Checklists for the group and individual assignments
PORTFOLIO : CHECKLIST
|
ü check! |
TASK |
DUE |
|
|
Get in touch with your group members via D2L |
|
|
|
Appoint a group leader |
|
|
|
ASSIGNMENT 1: Interpretation of an individual text |
Oct. 29 |
|
|
Appoint a leader for assignment 2 |
|
|
|
ASSIGNMENT 2: Analysis of a scholarly article |
Nov. 19 |
|
|
ASSIGNMENT 3: Comprehensive question |
Dec. 3 |
|
|
Appoint a leader for assignment 4 |
|
|
|
ASSIGNMENT 4: Good historical image |
Dec. 3 |
|
|
Appoint a leader for assignment 5 |
|
|
|
ASSIGNMENT 5: Group summary statement |
Dec. 3 |
|
|
ASSIGNMENT 6: Peer evaluation – interpretation |
Dec. 8 |
|
|
ASSIGNMENT 7: Peer-evaluation – analysis |
Dec. 8 |
|
|
Group leader submits portfolio (in printed format) |
Dec. 9 |
Please, do not forget to email the names of your group leader and the three assignment leaders to the TA in charge of your group, so that all leaders can receive their extra credit points. You can also contact your groups’ TA via email or stop by her office hours if you have further questions regarding the portfolios.
Groups 001 – 040 ð Tina Badstübner tinab@email.arizona.edu
Groups 041 – 080 ð Kacy Peckenpaugh kpeckenp@email.arizona.edu
Groups 081 – 120 ð Janna Orlova Schaeffer jannao@email.arizona.edu
ASSIGNMENT 1 : CHECKLIST
Each student submits a 3 page interpretations of an individual text discussed in class (can also be groups of poems, such as the troubairitz poems) to the portfolio. Altogether, there will be 10 interpretive papers in each portfolio, but no paper can focus on a primary text already covered by another one in your group. Here you need to have a thesis (ca. 1/2 page), an argument (ca. 2 pp.), and a conclusion (ca. 1/2 p.). Specifically identify each section, such as: Thesis, etc. Each student signs his/her work to be included into the portfolio. Each student submits his/her work also to D2L. Spread the submissions online to D2L throughout the semester, which the group leader needs to supervise (see the report assignment in the syllabus). Total points for assignment per student: Max. 50 pts.
|
ü check! |
NAME |
PRIMARY TEXT |
|
|
1. |
|
|
|
2. |
|
|
|
3. |
|
|
|
4. |
|
|
|
5. |
|
|
|
6. |
|
|
|
7. |
|
|
|
8. |
|
|
|
9. |
|
|
|
10. |
|
|
ü check! |
TASK |
|
|
The group has covered ten different primary texts. |
|
|
Each student has written at least three pages. |
|
|
Each interpretation has a thesis, an argument, and a conclusion. |
|
|
All ten interpretations have been submitted to D2L. |
|
|
Each student has signed a hardcopy of their paper to be included in the portfolio. |
Groups 001 – 040 ð Tina Badstübner tinab@email.arizona.edu
Groups 041 – 080 ð Kacy Peckenpaugh kpeckenp@email.arizona.edu
Groups 081 – 120 ð Janna Orlova Schaeffer jannao@email.arizona.edu
ASSIGNMENT 2 : CHECKLIST
Pair up with another student within your group to work on this assignment. Identify a relevant and pertinent scholarly article on any of the texts discussed in class, published sometime in the last 10-15 years in solid scholarly journals, comprising at least 10 pp. For instance, a critical study on Marie de France, or on Apollonius of Tyre, or on Walther von der Vogelweide, etc. Each pair writes ca. 3 pages consisting of a summary of and a critical evaluate the article as to its logic, structure, thesis, and conclusion. Two students (one pair) always need to work on one article and the evaluation (no duplication, i.e., there must be 5 different scholarly articles that the entire group will have examined). Both sign their contribution and submit it to D2L and later also to the portfolio in printed format. Each pair reports to one designated person in the group to compile a separate bibliography of all five articles on a separate sheet (use an alphabetical system), follow the model below (both in D2L and in the printed portfolio). 50 pts. The designated person, who is not the group leader, gets 10 extra credit points
|
ü check! |
PAIRS (names of students) |
SCHORARLY ARTICLE |
|
|
1. |
|
|
|
2. |
|
|
|
3. |
|
|
|
4. |
|
|
|
5. |
|
|
ü check! |
TASK |
|
|
The group has covered five different scholarly articles. |
|
|
Each pair has written at least three pages. |
|
|
All five papers have been submitted to D2L. |
|
|
Each pair has signed a hardcopy of their paper to be included in the portfolio. |
|
|
The assignment leader has compiled a separate bibliography of all five articles on a separate sheet (in bibliographical order) and submitted it to D2L. |
Groups 001 – 040 ð Tina Badstübner tinab@email.arizona.edu
Groups 041 – 080 ð Kacy Peckenpaugh kpeckenp@email.arizona.edu
Groups 081 – 120 ð Janna Orlova Schaeffer jannao@email.arizona.edu
Pair up with another student and identify one good historical image pertinent to one of the texts examined in class, and provide exact information where the image comes from originally (in what manuscript, in what library, date, artist, etc.). It can be a portrait, an image from a manuscript with the text, or the musical scores, a sculpture, ivory, tapestry, fresco, or architecture. Do not only rely on the web. At least two pairs within your group of ten students must use an image from a printed book. No duplication, talk with the rest of your group. Each pair has to work on a unique image. Each pair must comment on the relevance, meaning, and content of their image pertinent to our text discussed in class (no duplication within your group of ten). The group must decide on its own who will resort to an image available electronically, who will examine an image in print-format. Both students in the pair must sign. Text must be at least 1 p. Submit the image together with the text to D2L, and later also add it in printed format to your portfolio. 50 pts. One designated person, other than the group leader and the designated person for assignment no. 2 is in charge of compiling the images and making sure that no duplication has occurred. 10 points extra credit.
|
ü check! |
PAIRS (names of students) |
IMAGE |
PRINTED? |
|
|
1. |
|
|
|
|
2. |
|
|
|
|
3. |
|
|
|
|
4. |
|
|
|
|
5. |
|
|
|
ü check! |
TASK |
|
|
The group has five good historical images. |
|
|
Two of the five images are from a printed source. |
|
|
Each pair has written at least one page. |
|
|
All five papers and images have been submitted to D2L. |
|
|
Each pair has signed a hardcopy of their paper to be included in the portfolio. |
Groups 001 – 040 ð Tina Badstübner tinab@email.arizona.edu
Groups 041 – 080 ð Kacy Peckenpaugh kpeckenp@email.arizona.edu
Groups 081 – 120 ð Janna Orlova Schaeffer jannao@email.arizona.edu
ASSIGNMENT 6 : CHECKLIST
Each member of every group of ten students will evaluate one other interpretation by a person of their group (see no. 1), and use the following rubrics: concise, clear language, critical; overall good, a little too general, not critical enough; mostly paraphrase, unclear statements, no critical reflection; confusing, bad language, little logic; not pertinent, poorly written, or not submitted. At least 1/2 page in length, be specific and explain how you reach your conclusion. Submit to D2L and to the printed portfolio. 25 points
|
ü check! |
NAME |
…evaluates ____’s interpretation |
|
|
1. |
|
|
|
2. |
|
|
|
3. |
|
|
|
4. |
|
|
|
5. |
|
|
|
6. |
|
|
|
7. |
|
|
|
8. |
|
|
|
9. |
|
|
|
10. |
|
|
ü check! |
TASK |
|
|
All ten interpretations have been evaluated. |
|
|
Each student has written at least 0.5 pages. |
|
|
All ten evaluations have been submitted to D2L. |
|
|
Each student has signed a hardcopy of their paper to be included in the portfolio. |
Groups 001 – 040 ð Tina Badstübner tinab@email.arizona.edu
Groups 041 – 080 ð Kacy Peckenpaugh kpeckenp@email.arizona.edu
Groups 081 – 120 ð Janna Orlova Schaeffer jannao@email.arizona.edu
ASSIGNMENT 7 : CHECKLIST
Each member of every group evaluates one analysis of an article by another member of the group (see no. 2; duplication permitted here, since unavoidable). Use the same rubrics as above. Write down the criteria that you used for the evaluation as in assignment 6. At least 1/2 page in length, be specific and explain how you reach your conclusion. Submit to D2L and to the printed portfolio.
|
ü check! |
NAME |
…evaluates _____ and _____’s analyis |
|
|
1. |
|
|
|
2. |
|
|
|
3. |
|
|
|
4. |
|
|
|
5. |
|
|
|
6. |
|
|
|
7. |
|
|
|
8. |
|
|
|
9. |
|
|
|
10. |
|
|
ü check! |
TASK |
|
|
All five analyses have been evaluated. |
|
|
Each student has written at least 0.5 pages. |
|
|
All ten evaluations have been submitted to D2L. |
|
|
Each student has signed a hardcopy of their paper to be included in the portfolio. |
Groups 001 – 040 ð Tina Badstübner tinab@email.arizona.edu
Groups 041 – 080 ð Kacy Peckenpaugh kpeckenp@email.arizona.edu
Groups 081 – 120 ð Janna Orlova Schaeffer jannao@email.arizona.edu