Annotating Texts: Developing an Evaluative Essay [Assignment/Rubric]
Christopher Manes
Learning Outcomes
Upon successful completion of this assignment, students will
- analyze the concepts of “segregated coexistence” and “living in community” as proposed by Nicholas Ensley Mitchell in order to evaluate the situations described in the provided articles regarding food security, gentrification, and urban development.
- use Mitchell’s framework to evaluate the quality of diversity in their local college or community context.
Before the Assignment
The following assignment serves as a supplement to the material covered in:
Reading and Writing Successfully in College: A Guide for Students, by Patricia Lynne, chapter 1, section on “Examining a Sample Assignment”
Read and annotate the texts in the “Examining a Sample Assignment”; these texts can also be found in The Conversation and are listed below for reference. The texts to be read are:
- City compost programs turn garbage into ‘black gold’ that boosts food security and social justice by Kristen DiAngelis. Gwynne Mhuireach, and Sue Ishaq (11 June 2020)
- How food became the perfect beachhead for gentrification by Pasale Joassart-Marcelli (13 October 2018)
- Sustainable cities need more than parks, cafes and a riverwalk by Trina Hamilton and Winifred Curran (15 March 2018)
Annotations can be completed using the strategies from Patricia Lynne’s section on “Annotating and Note-taking.”
Discuss as a class or in small groups these articles, particularly, how each article deals with the problem of food insecurity and what, if any, solutions might be gained from the readings.
Assignment (Individual or Group)
Prompt: Based on the articles read, annotated, and discussed in class, evaluate food security and/or insecurity at your college or university. Include specific parts from the readings as well as college and community food resources.
This assignment can be done individually or in small groups (3-4 students). The length of evaluation should be set by the instructor but can be a minimum of five paragraphs or longer. Students should cite quotes or paraphrases from the text using whatever guiding style (APA, MLA, etc.) is appropriate to the course.
To help students respond to this prompt, consider using the following questions in four areas:
When answering the above questions for each area:
- Students should answer the question(s) directly within the first sentence (topic sentence).
- Give one to three sentences to support or explain their answer from the text (essay) with specific quotes or paraphrases and/or from observations or facts within their community.
- Students should conclude their points of evaluation without introducing new ideas or facts in their paragraph’s concluding line.
Doing this for each of the four areas will give students individual paragraphs of 3-5 sentences, at minimum, to which an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph could be added to complete the assignment in a formal essay.
Note: If this assignment is done in small groups of four, then each area can be delegated to a group participant to answer.
Rubrics
Individual Rubric
Total Points Possible: 100 points
Note: This rubric is for completing the assignment as an individual, not in a group.
| Unsatisfactory 1-5 points |
Needs Improvement 6-10 points |
Meets Expectations 11-15 points |
Exceeds Expectations 16-20 points |
Outstanding 21-25 points |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area One: From Hamilton and Curran’s article, when you consider the city, in which your college is located, in what ways is it “greener and more inclusive” and, if not, in what areas might there be growth or improvement? | The area may be lacking in development or may be missing in whole. Warrants for this rating might also include but not be limited to significant ambiguous statements, insufficient evidence, a lack of citations, and/or generalized or no explanations | Area’s question has been answered, supported, and concluded, but some parts may have multiple errors or points of ambiguity. Conclusions may raise new facts or opinions | The area adequately answers question(s), provides support and explanation, and develops concluding statements. Conclusions do not introduce new material (facts or opinions). | The area meets expectations AND correctly uses in-text citations for paraphrases or quotes and shows an attempt to revise l insight(s) with few errors or ambiguity | The area exceeds expectations AND thoroughly develops meaningful insights, and explanations without ambiguity or error. In-text citations are correct and accompanied with full text citations |
| Area Two: In Joassart-Marcelli’s essay, when you consider the area near your college, how would you describe “the relationship between food and ethnicity”? Is this relationship “authentic” or “alternative”? Explain why or why not. | The area may be lacking in development or may be missing in whole. Warrants for this rating might also include but not be limited to significant ambiguous statements, insufficient evidence, a lack of citations, and/or generalized or no explanations | Area’s question has been answered, supported, and concluded, but some parts may have multiple errors or points of ambiguity. Conclusions may raise new facts or opinions | The area adequately answers question(s), provides support and explanation, and develops concluding statements. Conclusions do not introduce new material (facts or opinions). | The area meets expectations AND correctly uses in-text citations for paraphrases or quotes and shows an attempt to revise l insight(s) with few errors or ambiguity | The area exceeds expectations AND thoroughly develops meaningful insights, and explanations without ambiguity or error. In-text citations are correct and accompanied with full text citations |
| Area Three: DiAngelis, Mhuireach, and Ishaq encourage individual composting, if you have resources to do so, and municipal composts. Within the city, in which your college is located, what options, if any, of composting (individual or community) are available? | The area may be lacking in development or may be missing in whole. Warrants for this rating might also include but not be limited to significant ambiguous statements, insufficient evidence, a lack of citations, and/or generalized or no explanations | Area’s question has been answered, supported, and concluded, but some parts may have multiple errors or points of ambiguity. Conclusions may raise new facts or opinions | The area adequately answers question(s), provides support and explanation, and develops concluding statements. Conclusions do not introduce new material (facts or opinions). | The area meets expectations AND correctly uses in-text citations for paraphrases or quotes and shows an attempt to revise l insight(s) with few errors or ambiguity | The area exceeds expectations AND thoroughly develops meaningful insights, and explanations without ambiguity or error. In-text citations are correct and accompanied with full text citations |
| Area Four: Students should also research food resources…. In your opinion, are these resources enough to meet college or community needs? What areas of growth or improvement do you think should be considered either based on the readings or in addition to them? | The area may be lacking in development or may be missing in whole. Warrants for this rating might also include but not be limited to significant ambiguous statements, insufficient evidence, a lack of citations, and/or generalized or no explanations | Area’s question has been answered, supported, and concluded, but some parts may have multiple errors or points of ambiguity. Conclusions may raise new facts or opinions | The area adequately answers question(s), provides support and explanation, and develops concluding statements. Conclusions do not introduce new material (facts or opinions). | The area meets expectations AND correctly uses in-text citations for paraphrases or quotes and shows an attempt to revise l insight(s) with few errors or ambiguity | The area exceeds expectations AND thoroughly develops meaningful insights, and explanations without ambiguity or error. In-text citations are correct and accompanied with full text citations |
Group Rubric
Total Points Possible: 50 points
Note: This rubric is for completing the assignment in small groups of 3-4 students.
| Unsatisfactory 1-5 points |
Needs Improvement 6-10 points |
Meets Expectations 11-15 points |
Exceeds Expectations 16-20 points |
Outstanding 21-25 points |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Areas one through four | Multiple areas may be lacking in development or may be missing in whole. Warrants for this rating might also include but not be limited to significant ambiguous statements, insufficient evidence, a lack of citations, and/or generalized or no explanations | Area questions have been answered, supported, and concluded, but some parts may have errors or points of ambiguity. Conclusions may raise new facts or opinions | Each area adequately answers question(s), provides support and explanation, and develops concluding statements. Conclusions do not introduce new material (facts or opinions). | Each area meets expectations AND correctly uses in-text citations for paraphrases or quotes and shows an attempt to revise l insight(s) with few errors or ambiguity | Each area exceeds expectations AND thoroughly develops meaningful insights, and explanations without ambiguity or error. In-text citations are correct and accompanied with full text citations |
| Teamwork | Warrants for this score might include but are not limited to a significant lack of development with individual areas, and/or little to no evidence the team supported members with either team resources (proofreading, for example) or institutional resources, and/or failure to meet deadline(s) | Team met the deadline, but some areas show little to no evidence of revision and/or . records of who did what may be incomplete or inconsistent | Students exhibited basic teamwork in delegating individual areas and/or duties and worked within time restraints. Work has little to no errors | Students showed basic team expectations AND evidence of group evolution in the form of meeting minutes and/or evidence of proofreading work by group members | Students exceeded expectations AND made use of institutional resources such as tutoring centers, electronic or printed style guide(s) for citations, and/or instructor input |
Downloadable Resources (Rubrics)
Click here to download a Word Doc version of the INDIVIDUAL rubric:
Individual Rubric: Annotating Texts – Developing an Evaluative Essay assignment
Click here to download a Word Doc version of the GROUP rubric:
Group Rubric: Annotating Texts – Developing an Evaluative Essay assignment
Attribution:
Manes, Christopher. “Annotating Texts: Developing an Evaluative Essay [Assignment/Rubric].” Strategies, Skills and Models for Student Success in Writing and Reading Comprehension. College Station: Texas A&M University, 2024. This work is licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
