Navigation
-
Recently Viewed
- This feature requires Javascript to be enabled.
Sample Writing Assignment on a Theoretical Topic: Explanations for the Permian Extinction
Summary: This assignment was given in Rice University’s ESCI 102: Evolution of the Earth. The assignment requires freshmen (non-major) students to gather information, analyze the facts, and evaluate existing arguments about the cause of the Permian Extinction.
Polished draft due (date) at the start of class
Final version due (date) at the start of class
The mass extinction at the end of the Permian period (~250 million years ago) was the largest in history: 90% of species on Earth were wiped out. There are a number of possible events, outlined on the Wikipedia web page . We’ve also provided you with four articles (2 hard copies, 2 web links) that present different viewpoints on the causes of the Permian extinction. "Repeated Blows" by Luann Becker describes the evidence for ancient meteorite impacts that may have triggered mass extinction events. Richard Kerr’s article “Fossil Count Suggests Biggest Die-off Wasn’t Due to a Smashup,” “The Mother of Mass Murders” by Amarendra Swarup (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=Permian3498573845), and Katrina Outland’s “Volcanoes, not Asteroid, may have Caused Permian Mass Extinction”provide information on a competing volcano hypothesis.
Your assignment is to:
- Summarize the possible causes of the Permian extinction and the data that support or refute each of these hypotheses. Please use at least two additional references and include a bibliography with your essay.
- Pick one of the possible explanations and expand on its strengths and weaknesses. Do you find this explanation plausible? Is there more data you’d like to see to strengthen this hypothesis?
This is a 2-part assignment: the first, a polished draft is due (date) and the final version is due (two days later date). We expect that the majority of your effort will go into the polished draft. Please take advantage of your writing mentors for this part: they are trained to help you! As always, please write about 500 words using a standard font (Times, Times New Roman, Helvetica, Geneva) and sizing the text at 12 points.
paper guidelines and grading:
Paper Format (0.5, 0.5 pt): paper must be typed with 1-inch margins; name, date, ESCI 102, and assignment name must be at top of paper. Include the honor pledge text (On my honor, I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this assignment), signed on the bottom of your paper.
Hypotheses: (1, 2 pts): Present the various hypotheses;
Data Gathering: (1, 2 pts): based on your reading and research, what data support each hypothesis? What data contradict or are against each hypothesis?
Analysis (1, 3 pts): based upon these readings, what is your hypothesis? which explanation do you believe and why? What new data would you like to see to test your hypothesis? How will that data help your hypothesis?
Organization (1, 2 pts): make sure that your ideas are clearly communicated and that the paper has logical organization.
References (0.5, 0.5 pt): include the sources of information (web sites, books, articles, etc.) you used in your research. Use at least 2 references and cite them. If you use URLs, please also cite the date accessed, and remember to think critically about the accuracy of your web sources!
The first point value is for the polished draft and the second is for the final draft. Late assignments will have a 30% penalty per day. If something prevents you from turning in the paper by the due date, please let us know ahead of time and we’ll try to accommodate.
Plagiarism is the undocumented inclusion of someone else’s work within your work. In the context of this assignment, plagiarism means using someone else’s ideas without citation or reproducing someone else’s sentence structure and word choices without using quotes and citation. Accepting proofreading help from your mentor or anyone else does NOT count as plagiarism or an honor code violation – in fact, we encourage you to have your work proofread by your colleagues! This only becomes a violation if someone else writes sections of your paper for you. You can assume that your writing mentor’s advice does not violate the honor code. Proofreading by your colleagues will not violate the honor code as long as they do not reword your sentences or add text to your work.
| Criteria | Excellent: full points | Average: mid-points | Poor: low points |
| Format________ | All criteria met (0.5):Typed, 1 inch margin, name, date, ESCI 102, assignment name at top of paper. Less than 5 double spaced pages. Honor pledge. | One or more errors in format (0) | |
| Hypotheses ________ | Hypotheses described in articles are thoroughly and clearly communicated (1) | Lack of depth or clarity in communicating hypotheses (0.5) | No description of hypotheses (0) |
| Data gathering________ | Data supporting and contradicting each hypothesis are clearly and thoroughly communicated (1) | Some data are presented, but complete data for each hypothesis are lacking (0.5) | No supporting or contradictory data are presented (0) |
| Analysis________ | Thoughtful, critical analysis of data; student provides evidence for his/her position (1) | Somewhat superficial analysis of data or support for position (0.5) | No analysis or evidence for position (0) |
| Organization, clarity, and style_______ | Organizes discussion logically. Paragraphs have topic sentences. Easy for reader to access. Correct use of grammar. (1) | Some errors in organization, clarity, and style (0.5) | Extensive errors in organization, clarity, and style (0) |
| References________ | 2 references used and cited in text. Complete bibliography, including date accessed for URLs. (0.5) | One or more errors in references (0) |
Strengths of paper:
Areas for improvement:
Student name ____________Total points ___________ Mentor initials ________
| Criteria | Excellent: full points | Average: mid-points | Poor: low points |
| Format________ | All criteria met (0.5):Typed, 1 inch margin, name, date, ESCI 102, assignment name at top of paper. Less than 5 double spaced pages. Honor pledge. | One or more errors in format (0) | |
| Hypotheses ________ | Hypotheses described in articles are thoroughly and clearly communicated (2) | Lack of depth or clarity in communicating hypotheses (0.5) | No description of hypotheses (0) |
| Data gathering________ | Data supporting and contradicting each hypothesis are clearly and thoroughly communicated (2) | Some data are presented, but complete data for each hypothesis are lacking (0.5) | No supporting or contradictory data are presented (0) |
| Analysis________ | Thoughtful, critical analysis of data; student provides evidence for his/her position (3) | Somewhat superficial analysis of data or support for position (0.5) | No analysis or evidence for position (0) |
| Organization, clarity, and style_______ | Organizes discussion logically. Paragraphs have topic sentences. Easy for reader to access. Correct use of grammar. (2) | Some errors in organization, clarity, and style (0.5) | Extensive errors in organization, clarity, and style (0) |
| References________ | 2 references used and cited in text. Complete bibliography, including date accessed for URLs. (0.5) | One or more errors in references (0) |
Strengths of paper:
Areas for improvement:
Student name ___________ Total points ________ Mentor initials ________
Content actions
Give Feedback:
Download:
Add module to:
Footer
More about this module: Metadata | Version History
This work is licensed by The Cain Project in Engineering and Professional Communication under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.
Last edited by The Cain Project in Engineering and Professional Communication on Jun 28, 2008 6:38 pm GMT-5.