Self Evaluation Template

1) What score do you think you deserve? Here is the rubric:

2 points - The first draft is thoughtful and a good start to an effective persuasive essay. It demonstrates an understanding of the classical argument.

1 point - The student completes a first draft that demonstrates an understanding of the classical argument

0 points - The first draft is inadequate

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2) What did you do well?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

arguments are based off of opinions and personal feelings.
3) What could you have done better?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4) Which part of the classical argument did you use the best?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5) Which part of the classical argument did you use the most poorly?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6) What's your strategy to make your second draft better? My narration is strong. I do a good job explaining the foundations of the issue, and I prepare my audience to hear my argument.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Week 11 Objectives - Self Evaluation

You should have finished your first draft.

If you did not finish your first draft:

1) Finish your first draft!

If you did finish your draft, congratulations! Give yourself a big pat on the back. Now move on to the self evaluation.

1) Read through this post.
2) Make your own self evaluation post. Use this template.

When you write your first draft, you are in a productive, creative mindset. You should not be criticizing or correcting yourself. You should be creating. Now that you have finished, it is time to change your attitude from creative to critical. We need to assess our work and decide how to make it better. First, let's look at the rubric. From the post:

If either draft is late, one point will be subtracted. 
First Draft - October 26 October 27
Second Draft - November 16

First draft

2 points - The first draft is thoughtful and a good start to an effective persuasive essay. It demonstrates an understanding of the classical argument.

1 point - The student completes a first draft that demonstrates an understanding of the classical argument

0 points - The first draft is inadequate

First, what score do you think you deserve? Write a brief justification. Think about it, then look at my answer.

- I think I deserve 0 points. I only included 4 out of the 5 elements of a classical argument, and my research was inadequate to support my thesis.

Next, let's decide what did you do well, and what could you do better? Think about it, then look at my answers.

1) My organization was good. The elements of my argument are all logically connected, and there is no unnecessary information. 

2) I could have used research better. Basically, I need to do more research. Most of my arguments are based off of opinions and personal feelings.

Please recall the 5 parts of the classical argument. Which part of the classical argument did you use the best? Which part could be improved? Think about it, then look at my answers.

1) My narration is strong. I do a good job explaining the foundations of the issue, and I prepare my audience to hear my argument.

2) My confirmation is very weak. Because it doesn't have enough research, my ideas are not convincing. 

Last, what's your strategy for your next draft? Where will you focus your attention to make the second draft stronger?

- I think the best thing I can do for my essay is improve my research. I need at least three more reliable sources to make my thesis compelling. Also, I didn't include a refutation, so obviously that is essential to include. The last thing I should do is strengthen my introduction and conclusion. Neither one is very strong. The introduction is not engaging; I don't think it will attract a reader's attention. The conclusion has nothing memorable for the audience to be left with. So, basically, my three step plan: 1) Research! 2) Write the concession. 3) Improve intro and conclusion.

Now that you have a plan, go forth and improve! Write that second draft due November 16.

First Draft Example

This is my first draft. It is a combination of all 5 blog posts, modified slightly to blend together nicely. Please notice, there are (almost) no grammar or spelling errors (I hope). It is polished and clean. Yours should be, too. 

Use the label: First Draft 

Here is another example that I did not write.

Just Machines

Everyday we marvel at the power of our tiny computing devices - a phone that knows if it is in a purse or not, a watch that tracks your calendar, or shoes that help you exercise optimally by measuring your heart rate. However, we usually forget perhaps the most amazing computing device we all have - our brains. Perhaps computers can beat the brain in certain, limited computational tasks, but the overall performance of the brain out-performs every man made object to date. Think about it - Your brain keeps you balanced while you walk, helps you decide when and what to eat, regulates your emotions and allows for all art and culture ever produced. Actually, you couldn't even think about this without your brain, a task no computer could accomplish. Although computers are constantly evolving, they will never be as powerful as the human brain.

Since Samuel Butler first expressed his fears of the rapid development of machinery, humans have fixated on this imagined future where we are enslaved or worse by our own creations. Considering he said, "There is no security against the ultimate development of mechanical consciousness," in the 19th century, before computers, his words proved surprisingly salient. Despite the fact that computers are indisputably growing in terms of computational power at an incredible rate, there is no reason to realistically fear a computer that can work autonomously in any meaningful way, let alone outsmart a human. Consider Microsoft's Project Adam. The software can sort and organize millions of photos quickly and accurately by analyzing the images. It can distinguish between extremely similar looking breeds of dogs in a photo, for example. Practically this means you might one day be able to do an image search for a sweater you want, oh, say, "a mauve cashmere sweater with 3/4 lengths sleeves," and without any cumbersome text based tagging or sorting the search engine will analyze every single image on the internet and parse out all the cashmere sweaters that aren't mauve or have full sleeves. An impressive accomplishment. This represents one of the most incredible achievements of practical computing today. However, even this breakthrough in computing technology does nothing to narrow the gap between computer and human intelligence. The technology cannot operate independently of human involvement. The technology is still responding entirely to human based input, on human based instructions with human programmers and human technology feeding it, like electricity or data from the internet. 

Or, to look at an example of cutting edge technology trying more directly to mirror the power of the human brain, let's consider the Human Brain Project's effort to recreate the human brain's neural network by networking millions of computers. Their hope is that one day the network will be so sophisticated that it will have the same plasticity and power of a human brain. Even though there are real people with real plans to accomplish this, on their own website they acknowledge how unfeasible this project is in reality, and why even if it is created it will not really rival human brain power. First, the power consumption of their current model is more than an obstacle, it is a concrete barrier. The technology required would require hundreds of millions of times the power of the human brain. That means that to power one single hypothetical brain, it would require the entire power production of several small countries combined - for one "brain". 

If we examine the thinkers that predict a world of computers thinking on a human level we encounter a mostly deluded camp of sci-fi lovers who base their theories on Star Wars inspired fantasy more than any facts. Even the serious and respected thinkers, like Ray Kurzweil, Google's "futurologist" (Even the title invites mockery, doesn't it?) have questionable motives when they make predictions about computers that think like people in 15 years. The existence of his job relies on the hope that one day computers can reach that level. Similarly, Kurzweil's reputation would suffer if the idea that computer's will match our thinking power became common place. Certainly The Guardian would be less interested in him.

Artificial intelligence, and the abiding fears of computer-powered dominion over humans, are common place and popular fodder for idle discussion. However, when considered in reality these fears are misguided, and the hope of a computer as smart as a human is absurd. 

Perhaps one of the challenges to adequately discussing this topic is the difficulty of defining the human brain in a way that can be compared to a computer so as to compare the power of the two. Let's first look at the human brain through a terrible lens, and one that sci fi concepts seem to constantly attribute to computers: the power to destroy. Perhaps the unique human ability to war and fight at a level unique to our species (Dolphins, as predatory and scary as they may be, will never launch a mortar barrage against an enemy pod or engage in genocide.) so will robots ever reach this uniquely human metric? Computer science professor at the University of Sheffield, England Noel Sharkey says no. "They are just computer systems... the only way they can become dangerous is when used in military applications." To Sharkey, robots and artificial intelligence have the greatest growth potential in toy markets, a strong indication of the potential for nefariousness he sees in future computing technology. He goes on to point out that the largest developments in robotics come not from software, but from their hardware. Robots that can walk or navigate difficult terrain seem to be the new trend for robots mimicking human behavior.

An article from Vox.com makes an interesting case about why computers will never be able to match human intelligence:

A computer program has never grown up in a human family, fallen in love, been cold, hungry or tired, and so forth. In short, they lack a huge amount of the context that allows human beings to relate naturally to one another.

Basically, the argument is that even if a computer can match our brain's computational power (A very far off and unlikely possibility), it will never be able to pass as a human because it lacks the experiences that really create our humanity. Or, in other words, humans are so much more than our brain power - we are the products of our upbringings. Our tenacity, will, passions and dreams all come from the sum of our experiences, not how fast we think. Because of that, computers will not be able to function at a human level of creativity or character. 

Actually, this supposition stems from a famous scenario from philosopher John Searle in the 1980s. He proposed that an Englishman with no knowledge of Chinese, if locked in a room with an instruction manual for reading and writing Chinese characters, could successfully interpret and respond to messages passed under the door to him from a native Chinese speaker on the outside of the room. Theoretically, given enough time, the Englishman could respond so accurately that the native Chinese speaker would be sure that she was in fact corresponding with another native Chinese speaker.  Essentially, the Englishman would have passed himself off as a Chinese person with no contextual understanding of what it means to be Chinese. The extension of the argument into artificial intelligence is that even if we create a computer that can mimic and interact with humans so convincingly that we believe we are conversing with a real human, that machine will not be human because it lacks the contextual understandings of humanity.

Whether we define the brain by what it produces (In this paper I discussed the example of war, but many other examples would suffice, art or romance, for example), or in terms of raw computational power or how the experiences that mold each molecularly similar brain into such unique masterpieces the conclusion remains the same: Any computer, no matter how powerful or well conceived, can approach a human level of thought or existence.

It is not hard to find sources that will warn you of the coming robot apocalypse or singularity that will render humans obsolete, either in entertainment - the Matrix or Terminator series - or legitimate science - Ron Kurzweil and the whole school of futuroligists. In part, I agree; computers and technology are capable of terrifying acts of destruction and cold inhumanity. What is important to remember, though, is that none of these acts are possible without human provocation, and the sometimes-scary lifelessness of computers is really only as scary as the lifelessness of a vacuum cleaner or screw driver. In short, they’re tools: Incredibly powerful, important and relied-upon tools, but still just tools. If we ever limit the expansion of technology, we will cost ourselves advances in medicine, food, water and air purification, clean energy developments and crisis management solutions. It is not an exaggeration to say that technological advances save lives when used responsibly. Instead of looking at technology suspiciously, we need to consider it from the perspective of, “How can we use this technology? How can we develop it to better serve our needs?” Like Prometheus surely scared his friends by wielding fire, we will no doubt earn criticism and condemnation for allowing and encouraging the pursuit of new technologies. But, like Prometheus, it will be easy to ignore those criticisms with a full belly - or a robot hygienist meticulously disinfecting our whole house, as the case may be.

Conclusion Example

Instructions:

1. Read the conclusion instructions here.
2. Write your conclusion and all the drafts like this example. 
3. Don’t delete the old conclusions! Keep a record of them so I and your peers can see your progress.

My Conclusion 1

It is not hard to find sources that will warn you of the coming robot apocalypse or singularity that will render humans obsolete, either in entertainment (The Matrix) or legitimate science (Ron Kurzweil). I will be the first to admit that in so many ways these fears are justified. Computers and technology are capable of terrifying acts of destruction and cold inhumanity. What is important to remember, though, is that none of these acts are possible without human provocation, and the sometimes-scary lifelessness of computers is, when put in perspective, as scary as the lifelessness of a vacuum cleaner or screw driver. In short, they’re tools. Incredibly powerful, important and relied-upon tools. If we ever limit the expansion of technology, or anything, really, based on an unfounded fear though, we are costing ourselves so much. We will cost ourselves advances in medicine, food, water and air purification, clean energy developments and crisis management solutions. Dramatic as it may sound, it is not an exaggeration to say that technological advances save lives when used responsibly. Instead of looking at the onward march of technology as a criminal or culprit in the various woes of humanity we need to consider it from the more realistic and opportunistic perspective of, “How can we use this technology? How can we develop it to better serve our needs?” Like Prometheus surely scared his friends by wielding fire, we will no doubt earn criticism and condemnation for allowing and encouraging the pursuit of new technologies, but like Prometheus, it will be easy to ignore those criticisms with a full belly. 

My Conclusion 2

It is not hard to find sources that will warn you of the coming robot apocalypse or singularity that will render humans obsolete, either in entertainment - the Matrix or Terminator series - or legitimate science - Ron Kurzweil and the whole school of futuroligists. In part, I agree; computers and technology are capable of terrifying acts of destruction and cold inhumanity. What is important to remember, though, is that none of these acts are possible without human provocation, and the sometimes-scary lifelessness of computers is really only as scary as the lifelessness of a vacuum cleaner or screw driver. In short, they’re tools: Incredibly powerful, important and relied-upon tools, but still just tools. If we ever limit the expansion of technology, we will cost ourselves advances in medicine, food, water and air purification, clean energy developments and crisis management solutions. It is not an exaggeration to say that technological advances save lives when used responsibly. Instead of looking at technology suspiciously, we need to consider it from the perspective of, “How can we use this technology? How can we develop it to better serve our needs?” Like Prometheus surely scared his friends by wielding fire, we will no doubt earn criticism and condemnation for allowing and encouraging the pursuit of new technologies. But, like Prometheus, it will be easy to ignore those criticisms with a full belly - or a robot hygienist meticulously disinfecting our whole house, as the case may be.

Week 10 Objectives - Conclusion

Weekly objectives  

1. Check your mock research grade.
2. Continue working on wherever you are in the project.
3. Read the explanation below of the conclusion.
4. When you’ve finished weeks 1-9, write your conclusion by following this example.

The Conclusion

Let’s first look at the instructions from the PDF:

The summation, which provides a strong conclusion, amplifying the force of the argument, and showing the readers that this solution is the best at meeting the circumstances.

It is tempting in the conclusion just to restate the claims and thesis, but this does not give a sense of momentum or closure to your argument. Instead, try to hearken back to the narration and the issues. Remind your readers what’s at stake and try to show why your thesis provides the best solution to the issue being faced. This gives an impression of the rightness and importance of your argument, and suggests its larger significance or long-range impact. More importantly, it gives the readers a psychological sense of closure; the argument winds up instead of breaking off.

I like this explanation. Let’s look at it piece by piece and try to understand it. Then, we’ll look at a good example. Red words are my words.

1.     It is tempting in the conclusion just to restate the claims and thesis, but don’t do it. It is not a mature way of writing, and it is also not persuasive.

2.     Reference your narration and issues. Remind your readers why your issue is interesting or important and try to show why your thesis is the best solution or idea.

3.     Suggest your argument’s larger significance or long-range impact.

4.     Give the readers a psychological sense of closure.

That’s a fine set of instructions, but the question I hope you have is, “How do I do that?” Here’s how. 

Step 1: Write a conclusion however you want to, in whatever way you think is good or easy or fun or anything. 

Step 2: Look at these 4 instructions. Does your conclusion fit these 4 commands? If the answer is yes, you’re done! If the answer is no, rewrite it and go back to step 2.

Check out this fancy flow chart I made. 

Now, maybe you have another question: “How do I know if I am only restating my thesis and claims?” You have three options. 1) Self assess 2) Peer assess 3) Teacher assess. Two of those options require you to ask for help! Don’t be shy about asking for help! You have a lot of opportunities to do that.

Ok, so let’s take a look at an example I’ll build using this process. The topic comes from a recent 1^st grade performance test. 

Just in case you thought it sounded ridiculous

Cartoon characters should not endorse alcohol.

Draft 1

          Cartoon characters should not endorse alcohol. Cartoon characters are role models for children, and if they exhibit bad behavior children will copy it. Also, cartoon characters are the last “pure” pieces of entertainment we have. Every other TV show or movie is full of sex and violence. Cartoon characters are what we can rely on for entertainment that doesn’t challenge our morals. Last, it is illegal to market age restricted products like alcohol or tobacco to underage people. The target demographic for cartoon characters and shows is clearly children. Therefore, the marketing the cartoon characters would provide is targeted at children, which is illegal. So, because they are pure role models and it is illegal, cartoon characters should not endorse alcohol.

Use the flow chart. What do you think? Is this a good conclusion?

-This is a very formulaic, boring conclusion. It simply restates the thesis and claims. It does not help persuade anyone about my thesis. I need to try again!

Cartoon characters should not endorse alcohol.

Draft 2

          Since the first investigation into the power of marketing to influence children it has been clear that children are more vulnerable to marketing than other groups of people. This is a significant reason why cartoon characters should not endorse alcohol. Children are at a stage in their life where they are forming many important ideas and opinions, and it is unfair for corporate interests to exploit that special time of development. We need to remember that this marketing doesn’t only affect “at risk” or “bad” kids, but everyone. Or, perhaps more importantly, it can easily push children who are unsure about whether or not to drink alcohol into drinking alcohol. That’s a serious issue.

Use the flow chart. What do you think? Is this a good conclusion?

-I should mention a specific investigation from my narration. There’s no discussion of “the big picture” or the implications of the thesis. I need to include those things.

Cartoon characters should not endorse alcohol.

Draft 3

          A responsible society should not allow cartoon characters to market inappropriate products, like alcohol, to children. First, to be clear, alcohol is inappropriate for children because at this point in their life it is damaging to their development, and inaccurate advertisements can mislead them about the realities of alcohol. According to…. Children need protection from these corporate interests. If we don’t take legal steps to prevent alcohol companies from marketing directly to children through their favorite cartoon characters, we are culpable in whatever ailments befall them or our societies.

Use the flow chart. What do you think? Is this a good conclusion?

-Not bad… I include my thesis, mention my narration, address the importance of the issue and consider the big picture, but it feels underdeveloped. In the next draft I’ll explain the implications a bit more. I don’t see a real strong sense of closure, though. How can I leave my readers with a stronger impression of my piece?

Cartoon characters should not endorse alcohol.

Draft 4

          A responsible society should not allow cartoon characters to market inappropriate products, like alcohol, to children. First, to be clear, alcohol is inappropriate for children because at this point in their life it is damaging to their development, and inaccurate advertisements can mislead them about the realities of alcohol. According to…. Children need protection from these corporate interests. If we don’t take legal steps to prevent alcohol companies from marketing directly to children through their favorite cartoon characters, we are culpable in whatever ailments befall them or our societies. We will see increases in underage drinking, alcohol addiction, alcohol related diseases, accidents and crimes. Who will pay for that damage? It will be you and me, certainly not the alcohol companies. Corporations will always try to attract new customers, and when those customers are our children it is our social and familial responsibility to protect them through whatever means necessary.

Use the flow chart. What do you think? Is this a good conclusion?

-I think I did a great job here. It is persuasive because I point out it is our responsibility to protect our children. That is a memorable conclusion. Also, I specifically address the real consequences and implications of allowing cartoon characters to endorse alcohol. I think I’ll use this for my blog post!

Week 9 Objectives - Refutation and Concession

Week 9 Objectives

1. Read about the mock grades you will receive.
2. Start taking this project seriously. Too many of you are still on your brainstorming or research questions. You are responsible for managing your own time, and we expect high quality first drafts due October 26.
3. Read this post about the 4th part of the classical argument, the refutation and concession.
4. Read the example refutation and concession.
5. IF you have finished all the objectives before week 9, write your own refutation and concession. If not, catch up!

What is the objective of a persuasive essay?

- To persuade

Can you persuade someone who agrees with you?

- No

What kind of people can you persuade?

- People who disagree with you. 

A common technique to persuade people who disagree with you is to examine their arguments and point out why they're wrong. To do this successfully and effectively, you must do the following things. 1) Anticipate their arguments. 2) Create strong counterarguments. 3) Strengthen your persuasive argument. 

Let's do an exercise. This is my persuasive thesis: Dogs are more suitable pets than cats. Here are my arguments: Dogs are friendlier, more playful and can go on trips with you. 

Now let's think about the counterarguments.

What arguments will cat lovers use?

- Cats do not drool. Cats use litter boxes. You can leave cats by themselves for a few days at a time. 

What counterarguments will you use for them?

- Dog drool is not gross and actually getting licked by your dog is fun and an enjoyable bonding experience. Taking your dog for a walk is a good excuse to go for a walk, and having a box full of poop in your house is gross. Dogs can go with you when you go on trips, so they don't need to stay home alone. 

How will you use this to strengthen your argument? 

- The opposition's arguments seem to be based on some pretty undesirable situations. First, cats are supposedly better than dogs because they don't demonstrate affection for people by licking them. Personally, I enjoy that bonding experience with my dog. Second, I don't understand how having a box full of poop hidden in your house is better than having a nice walk around the block with your dog. Last, it seems like the opponents are saying that one of the best reasons to have a cat is that it is easy to get away from your pet. As a dog owner, I don't want to get away from my pet, and actually I enjoy going on road trips with him. 

Do you see how I argued against the (imagined) opponent and also included new affirmative arguments for my own position? 

Here's a question: If you anticipate an argument from your opponent you cannot counter, should you include it in your refutation and concession?

- NO. Never weaken your own argument. 

Refutation and Concession Example

Refutation and Concession Example

Instructions:
1. Answer the following questions.
2. Write your own refutation and concession.

1. What is my thesis?
Although computers are constantly evolving, they will never be as powerful as the human brain.

2. What is the opposite position?
Eventually, computers will equal or surpass human brains.

3. What arguments can I anticipate?
a) Moore's Law (Computer processors double in power every year). b) Kurzweil, Google's futurologist and singularity poster boy. c) Advances in robot technology mirroring human behavior.

4. How will I counter those arguments?

a) Not an actual law, just an observation and prediction that has so far been true. b) Kurzweil is a publicity figure and promotes the idea of a singularity as a tool of self promotion. c) Robotics and CPU power are not parallel. 

My Refutation and Concession

Obviously my opinion is not the popular one, despite being the correct one. There are plenty of people who will dispute my position with examples from Ron Kurzweil, or Moore's law, or various recent advances in robotic technology that mimics human behavior. Of course, these arguments are all shortsighted and simply incorrect. First of all, Moore's Law - the prediction that computer power will double every year created by Intel cofounder Gorden E. Moore in 1965 - is really not a law. While it has proven roughly accurate so far, there is no reason to expect that this trend will continue. It's like saying that because the wind has been blowing South for the past hour, it will continue to do the same for eternity. In fact a more recent head of Intel, Bob Colwell, predicted the end of Moore's law to come in the year 2020 due to practical limitations of the physical world. Computers will continue to get more powerful, but they will never reach the computing power necessary to compete with a human brain because of the fact that a transistor can never be created at a size smaller than 5 nanometers. Perhaps my most likely detractor would be Ron Kurzweil, the singularity fanboy that no doubt most other detractors would quickly cite if asked to defend their position. The problem is Kurzweil is little more than a science fiction author with a reputable employer (Google). The truth is that Kurzweil's articulate predictions for the expansion of technology are mere conjecture with no solutions to the barriers people like Bob Colwell anticipate. Perhaps the most obvious reason that he would never concede to the improbability of his hypothesis is that his entire professional career and reputation are staked on the hope that one day the singularity - the moment computers reach consciousness and network together then begin multiplying in numbers and power exponentially - will become a reality. Lastly, and frankly the most laughable counterargument to my position would come from the belief that the modern trend in robotics to humanize their subjects will logically extend to cpus. If we make robots that look like humans, doesn't it make sense that our computers will act like humans, too? No, it doesn't make sense. In fact, we've been copying human movement in primitive toys since 2000 BC in Egypt and self propelled windup robots since the 15th century. The pursuit to artificial intelligence is a unique field that has been a subject of sci fi until only very recently. Humans like making things that look like humans and we always will, but we will never make a computer as smart as a human. 

UPDATE Mock Grades

Myself and Agnes Teacher will be giving each of your blog's a mock grade for your research. We are doing this so you can realize if you are meeting our expectations or not. This grade is just a signal to indicate if you are doing it right nor not. If you get a low grade, don't panic, you have time to improve. If you get a high grade, congratulations, keep up the good work. Just a reminder, this is the rubric for the semester, and following is the rubric for just your research:

5 points maximum for research
You will demonstrate your research through "Research" blog posts with the label "research".

5 points

The student shows creativity and perseverance in her research. The research was clearly a process of exploration and reveals a pattern of thought, inquiry and revelation.

4 points

The research displays a clear, reasoned evolution from beginning to end. The student is committed to finding useful sources.

3 points

The research is adequate for completing the persuasive essay.

2 points

The research is inadequate.

0 points

There is no meaningful research.

I gave grades in reply to your post about your blog address, or on one of your blog posts.