- Instructions:
It will examine this as a social-ecological system with cross-scale interactions and incorporate the knowledge that we are acquiring in class in your analysis. The report may cover it from the perspective of specific groups of people, take a local/regional/national/international perspective, focus on specific effects, focus on adaptation efforts, whatever. There is a great deal of flexibility from this perspective. This is an analysis, so I will expect critical thought, cogent and coherent arguments, and personal insights only when building from evidence collected through research.
Draw on what we have learned and discussed in this class – feedback loops, emergent outcomes, aspects of resilience, etc. Your paper should have an introduction where you describe the specific system of interest, what the relevant issues/themes are, and who the key actors are. You will then discuss and analyze the system. You have a great deal of self-guided flexibility in this. If you are unsure about format, content, the system that you are analyzing, etc, please contact me.
Your write-up should be evidence-based, not opinion. Present your analysis of what you find across a variety of sources. Where evidence is weak or non-existent, acknowledge that and fill in the gaps with logic and reasoned argumentation. Identify the holes in your argument and suggest what future information could help bolster your case. Acknowledge that the problem is complex and that there is room for multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. In short, use your critical thinking skills and clear written communication.
Students are expected to use at least 8 academic cites (Wikipedia can be used, but it doesn’t count for one of the citations). Should be approximately 5-7 pages double-spaced with 12 point Times New Roman font (excluding references). See the rubrics for guidance about grading criteria. This will help you to understand the points from which I will be assessing the papers.
- Rubric:
Evaluation of Evidence
25 to >16.0 pts
MasteringConsiders evidence from several sources. – Is able to avoid purely egocentric perspectives. – Recognized the limitations of the evidence and explains why it is limited.16 to >8.0 pts
Developing– Considers some evidence. – Moves away from egocentric perspectives toward a focus on evidence from class and outside materials. – Claims that evidence might be limited or one-sided, but does not explain why.8 to >0.0 pts
EmergingWrites in Generalities. – Uses primarily personal experience. – Accepts information “as is.” Does not indicate how evidence may be limited or one-sided.Analysis and Synthesis25 to >16.0 pts
MasteringPresents analysis of the information rather than accepting “as is.” – Recognizes and avoids logical flaws. – Draws explicit connections between information from different sources. – Explores the contradictions or inadequacies in the evidence.16 to >8.0 pts
Developing– Provides a cursory and superficial analysis of the evidence. – States that there are problems with the evidence, but only addresses with generalities. – Loosely ties information together from different sources. – Points out general contradictions or inadequacies in the information without explaining the specifics.8 to >0.0 pts
Emerging– Merely repeats information as truth of denies evidence without adequate justification. – Does not demonstrate an understanding of the flaws in the evidence. – Does not make connections among different sources. – Defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.