Notes from the Walter J. Ong Archive

Digging Composition 9

[End Projector slide 1]

Lastly, I want to touch on evaluation of MOO-based writing projects. Evaluation criteria will, of course, depend upon the goals of the course and of the particular assignment. For major MOO-projects in a composition class, I’m interested in two things: Rhetorical principles and demonstration of knowledge. Questions I ask include:

[End Projector slide 2]

Does the MOO project make sense? By that I mean:

  1. does the project get its meaning across in some coherent way?
  2. do the rooms and their objects relate in some way to their content/meaning?
  3. can one tell where the project ends and the rest of the MOO begins?

[End Projector slide 3]

Does the MOO project demonstrate knowledge?

  1. does the project not only have a message, but is that message worthwhile (is it the kind of thinking we would expect from a traditional paper)?
  2. is the information in the MOO project factual, logical, supported well, and documented?
  3. do the rooms and objects demonstrate an understanding of the topic?

[End Projector slide 4]

Does the MOO project demonstrate rhetorical awareness?

  1. is the project navigable?
  2. are there cues to help readers decide what they might want to look at more closely?
  3. do the rooms have objects which impart information, or are there empty rooms with nothing but description?
  4. is the project accessible for the intended audience? Does the audience need to bring special knowledge with them in order to understand the project?

Digging 1 | Digging 2 | Digging 3 | Digging 4 | Digging 5 | Digging 6 | Digging 7 | Digging 8 | Digging 10

Last Modified: 8 November 2005
"Hugin and Munin" image copyright ©, Amy L. Rawson
Everything else
copyright ©2005-2006, John Paul Walter