University of Memphis / ENGL 1010
Discourse Community AnalysisScoring Guide
A score of 6 is reserved for the strongest analyses submitted, those that are uniformly excellent. Such analyses provide fascinating and insightful descriptions, explanations, and interpretations of the discourse community studied by including essential background information and richly textured examples of the community, its members, and their interactions. The writerpresents a fair and even-handed consideration of the community and its participants while also adroitly conveying a “So what?” regarding the research discovered. The writer demonstrates an impressive awareness of pertinent course readings and uses them to enrich the description and analysis. The writing is polished,carefully composed, skillfully organized,and free of proofreading errors. (A+)
A score of 5 indicates an excellent discourse community analysis. While not as deft or extensive as those papers awarded a 6, it nevertheless demonstrates thoughtful consideration and is very well written. Its writer includes ample background information and a rich array of examples accompanied by effective interpretation to render a rich, detailed analysis of the discourse community’s processes, practices, and attitudes. The writer skillfully employs pertinent course readings to support key points. All parts of the essay work together. The paper has been effectively proofread to eliminate most, if not all, errors. (A)
An analysis that earns a score of 4 is a success. It lacks the consistently subtle insights and connections evident in the analyses rated above it, yet it demonstrates an effective effort to address the writing task. Its primary shortcomings may be less full descriptions and explanations than are warranted, or it may indicate limited awareness of the complexities of the discourse community and its values, processes, and practices.The writer nevertheless provides an engaging, thoughtful description of the community and its participants and calls upon course readings to describe and explaindiscourse engaged in by community members. The analysis has been effectively proofread to eliminate most errors. (B)
A score of 3 is given to an analysis that is less developed and not as thoroughly considered as those scored above it. It has flashes of insight and well-turned phrases, but, taken as a whole, the analysis provides only rudimentary descriptions and explanations of the practices, processes, and attitudes of the discourse community and its members. The writer refers to few, if any, course readings and does so in ways that offer little support for the analysis. The writing may indicate inconsistent proofreading, and the arrangement of material may demonstrate little awareness of the interests or needs of readers. (C+)
An analysis given a score of 2 has satisfied the minimal expectations for the assignment. The writer has presented some description and analysis of the discourse community studied but provides little clear, compelling description, explanation, and analysis of the community’s processes, practices, and attitudes. Course readings, if referred to at all, demonstrate inadequate understanding of their significance. Too few details or examples are included to offer readers insight into the discourse community or its members. The writing may be marred by poor proofreading; the organization may be confused (and confusing). (C-)
A grade of 1 indicates inadequate performance on the given writing task, mostly because it is too short, too underdeveloped, marked by a distracting number of proofreading errors, and/or does too little to engage the key considerations of the assignment. (D)
As per the syllabus, late assignments will be accepted only one class period after the posted due date and will be marked down one full letter grade.
6 = 995 = 944 = 863 = 782 = 701 = 60