Purpose: Respond to one of the ads listed below (5% of your total grade)
Assignment: Choose one (only one) of the ads listed below. Choose the most appealing ad to you (the one that convinced you or moved you the most) to answer the questions in your reflection.(answer them as a paragraph)
- http://www.viewpure.com/Hzgzim5m7oU
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAxUpeVhCg
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjmlv1rbGKE
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGqyMtnO7E
Questions:
1– Which ad is the most persuasive? And, Why?
2- What types of persuasive appeals are used (ethos, pathos, logos or a combination of two or three)?
3– Did the ad succeed in connecting to you as an audience?
Instructions:
- Your paragraph should be between 120-150 words (only). More than 150 words, you will lose marks.
- Submit your paragraph via the Discussion Forum: “Ads Persuasive Appeals Forum”.
- Do not reply to my post. If you replied to my post, I will not mark it for you.
- You have to create a thread to post your Reflection. Create a thread (as I showed you during class demonstration) and write your full name and ID number before you post your response.
- Please, copy and paste your paragraph on the thread. Do not upload a file. If you upload a file, I will not mark it for you.
- The Discussion Forum will be available starting Sunday 11/11/2022 at 4:00 p.m.
- Before you post your response, please use Word to check spelling and punctuation.
- Deadline: Tuesday 13/11/2022 before 4:00 p.m.
- Check the rubric below to see how I will mark the assignment.
Marking Scheme:
The reading reflections will be marked as follows:
In this reflection, you will lose marks for grammatical, punctuation and sentence structure mistakes.
- Full mark (9/10) = the 3 elements (1,2 &3) of the reflection are addressed with clarity of content, critical engagement with few grammatical and punctuation mistakes.
- Mark (8/10) = the 3 elements (1,2 &3) of the reflection are addressed with clarity of content, critical engagement with some grammatical and punctuation mistakes
- Half-mark (7/10) = one of the elements is not addressed with fair treatment of content and critical engagement and some grammatical and punctuation mistakes.
- Half mark (6/10) = two of the elements are not addressed with fair treatment of content and critical engagement and many grammatical and punctuation mistakes.
-Zero mark (0/10) if you did not submit the reflection before the deadline
Critical Reflection Rubric
| Criteria | Critical Reflection Superior (4.5-5 points) | Reflection Sufficient (4-4.5 points) | Understanding Minimal (3.5-4 points) | Insufficient Reflection Unacceptable (3-3.5points) |
| Depth of Reflection | Response demonstrates an in-depth reflection on, and personalization of, the strategies and reading comprehension skills, particularly in critical and analytical reading presented in the course materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are insightful and well supported. Clear, detailed examples are provided, as applicable. | Response demonstrates a general reflection on, and personalization of, the strategies and reading comprehension skills, particularly in critical and analytical reading presented in the course materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are supported. Appropriate examples are provided, as applicable. | Response demonstrates a minimal reflection on, and personalization of, the strategies and reading comprehension skills, particularly in critical and analytical reading presented in the course materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are unsupported or supported with flawed arguments. Examples, when applicable, are not provided or are irrelevant to the assignment. | Response demonstrates a lack of reflection on, or personalization of, the strategies and reading comprehension skills, particularly in critical and analytical reading presented in the course materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are missing, inappropriate, and/or unsupported. Examples, when applicable, are not provided. |
| Required Components | Response includes all components and meets or exceeds all requirements indicated in the instructions. Each question or part of the assignment is addressed thoroughly. | Response includes all components and meets all requirements indicated in the instructions. Each question or part of the assignment is addressed. | Response is missing some components and/or does not fully meet the requirements indicated in the instructions. Some questions or parts of the assignment are not addressed. | Response excludes essential components and/or does not address the requirements indicated in the instructions. Many parts of the assignment are addressed minimally, inadequately, and/or not at all. |
| Structure | Writing is clear, concise, and well organized with excellent sentence/paragraph construction. Thoughts are expressed in a coherent and logical manner. There are no more than three spelling, grammar, or syntax errors per response. | Writing is mostly clear, concise, and well organized with good sentence/paragraph construction. Thoughts are expressed in a coherent and logical manner. There are no more than five spelling, grammar, or syntax errors per response. | Writing is unclear and/or disorganized. Thoughts are not expressed in a logical manner. There are more than five spelling, grammar, or syntax errors per response. | Writing is unclear and disorganized. Thoughts ramble and make little sense. There are numerous spelling, grammar, or syntax errors throughout the response. |
| Reflection on Existing Knowledge | Critically reviews existing knowledge, questions assumptions, and articulates new perspectives as a result of experience. | Active and careful consideration of existing knowledge and articulates new understanding of knowledge as a result of experience. | Makes use of existing knowledge without an attempt to evaluate/appraise knowledge; demonstrates understanding but does not relate to other experiences or personal reaction. | Automatic/superficial responses with little conscious/deliberate thought or reference to existing knowledge; responses are offered without attempting to understand them. |
Rubric modified from: Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Kam, F., & Wong, Y. (2008). A four-category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 369-379.
