Hi -
I have used the 'Taking Sides' supplement on occassion with reasonable
outcomes. . . the criteria below were used to guide the students through the
critical thinking I hoped they would develop throughout the semester.
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE PAPER:
Your text on controversial issues in psychology covers a number of topics
that relate to the material we will be discussing during the course. I have
listed on the course schedule each controversial issue with the topic it
complements. You will at least skim through these issues as the topics are
covered during the semester, and choose the issue that you find most
interesting for this assignment. Read through both sides of the issue
carefully and address each of the questions below. Your paper should be at
least 500-600 words long (about 2 type-written pages).
Assessment Criteria Categories:
Answer the following as well as you can from the material presented by each
author:
1) Briefly state in your own words three facts presented. (1.5 points)
2) State in your own words three opinions given. (1.5 points)
3) Identify in your own words the propaganda techniques used, if any. (1.5
points)
4) What cause/effect relationships were implied or stated by the author?
(1.5 points)
5) Were any of these cause/effect statements faulty? Why? (1.5 points)
6) Did you find evidence of other logical errors on the part of the author?
Explain where and how for each of the topics listed below: (1.5 points)
Distortion of Information
Faulty Analogy
Oversimplification
Stereotyping
Faulty Generalization
7) How credible is the author? What are the author's credentials for writing
this
presentation? (1.5 points)
8) How does this material fit in with material in your text or material
presented in class.
Be specific. (1.5 points)
Assessment Criteria for Quality of Content:
24 points - (12 points for each author or point of view) for quality of
content given for each of the 8 topics above.
Writing demonstrates:
Good understanding of the issues and points of view.
Accuracy of information, evidence or data.
Organized and effective presentation.
Enthusiastic presentation.
3 points - (1.5 points each author) Clarity of writing (spelling, grammar,
punctuation)
3 points - (1.5 points each author) Neatness of presentation
Sandra Nagel Randall
