1500 words assignment for Culture, Equity, and Diversity assignment with original information and following the instruction properly and professionally.
Additional information for Culture, Equity and Diversity assignment
|Assignment – Close Reading and Response|
|Format: Length: 1500 words (plus or minus 10%)
Word (or similar) digital document.
Your document should be formatted with 1.5 line spacing.
Do a close reading of one of the articles provided in which you identify which value positions are being taken by the author and by commentators within the article and justify your interpretation of the text.
Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper to refute the arguments made in the first article and instead propose a position based on valuing difference and diversity. Here you should also refer to ideas of relationality and inclusivity.
Both your close reading and letter to the editor should draw on theories and ideas used throughout the semester and reading from the unit as well as some wider reading.
- Choose one of the articles provided for your close reading.
- Read through the article and see if you can identify some of the issues being discussed. Make a list of them. What is the article arguing? What is the ‘story’ being told here? Notice the language used –what words come up often? How is language being used to convince the reader?
- Research the issue to which this article relates, and make sure you have a clear understanding of the issues involved, the different ways that the media and others have approached the article. Find articles that represent other views on the issue. Make sure your understanding is well-grounded and factual, and that you’re making use of your analytical skills when finding other material on this.
- In your research, identify some of the dominant themes, stories or ways of thinking about the main actors/identities in the article. Do these relate to a fixing, ignoring or excluding discourse? How do alternative narratives that you’ve found work to value difference? Make a note of all of these.
- Return to your article. Go through the article to find evidence (actual words and sentences) of the dominant discourses and stories about people/places/events/communities that are present in the article. Highlight and colour code them (eg if the sentence is an example of heternormativity, use green. If it is an example of a paternalist fixing narrative, use orange etc).
- Use these sentences to construct a close reading of the article, in which you identify the dominant discourses/stories and value positions that are being called upon to justify the argument. In your close reading, make an argument that the article is making use of particular value position/s. You should use quotes from the article to demonstrate how they are supporting your claim that the article is (for example) using fixing discourses, and you MUST explain why the sentence you use demonstrates this. Why is this sentence significant? What does it tell us about the values that underpin the article/argument? (It is not enough to simply say that the sentence shows the use of a fixing discourse without explaining how!).
- Your close reading should make at least 4 points (ie 4 paras) that are well supported with evidence from the article as well as other sources from the unit and outside.
- Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper to refute the arguments made in the first article and instead propose a position based on valuing difference and diversity. Here you should also refer to ideas of relationality and inclusivity.
- Your response should address the precise claims and issues made within the initial argument and refute them based on a position of valuing difference.
- Your response should reference material from the unit and also material from your wider research for part A. Think here about the use of reputable sources.
- If applicable or relevant, your response may also outline a service provision model, vision or response to the issue that supports social justice/valuing diversity.
You MUST use references in both parts and these should be from theories and ideas used throughout the semester as well as some wider reading. You should use a minimum of 5 references.
CSV2108 Close Reading Assignment 2 Marking Key
Student’s name:_________________________ Tutor:__________________ Date:_________ Mark:________/50
|Content of assignment|
|Part A: A clear and concise argument that shows a clear understanding of the value positions/discourses used by and in the newspaper article being examined.
|No argument or no reference to value positions; incorrect or insubstantial value position used||A clear argument, understanding of the value position/s the article uses and some ability to articulate how and why the article can be understood as taking these position/s
|A clear, argument that demonstrates a good understanding of the value position/s the article takes and the ability to articulate how and why the article can be understood to take these position/s||A very tight argument that demonstrates a clear understanding of the value positon/s the article takes; very good analysis of how and why the article can be read as taking these positions. Precise and clear points made that show what narratives/ideas/themes/discourses are being used to support this value position in the article.||An excellent argument that includes a deep understanding of the value position/s the article is taking and an excellent analysis that clearly and precisely argues how and why the article takes these positions, and what narratives/ideas/themes/discourses are being used to support this value position in the article.|
|Part A: Well-chosen examples/ rhetorical evidence (actual words and sentences) from the article are used to demonstrate which value positions the newspaper article is taking, and clear explanations of how these examples support the value position.
|No examples from the article are used to support argument; examples used are not explained; examples used are not introduced and it is unclear why they are used, poor or inappropriate examples are used.
|Some examples from the article are used to support the assignment’s argument and an attempt has been made to explain how they support the value position/s in the article. A few examples are be poorly chosen or explanations lacking in detail.
|Well-chosen examples from the article are used to support the assignment’s argument, are embedded into the argument, and are accompanied by an explanation of how they support/provide evidence of the value position/s used in the article||Very good examples from the article are used to support the assignment’s argument; examples are well embedded into the argument, are introduced and are accompanied by a clear and accurate explanation of how they support/provide evidence of the value position/s used in the article.||Excellent examples from the article are used to support the assignment’s argument; examples are very well embedded into the argument and demonstrate a deep understanding of the discourses in play in this value position. Examples are well introduced and are accompanied by a clear and nuanced explanation of how they support/provide evidence of the value position/s used in the article.|
|Part A: Demonstrated understanding of the topic/issue under discussion
|Knowledge of the topic is unclear, biased; assignment is clearly uninformed by reading, no understanding of the issues surrounding the article. Incorrect issue identified as central topic.||Assignment demonstrates some understanding of the topic/issue.||Assignment demonstrates a solid understanding of the issue/topic
|Assignment demonstrates a very good understanding of the issue/topic||Assignment demonstrates a deep and insightful understanding of the topic.|
|Part B: A clear argument that demonstrates how this topic/issue could be approached from a valuing position.
|No argument or no reference to the valuing position; incorrect or insubstantial value position used,||A clear argument that demonstrates how this topic/issue can be approached from a valuing position
|A solid argument that demonstrates well how this topic/issue can be approached from a valuing position
|A very good argument that demonstrates very well how this topic/issue can be approached from a valuing position
|An excellent argument that demonstrates clearly and thougtfully how this topic/issue can be approached from a valuing position
|Part B: Clear refutation of the specific arguments put forward in the newspaper article from part A and how and why they don’t support a valuing position
|Arguments of newspaper article examined in part A are not referenced; no evidence as to why they don’t support a valuing position||Letter to the editor references arguments/discourses put forward in newspaper article and refutes them, demonstrates how and why they don’t support a valuing position||Letter to the editor references specific arguments/discourses put forward in newspaper article and refutes them well, demonstrates how and why they don’t support a valuing position||Letter to the editor references specific arguments/discourses put forward in newspaper article and refutes them using clear evidence, demonstrates clearly how and why they don’t support a valuing position||Letter to the editor references specific arguments/discourses put forward in newspaper article and refutes them using clear evidence and understanding of discursive constructions of value positions, demonstrates thoughtfully and with evidence how and why they don’t support a valuing position|
|Part B: A clear articulation of what it looks like to value difference in relation to this topic/issue
|Valuing difference is not explained; valuing difference is not explained in relation to the topic at hand||Letter clearly sets out how difference can be valued in relation to this issue/topic||Letter clearly sets out how difference can be valued and draws on evidence and references to do so||Letter clearly sets out how difference can be valued in relation to this issue and makes use of discourses/ways of thinking to argue strongly how this valuing can take place||Letter clearly sets out how difference can be valued in relation to this issue/topic and demonstrates a deep understanding of the ways that discourses/ways of thinking about this issue are constructed/shaped.|
|Clarity of writing (syntax/
|Difficult to follow; Syntax/spelling require work||Difficult to follow at times; Syntax/spelling require some work||Clearly expressed; No major errors
|Well written; no major errors; sentences flow, paragraphs usually linked||Well written; very few errors;
Sentences flow, paragraphs clearly linked
|Structural writing skills||Difficult to follow; no clear links between paragraphs; no paragraphing; information not organized or structured||Reflection is structured; paragraphs clearly discernable; topic sentences used; too many ideas per paragraph||Reflection well structured, Paragraphs well structured; clear topic sentences used; one idea per paragraph||Reflection well structured; paragraphs clearly crafted and information flows logically||Very well-structured reflection; paragraphs well-crafted and information flows logically; sequence of ideas is clear and well planned; essay a pleasure to read.|
|Evidence of research into topic and additional supporting reading||No research into topic or research that does not demonstrate ability to ‘sift’ for reliability||Some research into topic, albeit populist and/or unbalanced||Evidence of balanced research into topic including reputable/peer reviewed sources||Evidence of wide and balanced reading on topic, including reputable/peer reviewed sources||Evidence of very wide and very balanced reading on topic, including reputable/peer reviewed sources|
|In-text referencing||No attempt or rarely correct||Attempted; some errors||Mostly correct||Few errors||Correct|
|Reference List||No reference list or referencing rarely correct||Attempted; some errors||Mostly correct||Few errors||Correct|