Information Page for English 100A and English 100B
Shepherd University
Updated 7 August 2008

For more information, contact Joe Green by email jgreen@shepherd.edu or phone (304) 876-5221.

Catalog Descriptions

English 100A: Basic Academic Writing I (2 Credits)

The first of a two-semester course sequence, ENGL 100A is designed to enhance critical thinking, reading and writing skills as they support academic essay writing, particularly the argument essay.  The two semesters stretch the same material as ENGL 101 in order to give students more time to master the course objectives. ENGL 100A emphasizes instruction on the criteria of thesis, academic essay structure, critical reading skills, and critical thinking skills.  An emphasis is placed on the reading and writing processes, particularly the stage of revision. Students will be required to attend 100 minutes a week of lecture and 50 minutes a week of tutoring. Completing both ENGL 100A and ENGL 100B serves as an alternate to ENGL 101, and as such serves as a prerequisite to ENGL 102, 103, or 104.

English 100B: Basic Academic Writing II (2 Credits)

The second of a two-semester course sequence, ENGL 100B is designed to enhance critical thinking, reading and writing skills as they support academic essay writing, particularly the argument essay.   The two semesters stretch the same material as ENGL 100 in order to give students more time to master the course objectives.  ENGL 100B emphasizes instruction on the criteria of evidence, style, sentence-level correctness, and MLA documentation.  An emphasis is placed on the reading and writing processes, particularly the stage of revision. Students will be required to attend 100 minutes a week of lecture and 50 minutes a week of tutoring.  ENGL 100A is a prerequisite to ENGL 100B. Completing both ENGL 100A and ENGL 100B serves as an alternate to ENGL 101, and as such serves as a prerequisite to ENGL 102, 103 or 104.

Textbooks: 

Austin, Michael.  Reading the World: Ideas That Matter.  New York: W.W. Norton, 2007. 

Hacker, Diana. A Writer's Reference with Writing in the Discipliens and Writing about Literature .  Sixth Edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's. 2007.

Grading Criteria for Papers:

1. Thesis
2. Coherence
3. Introduction/Conclusion
4. Reading Comprehension
5. Critical Thinking
6. Evidence
7. Style
8. Sentence-level Control
9. MLA Documentation
10. Delivery

Contents of Portfolio:

1. Cover Letter
2. In-class Essay
3. Revised Essay 1
4. Revised Essay 2

Grading Criteria for Portfolios: 1 through 6 Scale

6 = Essays have a clear, focused, arguable thesis. The essays have an introduction, body and conclusion that all support the thesis. Each paragraph has a distinct purpose in support of the thesis.  The thesis statement for each paper is supported with adequate evidence that is explained and connected to the thesis.  The critical thinking is insightful and takes a bit of a risk by moving beyond the instructor's lectures and well beyond the summarizing the assigned readings by synthesizing, analyzing, interpreting and/or applying the ideas.  The sentences show variety, emphasis, coherence and concision. The level of diction is high. The writer's voice shines through and is appropriate to the topic and audience. The technical control is error free or close to error free. The sources are documented according to MLA documentation style for both in-text citations and entries on the works cited page. The papers are in good condition with dark ink and crisp paper.

5 =  Essays have strong thesis statements but may be a little less than original. The papers have good essay structure, but the conclusion may be primarily a repeat of the introduction.  Each paragraph has a distinct purpose and supports the thesis. The critical thinking is above average but may not be particularly independent or creative.  The thesis statement has adequate support that is generally connected to the thesis. The sentences generally show variety, emphasis, coherence and concision; however, a few awkward or stilted sentences may exist.  The writer's voice might be a bit bland with occasional sentences that show sophistication.  The technical control is solid with no errors in sentence boundaries but may stumble in a few trickier elements of punctuation, usage or mechanics. The sources are documented in MLA style but might have small errors in the works cited entries. The papers are generally delivered in very good order.

4 = The thesis statements in the papers may take some thought to discern because they thesis is either implied, delayed, or stated over two sentences, but scorers can find the thesis with a little bit of work.  The thesis may not be particularly insightful, but it exists throughout all areas of the paper. Most of the paragraphs have a clear main point and connect to the thesis.  Topic sentences may be missing, and the reader might have to wait until the end of the paragraph to see how it connects to the main idea, but it does connect eventually. The sentences may be a bit bland and choppy, but they have normal syntax. The level of diction is commonplace. Some errors might exist in mechanic, punctuation, usage and spelling, but they do not prevent the reader from reading through to content.  The MLA documentation might have a few omissions or errors, but the majority of the sources are adequately documented.  The papers are in fairly good shape with maybe a header missing or a paper wrinkled slightly.

3 = The essays struggle to express a single thesis statement. Either two thesis statements compete or no clear point comes through.  The papers might struggle between summarizing the key readings and making an independent claim.  The support will be weak with too few examples or inadequate explanation of how examples connect back to the thesis.  The critical thinking is weak because it either states the obvious or mimics the logic of the assigned readings. The sentences are often weak in their construction, sometimes becoming incoherent and at best are bland and choppy.  The level of diction is low. There are several errors in mechanics, punctuation, usage and spelling, some of which interfere with reading through to content. MLA documentation contains several errors and some sources may not be documented by an in-text citation. The delivery may be poor: i.e., wrinkled pages, no headings or page numbers, or pages stapled in the wrong order.

2 = Essays have no clear thesis statement.  The essay structure is unclear with no apparent introduction, body or conclusion. Statements are made without support. Instead of giving evidence, the essays repeat generalizations.  If quotes are present, they are presented without context and are not discussed in support of the thesis.  Transitions between paragraphs and sentences are missing.  Critical thinking is absent with only clichés and generalizations presented. Sentences are choppy, awkward and incorrect.  Level of diction is very low.  Many errors are present. Sentence-level errors abound.  MLA documentation is absent or nearly absent. Delivery is weak, meaning that the papers are messy, incomplete, and incorrectly formatted.

1 = Essays in the portfolio are missing or severely underdeveloped. Most papers are only one paragraph. The essays do not answer the assigned question.  The essays have no support from the assigned readings. The sentence structure is so garbled that reading through to content is impossible.  No documentation exists.  The delivery is abysmal.

Converting Two Readers' Scores to Points on the Class Syllabus
At Least 10% of the Overall Grade Comes from the Portfolio Score