Again, what kind of assignment was this? What was the purpose? We feel as if it may have been an idiosyncratic assignment that “strangled the student,” and we weren’t sure if genre and audience expectations were communicated clearly to the writer

– conflict between aesthetic and scientific (though they can work together in general, just not here)–the latter may be easier to follow, and the former is more enjoyable
– in the writer’s defense, the aesthetic parts are in the introduction, which, if two genres are combined, may be appropriate
– descriptive language also integrated into science parts–many of us liked the language
– some of us preferred the first (subjective, emotional, aesthetic) half; some of us preferred the (scientific, citational, objective) half–some felt the latter was “more academic,” but others pointed out that such an assessment depends on genre and expectation.

“Maligne Canyon”
– It’s very boring. It seems like the student is trying to use words to make it sound like more than it is so the teacher might like it. The writing seems forced.
– Did person actually go there or just get something from internet?
– This could have been written in half the space. It is redundant. There are weak vocabulary choice – a lot of “very’s.” The reader gets everything they need in first paragraph. It sounds like the student had a number of words target that needed to be reached.

– It does read cleanly. Compound sentences, good use of transitions were all present. Logical flow to what is written. Excellent use of subheadings and topic sentences. Student does seem to know what he is talking about. It seems that the student was writing to the assignment description.
– No sentence fragments. Few grammatical errors. BUT, there is no voice.
– The essay does not engage the reader so s/he falls asleep. The essay says it is the writer’s observation, but, in fact, the observation is that of a person who saw a photograph. But, it might have been the writer’s photograph. Expectations would change if we knew what the assignment was.

Strengths:
– vivid language, would make a good travel brochure
– organization makes sense, follows the structure of the image
– direct and easy to read
– nice use of complex sentences and punctuation
– coherence is excellent
– inconsistency in language (vivid imagery to sterile language) – commenter blames the institution (!) because of the insistence on bland language in the sciences – the student’s passion for the site is coming through in jarring ways
– the student speaks with authority
– feels like the interpretation of a photograph

Weaknesses:
– the sense of purpose is not directed and could be developed more clearly
– describes but does not engage the reader
– there could be more consistency
– transitions could be stronger
– conclusion and discussion of drainage systems much stronger than the introduction, which is lacking a clear purpose
– provides a good contrast – difference in tone when a student is or is not passionate about the writing (compared to Marijuana paper)
– turns into a data-dump, the ending could be tied back the actual observation/experience – inconsistency between two halves

– again, if we knew the genre we would be able to understand it more. Maybe the assignment asks for two different sections.

Problems:
-inconsistency between the aesthetic and the objective; some disagreement among the audience about this point
-doesn’t engage me
-deceived as a reader: is this an actual observation of the place or of a photo?
-tough to read the first section–didn’t know the purpose right away
-lack of passion here made it boring; but this is maybe a function of the assignment; plus do we have to be emotionally invested?
-encylopedia kind of writing

Preliminary:

-Boring but does the job.
-Or: not boring, but loopy.
-Personal interjections a bit confusing
-some descriptive language disrupting (v. augmenting) overall “objective”
voice? Moments where the text “surprised” us. Would like the author to
decide on genre/voice (how much of this is anecdotal v. scientific?
Aesthetic/poetic or just, well, dry)
-Unevenness of voice vs. description itself
-Comparing vegetation and grand canyon: is this an accurate/possible
description in this context?

Concluding:

We do get a good sense of what this place is like. We also get: succinct explanations and logical organization.

– again, we don’t know what kind of assignment this is or what class it is for
– written to a grade five level reader, could fit in a textbook
– this is just a description – there is no recommendation, analysis, etc
– if this is meant to be a description in a scientific context, the diction should be more advanced – it should be more than just visual, avoid phrases like “many scientists believe”
– the student is trying to make it rich
– there are no mechanical errors, but there is a confusion of purpose. What is the objective of the writing? Not even the student knows (see “my observations and research”)
– it feels like this student has been reading a very different style of writing than what they are supposed to be turning out – their exposure to this discipline has been found in textbooks only – genre-blurring and a lack of clarity
– as teachers, are we clear about what we want? Do we communicate this effectively to students?
– reads a bit like a travel brochure

Things we liked:
imagery — well written at the beginning.
some good transitions at the beginning
opening is stronger than later parts
takes risk with sentence structure (leading a sentence with because).
Defined terms well.
Shows passion in writing (for science or geography)
Research was woven in nicely.
Liked the representation (picture) so you could picture the landscape as you read through the rest of the text.
Headings used to organize text.

Things we didn’t like:
because at the beginning of the sentence in (solutions) is off putting.
some concepts were not developed clearly enough
the purpose of some paragraphs were not always clear.

Strengths:
– when students are passionate it comes across in the writing
– this student understands paragraphs – each one is its own idea, there is an internal organization
– student stays on topic
– student understands the need for evidence, tries to temper emotion with facts
– solution to eating disorders and phrase ‘Canadianize’ show creative thinking
– student uses creative diction, ‘forbidden fruit,’ and has a very strong voice all the way through
– student has a very strong position statement, there is a base to work from
– subtlety of thought shows great potential
– ideas are there even if mechanics are not, there is a clear purpose and it is very persuasive
– this is a perfect draft or ‘letter to the editor’ essay

Weaknesses:
– fine tuning, spelling, sentence structure are distracting – lack of core skills
– the student may not know who the audience is
– author needs to substantiate what (s)he argues, evidence is pointed at but not provided
– similarly, the student could also develop what (s)he means in the discussion of morality
– ‘talk radio style’ (could also be a strength – tone) but how do you ask the student to fix problems without ‘breaking their heart’
– feels like a free-write
– work on specificity and define terms (e.g. ‘real criminals’)

– we don’t know what the student was asked to do, this would help us contextualize the piece – ‘judging the bicycle for not being a car’ – could be an exam context