Sample Research Proposal Evaluaiton

Brown builds his topic by finding an interesting research area, which in his case is neuroplasticity in humans. He narrows it further by limiting his paper to the changes that occur with neuroplasticity. To create his actual topic, Brown also focuses his ideas to how neuroplasticity affects the psyche. He wants to prove in his paper that brains can change over time, particularly in the absence of some form of stimuli. He tries to build a frame and case, where “Mind’s Eye” is the frame and the other two major readings, “The Eyes of the Skin” and “When I Woke Up Tuesday Morning, It was Friday”. Then he will use his last two sources, “The Occipital Cortex in the Blind: Lessons about Plasticity and Vision” and “Adult Deafness Induces Somatosensory Conversion of Ferret Auditory Cortex” to provide actual evidence for his topic.

Paper 1 Rough Draft & Sample Paper Response

Thank you all for both your reflections on the peer review process and your comments on the sample papers, which I found very insightful. Judging from the survey results, there was definitely clustering around the assigned grades, which is exactly as it should be. As a number of you mentioned, the grading criteria is pretty nuanced in the distinctions between things like a B and a B+, so there’s definitely room for discretion. I actually think that a number of you were right to point out that Paper X/C seemed like a C+ more than a C—looking back at my records, it seems that it received the lower grade because it was handed in late. So, good job for pointing out that discrepancy!

As you can see, Paper Z/A does something quite different from the other two, in part because it’s dealing with three texts instead of two. This example, not from my own class, shows the way that working with multiple texts forces you to move beyond comparison and contrast between others’ arguments and instead makes you place emphasis on using the texts as support for your own independent, original argument. I particularly like the way the example of the yogurt, for instance, doesn’t seem connected to the writer’s topic sentence except in the way that the author interprets its significance. It’s not an obvious connection, in other words, and is all the more interesting because of that.

Hopefully this exercise, along with peer review, has given you some direction for your own paper revisions. I’d also like to offer you a few suggestions based on what I’ve noticed from reading your rough drafts. Judging from your blog posts, it seems that a number of you have noticed a need to cut down on summary—I agree wholeheartedly. In many cases, students were summarizing the arguments of Johnson and Davidson before turning to their own claims, which is unnecessary. As someone pointed out in their comments on the sample papers, the A paper has a “captivating” argument, whereas the B paper’s thesis is somewhat obvious and/or broad. Given the amount of prefatory material that was in some papers, you might find it most effective to take the claims at the end of your paper and make them the starting point for a new, more specific thesis.

Another area that needs work in many of your papers is organization. As you can see from the sample papers, strong papers make connections within the paragraphs organized around a particular topic. As you go through your rough drafts, you should be isolating each paragraph and asking yourself, “what is my claim here?” If it’s a claim you develop in another paragraph, consider linking those paragraphs together. You can also try isolating your topic sentences and quotations from each paragraph in a separate document. Then, in a few sentences, explain why you need those quotations to support your topic sentence. Both of these techniques are a version of what’s called the “Post-Draft Outline.” We’ll have time to talk about it more in the future, but feel free to try it on your own for this paper.

Reaction to Grading

I thought the differences between my grades of the sample papers were not always easy to see, but almost like my reaction to them, more intuitive than thought out. When i read them, I almost decided what grade the essay should receive based on how well I understood the argument presented, how well the paper stayed on task and how well the quotes were analyzed than anything else. it was almost an extension to how much attention the essay held to me throughout and how well I felt it was written, based off my reactions to all the books I`ve read in my life.

The grades seem to be based mostly on how the quotes of the essay (how well quotes are integrated into the essays, analysis of the quotes, how well the quotes were chosen and connected to the topic of the paragraph) as well as connecting messages in the texts as opposed to the style of the writing and how well the thoughts are presented.

The second paper receiving a "C" surprised me, although when I read through the annotated version, I did agree by the end of the essay; I thought it at least a "C+" or "B-". The other essays I was very close on grading-wise.