Tag: Model Answer

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

– 2 years ago

**files (2)**

– ## OGL530WK1.docx

– TraditionalandCriticalTheory-1.pdf

**## OGL530WK1.docx**

**OGL 530 WK 1**

**Module 1: Collaborative Annotation (Horkheimer)**

The purpose of this assignment is for us to teach and learn from one other through a process of collaboratively annotating some of the required texts for each Module.  Before beginning this assignment, it is important to note that all readings will also be duplicated in the “Learning Materials” section of the Module, however your annotations will be done through the “Collaborative Annotation” assignment in the Module.

To begin the assignment, click on the embedded link below to open the software (Perusall) in another tab, where you will be directed to the article your small group will review. These review assignments are also noted in the “Required Reading” section of the “Learning Materials” in each Module.

Inside the software, you will see a pdf copy of the reading and, if you are not the first to arrive, you may see your group members existing embedded comments. Since the purpose of this assignment is to do
_collaborative reading_, you are expected both to (a) add your own original comments and questions (which can also include embedded hyperlinks to outside materials and videos) and to (b) return during the process to reply to one another. Your
**goals** in annotating each reading assignment are
_to stimulate discussion by posting good questions or comments_ and
_to help others by answering their questions_. To help you connect with classmates, you can “mention” a classmate or the instructor in a comment or question to have them notified by email (they’ll also see a notification immediately if online), and you’ll also be notified when your classmates respond to your questions.

If you need additional support learning the software, please see the section on Perusall in Module 0, or just ask me!

**Grading scale**

For each collaborative annotation assignment, I will only evaluate the annotations you submit before the assignment deadline. Based on the overall body of your annotations, you will receive a score for each assignment as follows:

**High Engagement (40 points)**

· Demonstrates exceptionally thoughtful and thorough reading of the entire assignment

· Contributes at least 5-6 substantive original comments distributed throughout the entire text

· Engages actively with at least 3 meaningful replies to peers' comments

· Returns to the discussion at least twice throughout the week (not just a single session)

**Moderate Engagement (30 points)**

· Demonstrates thoughtful and thorough reading of the entire assignment

· Contributes 3-4 original comments across most sections of the text

· Provides at least 1-2 meaningful replies to peers' comments

· Shows evidence of returning to the discussion more than once

**Low Engagement (10 points)**

· Demonstrates superficial reading of the entire assignment OR thoughtful reading of only part of the assignment

· Contributes 1-2 original comments, possibly concentrated in one area

· Provides 0-1 replies to peers' comments

· May have completed annotations in primarily one sitting

**No/Minimal Engagement (0 points)**

· Demonstrates superficial reading of only part of the assignment

· Fewer than 1 substantive original comment

· No meaningful engagement with peers' comments

· Comments do not demonstrate understanding of the material

_Note: While these thresholds provide clear guidelines, quality remains essential. Comments should be substantive and demonstrate engagement with the text. Simple comments like "I agree" or "Good point" without further elaboration do not count toward the thresholds._

**TraditionalandCriticalTheory-1.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/traditionalandcriticaltheory-1-pdf)

**TraditionalandCriticalTheory-1.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/traditionalandcriticaltheory-1-pdf)

**## OGL530WK1.docx**

**OGL 530 WK 1**

**Module 1: Collaborative Annotation (Horkheimer)**

The purpose of this assignment is for us to teach and learn from one other through a process of collaboratively annotating some of the required texts for each Module.  Before beginning this assignment, it is important to note that all readings will also be duplicated in the “Learning Materials” section of the Module, however your annotations will be done through the “Collaborative Annotation” assignment in the Module.

To begin the assignment, click on the embedded link below to open the software (Perusall) in another tab, where you will be directed to the article your small group will review. These review assignments are also noted in the “Required Reading” section of the “Learning Materials” in each Module.

Inside the software, you will see a pdf copy of the reading and, if you are not the first to arrive, you may see your group members existing embedded comments. Since the purpose of this assignment is to do
_collaborative reading_, you are expected both to (a) add your own original comments and questions (which can also include embedded hyperlinks to outside materials and videos) and to (b) return during the process to reply to one another. Your
**goals** in annotating each reading assignment are
_to stimulate discussion by posting good questions or comments_ and
_to help others by answering their questions_. To help you connect with classmates, you can “mention” a classmate or the instructor in a comment or question to have them notified by email (they’ll also see a notification immediately if online), and you’ll also be notified when your classmates respond to your questions.

If you need additional support learning the software, please see the section on Perusall in Module 0, or just ask me!

**Grading scale**

For each collaborative annotation assignment, I will only evaluate the annotations you submit before the assignment deadline. Based on the overall body of your annotations, you will receive a score for each assignment as follows:

**High Engagement (40 points)**

· Demonstrates exceptionally thoughtful and thorough reading of the entire assignment

· Contributes at least 5-6 substantive original comments distributed throughout the entire text

· Engages actively with at least 3 meaningful replies to peers' comments

· Returns to the discussion at least twice throughout the week (not just a single session)

**Moderate Engagement (30 points)**

· Demonstrates thoughtful and thorough reading of the entire assignment

· Contributes 3-4 original comments across most sections of the text

· Provides at least 1-2 meaningful replies to peers' comments

· Shows evidence of returning to the discussion more than once

**Low Engagement (10 points)**

· Demonstrates superficial reading of the entire assignment OR thoughtful reading of only part of the assignment

· Contributes 1-2 original comments, possibly concentrated in one area

· Provides 0-1 replies to peers' comments

· May have completed annotations in primarily one sitting

**No/Minimal Engagement (0 points)**

· Demonstrates superficial reading of only part of the assignment

· Fewer than 1 substantive original comment

· No meaningful engagement with peers' comments

· Comments do not demonstrate understanding of the material

_Note: While these thresholds provide clear guidelines, quality remains essential. Comments should be substantive and demonstrate engagement with the text. Simple comments like "I agree" or "Good point" without further elaboration do not count toward the thresholds._

**TraditionalandCriticalTheory-1.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/traditionalandcriticaltheory-1-pdf)

**## OGL530WK1.docx**

**OGL 530 WK 1**

**Module 1: Collaborative Annotation (Horkheimer)**

The purpose of this assignment is for us to teach and learn from one other through a process of collaboratively annotating some of the required texts for each Module.  Before beginning this assignment, it is important to note that all readings will also be duplicated in the “Learning Materials” section of the Module, however your annotations will be done through the “Collaborative Annotation” assignment in the Module.

To begin the assignment, click on the embedded link below to open the software (Perusall) in another tab, where you will be directed to the article your small group will review. These review assignments are also noted in the “Required Reading” section of the “Learning Materials” in each Module.

Inside the software, you will see a pdf copy of the reading and, if you are not the first to arrive, you may see your group members existing embedded comments. Since the purpose of this assignment is to do
_collaborative reading_, you are expected both to (a) add your own original comments and questions (which can also include embedded hyperlinks to outside materials and videos) and to (b) return during the process to reply to one another. Your
**goals** in annotating each reading assignment are
_to stimulate discussion by posting good questions or comments_ and
_to help others by answering their questions_. To help you connect with classmates, you can “mention” a classmate or the instructor in a comment or question to have them notified by email (they’ll also see a notification immediately if online), and you’ll also be notified when your classmates respond to your questions.

If you need additional support learning the software, please see the section on Perusall in Module 0, or just ask me!

**Grading scale**

For each collaborative annotation assignment, I will only evaluate the annotations you submit before the assignment deadline. Based on the overall body of your annotations, you will receive a score for each assignment as follows:

**High Engagement (40 points)**

· Demonstrates exceptionally thoughtful and thorough reading of the entire assignment

· Contributes at least 5-6 substantive original comments distributed throughout the entire text

· Engages actively with at least 3 meaningful replies to peers' comments

· Returns to the discussion at least twice throughout the week (not just a single session)

**Moderate Engagement (30 points)**

· Demonstrates thoughtful and thorough reading of the entire assignment

· Contributes 3-4 original comments across most sections of the text

· Provides at least 1-2 meaningful replies to peers' comments

· Shows evidence of returning to the discussion more than once

**Low Engagement (10 points)**

· Demonstrates superficial reading of the entire assignment OR thoughtful reading of only part of the assignment

· Contributes 1-2 original comments, possibly concentrated in one area

· Provides 0-1 replies to peers' comments

· May have completed annotations in primarily one sitting

**No/Minimal Engagement (0 points)**

· Demonstrates superficial reading of only part of the assignment

· Fewer than 1 substantive original comment

· No meaningful engagement with peers' comments

· Comments do not demonstrate understanding of the material

_Note: While these thresholds provide clear guidelines, quality remains essential. Comments should be substantive and demonstrate engagement with the text. Simple comments like "I agree" or "Good point" without further elaboration do not count toward the thresholds._

**TraditionalandCriticalTheory-1.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/traditionalandcriticaltheory-1-pdf)