragraph 1, introduce your issue. Give a rough background on your knowledge of the specific topic you are going to address and an explanation of the conflict or tension surrounding your subject. Relate the topic you choose to one of the subjects covered in the lectures. Do not give your opinion in this paragraph. State the perspectives on the issue. In paragraph 2, express your opinion on the topic. Take a position, either pro or con on the issue you have just explained. End your proposal with a tentative thesis statement that includes the core information of paragraph 1 and 2. Your main message from paragraph one and your assertion on the issue.
Before you begin writing ask yourself questions about your intended subject, start with the subject that appeals to you from the course syllabus then an aspect of your broader topic. Use the research guidelines posted on Blackboard to help you come up with questions. Respond to these questions by brainstorming, freewriting and using the discussion tab in OpenLab with classmates. Be prepared to have your perspective shift. On the OpenLab, “Discussion” tab I would like you to engage in metatext (writing about your writing) about your Topic Proposal draft. By this I mean have a discussion with your reader as you develop your draft. Identify problems with your text to your reader, a kind of open letter, solicit feedback on your points. As you develop your draft on OpenLab you may ask explicit questions, e.g. I am very pleased with the controversy I selected but I am not sure if I should relate it to a copyright or is it more of a fair use issue? My draft in paragraph talks about the situation but my opinion about the issue I raise wavers. Any ideas?
Research Paper
| Performance Indicators | No Proficiency (1) | Some Proficiency (2) | Proficiency (3) | High Proficiency(4) | Total |
| Context and Purpose for Writing (includes consideration of audience & circumstances surrounding the task) Introduction & Thesis | Minimal attention to context, audience, purpose, and to the assigned task(s).
*weak, no clear introduction or main topic & **paper’s purpose is unclear/thesis is weak or missing. |
Some evidence of awareness of context, audience, purpose, and the assigned task(s); begins to show awareness of audience’s perceptions and assumptions.
*basic introduction that states main topic but does not adequately preview the structure **thesis is somewhat clear and arguable. |
Adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose with a focus on the as-signed task(s).
*interesting, introduction that states the main topic and previews the structure of the paper. **thesis is clear and arguable statement of position. |
Thorough understanding of context, audience, purpose. Responsive to assigned task(s).
*exceptional introduction that grabs interest of reader, states main topic & previews structure of paper. **thesis is exceptionally clear, arguable, well-developed, and a definitive statement. |
|
| Format – APA | not adhere to APA, or given instructions; no sense of introduction, body, conclusion; does not contain all sections required; Sources are not accurately documented, and APA format is not attempted or followed properly | Minimally follows APA or given instructions; some sense of organization and structure; contains all sections, but the content within each section is not appropriate.
several sources lack proper documentation |
Mostly follows APA & instructions; contains all sections, content is generally correct with only occasional lapses; minor edits are required.
most sources are documented, but many are not in the desired format |
Accurately follows APA or given instructions; all sections are present and clearly labeled; each section contains all of the appropriate information.
all sources are documented, but a few are not in the desired format |
|
| Language – Mechanics | Numerous errors in spelling, grammar, verb tense and punctuation; no para-graphs, numerous fragmented sentences; extremely limited vocabulary; use of language impedes meaning because of errors in usage.
Contain numerous errors of grammar, punctuation & spelling. They significantly interfere with meaning of content or add confusion when reading the paper. |
Several instances of grammatical errors and demonstrates a lack of editing; sentence structure is simplistic, little variety; although there are errors, uses language that conveys meaning to readers.
Contain a few errors of grammar, punctuation & spelling. They interfere with reading the paper. |
Few errors in spelling, grammar, verb tense and punctuation; sentence structure (subject and predicate) is generally correct although still simplistic and occasionally repetitious; generally straightforward language that conveys meaning to the readers.
Contain a few errors of grammar, punctuation & spelling. They don’t represent a major distraction. |
Very few errors in sentence structure and mechanics; exhibits good to excellent command of language and professional terminology; sentences are complex and vocab is sophisticated; skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency.
Free or almost free of errors of grammar, punctuation & spelling |
|
| Communication – Body Discussion, Organization | Does not articulate thoughts or ideas; organization s not clear enough for reader to follow arguments; lacks focus and fluency in writing.
Most paragraphs fail to develop main idea, no evidence of structure or organization. Weak or no transitions between & within paragraphs. |
Thoughts expressed using vague language; attempts to convey main ideas of the paper but lacks focus and fluency; overall document is somewhat confusing.
Each paragraph lacks supporting detail sentences, organizations of ideas not fully developed. Basic transitions between and within paragraphs |
Thoughts organized and the main ideas expressed but some connections not clearly supported by the written text; topic presented (or proof if applicable) clear, with very minor lapses.
Each para has sufficient supporting detail sentences that develop the main idea. Good transitions between and within paragraph |
Thoughts carefully organized and al-lows reader to easily follow all arguments; no lapses in logic or clarity; thoughts clearly expressed, focus & fluency.
Each paragraph has thoughtful supporting detail sentences that demonstrates logical sequencing of ideas. Excellent transitions between and within paragraph |
|
| Analysis/Synthesis- /Development & Support of Thesis | Demonstrates little understanding of what the important data/content that should be presented; comments, if pre-sent, are superficial or not related to the main topic discussed, does not identify significant professional standard findings; analysis of important points /data lacking.
limited or no connections made between evidence and thesis. lack of analysis. Lack of summary of topic |
Statement of important results/content is incomplete; some personal comments are present but not particularly relevant to discussion; identifies the critical elements but does not demonstrate an accurate comprehension of the concept; analysis of important points/data is incoherent and or incomplete.
some connections made between evidence and thesis. some analysis. Basic summary of topic with some final concluding ideas. introduces no new information. |
Statement of the important results clear, and complete but may include too much info or not relevant; analysis of important points (or data) is well thought out but lacks a few important points; relevant comments or real world connections are included.
consistent connections made between evidence and thesis good analysis. Good summary of topic with clear concluding ideas. introduces no new information. |
Successfully performed a thorough analysis; all important results/arguments are clearly identified and motivated; presence of significant personal comments and observations prove a real understanding of the topic.
exceptionally critical, relevant and consistent connections made between evidence and thesis. excellent analysis. excellent summary of thesis argument with concluding ideas that impact reader. introduces no new information.
|
|
| Supporting Evidence- Citations & references | Does not attempt to use sources to support ideas in the writing, or provides inappropriate sources.
Info little or nothing to do with thesis. info has weak connection to the thesis. References not cited correctly.
|
Demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing.
info relates to the main topic, but few details and/or e.g. are given. limited variety of sources. References are not cited correctly |
Demonstrates consistent use of credible, relevant sources to support ideas are situated within the discipline and genre of the writing.
information relates to the main topic. Paper, is well-researched in detail and from 2 good sources. References are correctly cited |
Demonstrates skillful use of high-quality, credible, relevant sources to develop ideas appropriate for the discipline and genre of writing.
paper is exceptionally researched, contains 2 peer reviewed articles, relate to the thesis argument in a logical manner. References are correctly cited |
Annotated Bibliography
| Performance Indicator
Context and Purpose for Writing (includes consideration of audience & circumstances surrounding the task) |
No proficiency (1)
Minimal attention to context, audience, purpose, and to the assigned task(s). |
Some Proficiency (2)
Some evidence of awareness of context, audience, purpose, and the assigned task(s); b to show awareness of audience’s perceptions and assumptions
|
Proficiency (3)
Adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose with a focus on the assigned task(s).
|
High Proficiency (4)
Thorough understanding of context, audience, and purpose that is responsive to the assigned task(s). |
Total |
| Format/Quantity of sources cited
Accuracy of the citations |
Does not adhere to standardized format (APA, MLA, etc.) or given instructions; no sense of introduction, body, conclusion; does not contain all sections required; handwritten/sloppy in appearance.
Fails to include the required number of sources. Citations incomplete, errors are major and numerous.
|
Minimally follows the standardized format or given instructions; some sense of organization and structure; contains all sections, but the content within each section is
not appropriate. Fails to include an adequate number of sources. Citations are incomplete, errors numerous.
|
Mostly follows the standardized format or
given instructions; contains all sections, whose content is generally correct with only occasional lapses; minor edits are required. Includes the required or minimal number of sources. Citations are mostly complete and errors minor. |
Accurately follows the standardized format
or given instructions; all sections are present and clearly labeled; each section contains all of the appropriate information Includes the required or an appropriate number of sources. Citations are complete and errors minor. |
|
| Language
Topical relationship of sources to paper |
Numerous errors in spelling, grammar,
verb tense and punctuation; no para- graphs, numerous fragmented sentences; extremely limited vocabulary; use of language impedes meaning because of errors in usage. Most sources are not adequately related to topic. |
Several instances of grammatical errors and
demonstrates a lack of editing; sentence structure is simplistic, little variety; although there are errors, uses language that conveys meaning to readers.
Many sources are only marginally related to topic. |
Few errors in spelling, grammar, verb tense and punctuation; sentence structure (subject and predicate) is generally correct although still simplistic and occasionally repetitious; generally straightforward language that conveys meaning to the readers.
Most sources are clearly related to topic.
|
Very few errors in sentence structure and
mechanics; exhibits good to excellent command of language and professional terminology; sentences are complex and vocabulary is sophisticated; skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency. All sources are clearly related to topic. |
|
| Communication
Identification & description of authority of sources |
Does not articulate thoughts or ideas; organization of the document is not clear enough
for reader to follow arguments; lacks focus and fluency in writing.
Annotations do not accurately describe author, audience or publisher of most sources. |
Thoughts are expressed using vague language; attempts to convey main ideas of the paper but lacks focus and fluency; overall document is somewhat confusing.
Annotations often lack such information or frequently mischaracterize author, audience or publisher of sources.
|
Thoughts are organized and the main ideas are exposed, but some connections are not clearly supported by the written text; topic presented (or proof if applicable) is clear, with very minor lapses.
Annotations usually accurately characterize author, audience and publisher of sources.
|
Thoughts are carefully organized and allows
reader to easily follow all of the arguments; no lapses in logic or clarity; thoughts are clearly expressed with focus and fluency. Annotations largely, or fully, characterize author, audience and publisher of sources. |
|
| Analysis/Synthesis
Representation & discussion of relevance of sources to paper or project |
Demonstrates little understanding of
what the important data/content that should be presented; comments, if pre- sent, are superficial or not related to the main topic discussed, does not identify significant professional standard findings; analysis of important points (or data) is lacking. No attempt is made to relate ideas in sources to paper topic.
|
Statement of important results/content is in-
complete; some personal comments are pre- sent but not particularly relevant for the discussion; identifies the critical elements but does not demonstrate an accurate comprehension of the concept; analysis of important points (or data) is incoherent and or incomplete. Attempt to relate ideas in sources to paper or project topic results in inaccurate representations. |
Statement of the important results are clear and complete but may include too much in- formation or information that is not relevant; analysis of important points (or data) is well thought out but lacks a few important points; relevant comments or real world connections are included.
Attempt is to relate ideas in sources to paper topic or project sometimes fuzzy or unclear.
|
Successfully performed a thorough analysis;
all important results/arguments are clearly identified and motivated; presence of significant personal comments and observations prove a real understanding of the topic. Relationship of ideas in sources to paper topic or project clearly described. |
|
| Supporting Evidence
Quantity of sources cited |
Does not attempt to use
sources to support ideas e writing, or provides inappropriate sources.
Summaries appear to be possibly plagiarized or main ideas are unclear or misrepresented. |
Demonstrates an attempt to use credible
and/or relevant sources to support ideas t are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing.
Main ideas are not summarized clearly; or, summaries are simply incomplete or sketchy. |
Demonstrates consistent use of credible,
relevant sources to support ideas that are situated within the discipline and genre of the writing.
Main ideas of sources are clearly summarized. |
Demonstrates skillful use of high-quality,
credible, relevant sources to develop ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing.
Main ideas of sources, including nuances and subtleties, are clearly summarized. |
