Skip Navigation

Anderson - EES 400 Syllabus

Spring 2006

Time: Thursday 8:00 — 8:50
Location: 305 Winslow Hall
Instructor: Mark W. Anderson, Coordinator, EES Program
Senior Instructor, Department of Resource Economics and Policy
Phone: 581-3198
email: Mark Anderson on FirstClass

Course Purpose: EES 400 and EES 489 constitute the capstone experience for students in the EES Program.  The purpose of EES 400 is to help students in the program synthesize the knowledge, understanding, and skills acquired from the program through an intensive writing project.  Typically, the project is a thorough literature review of interest to the student, although other writing project types are acceptable.  In this course you will demonstrate both subject matter mastery and effective communication skills.

The project for this class should not be the same as the paper, presentation, or other project used for any other class.  If there is any question regarding this, please confer with the instructor.

Grading: Grading will be based on an assessment of:

  • the paper — content, the writing process outlined in the course schedule, and the quality of writing exhibited in the paper, and
  • the quality of an oral presentation on the topic in the paper,
  • emphasis will be placed on clear writing, sound understanding of concepts developed in the program, and thoughtfulness of the paper and presentation.
  • below for your information is the scoring rubric that will be used as a format for evaluating the course.

Course Schedule:

January

19 Course organization

26 Thesis statement due/discussion. The thesis statement is a concise (one page or so) statement of what you will assert in your paper and then will test (try to prove) with the facts and logic presented in the paper.  In addition, this statement should also include a declaration of the style guide you plan to use for your.

February

02 Thesis statements returned.  Discussion of developing initial reading list.

09 Initial reading list due in format of citation system chosen for paper.  List with your reading list the style guide you intend to use. The Writing Center in Neville Hall and the Reference Desk at the library both gave a number of different style guides from which to choose.

16 Discussion of readings.

23 No class

March

02 Detailed outline of paper due. Your outline should be a detailed formal outline (I., A., 1., a. …) that shows the plan of your paper. Preparing an outline recognizes that there are two basic functions in good writing: figuring out what you plan to say and then figuring out how to say it well.  Making a detailed outline accomplishes the first of these tasks.  Typically outlines for a paper such as this are 5 or more pages in length.

23 Discussion of outlines and the writing process

30 No class — write.

April

06 No class – write.

13 Complete first draft of paper due

20 Discussion of first drafts/additional work to be done.  Discussion of presentations.  Presentations will be scheduled during final exam week.  They are 15 minutes long with 5 minutes for questions.  Presentations should be prepared using appropriate technologies.

27 No class — Write!

May

04 No class — Write!

12 Final Paper Deadline  4:00 p.m.
Late Papers Will Not Be Accepted

Presentations — Final exam week — To be scheduled

EES 400 — Evaluation Outline

Student: _________________________                   Semester:_______________

Writing Process Completion Dates

Thesis statement __________________                   /_/ on schedule
Initial reading list _________________                     /_/ on schedule
Outline __________________________                    /_/ on schedule
First draft ________________________                   /_/ on schedule
Final paper _______________________                   /_/ on schedule

Paper Grading Rubric:

Category Superior Good Adequate Inadequate
Organization:  How clear and logical was the structure of the paper? 4 3 2 1
Academic Integrity: How thoroughly were source materials cited? 4 3 2 1
Citation/References: How well was the style guide followed? 4 3 2 1
Source Materials: Were sources credible, current, and complete? (beyond Google?) 4 3 2 1
Argument: Were conclusions supported by fact and logic presented in the paper? 4 3 2 1
Application: How well were relevant theory and knowledge in the discipline applied? 4 3 2 1
Spelling, Grammar, and Punctuation 4 3 2 1
Style 4 3 2 1

Presentation Grading Rubric:

Category Superior Good Adequate Inadequate
Organization:  How clear and logical was the structure of the presentation? 4 3 2 1
Materials: How appropriate to the subject matter were AV materials and technology used? 4 3 2 1
Academic Integrity: How thoroughly were source materials cited? 4 3 2 1
Argument: Were conclusions supported by fact and logic presented in the presentation? 4 3 2 1
Clarity and flow:  Did the presentation flow in an understandable manner? 4 3 2 1
Professionalism:  Was the appearance and demeanor of the presenter(s) professional? 4 3 2 1
Timing:  Was presentation completed in assigned time? 4 3 2 1
In the end, did the presentation answer the “so what” question? 4 3 2 1


Back to Anderson