I have graded all of the Writing Guides for the Workplace. In this post, I am providing details on how you all did on the projects so that you know what you can work on to improve in your next project.
Overall Feedback for the Class
- Basic requirements met by all teams: Every writing group had a guide that fulfilled the minimum requirements for the assignment. There was an introduction, discussion of the necessary number of kinds of writing, and a conclusion. Many, but not all, included professional bios for the writers at some point in the document. Most incorporated graphics into the design and layout appropriately.
- Cohesive, unified content and design in the best work: The best writing guides had a strong, unified first appearance. It was clear that all of the information belonged together in a single document. Deeper examination showed that the content matched in length and detail as well, contributing to an overall polished, professional document. In guides that struggled with this quality, the layout and headings did not always match from one kind of writing to the next, and the content for the different kinds of writing showed different amounts of detail and effort.
- Underdeveloped sections: In some cases, the information in the text was the bare minimum, showing little work or effort on the part of the group. It appeared to be little more than a reformatted version of the information that was included in the Analysis Tables. After a month to work on the project, guides should have had much more detail.
- Ineffective design choice: The most common design error was an overuse of centered text for the content of the guide. In terms of design, remember that the best design for text is flush left, ragged right. Centered text is harder to read. More details are on the Ten Ways to Improve Your Writing page on the course website.
Grade Strategy
| A | Earned by groups with the best work. These guides were extremely thorough and well-detailed. They fit the publishing format well and demonstrated strong attention to the design of the overall guide. The content was unified and cohesive. |
| A- | Earned by groups with thorough work that was unified and cohesive, but lacking in some minor area. |
| B+ | Earned by groups with complete work that lacked unity and cohesion in one or two places. |
| B | Earned by groups with complete work that lacked unity in several places and/or had several ineffective design choices. |
| B- | Earned by groups that met the minimum requirements for the assignment. These guides were underdeveloped, with few details. The content was little more than a reformatted version of the analysis tables from the first assignment. The overall project needed much more effort from the group members. |
| C+ | Earned by groups that met the minimum requirements for the assignment. These guides had both issues with unity and cohesion and with underdevelopment and missing details. |
