8.7: Discussion- Renaissance Love Poems
Source readings : “Whoso list to hunt”; “Rose-cheeked Laura”; “The Passionate Shepherd to his Love”; “The Flea”
Discussion Prompt
Answer all parts of all questions.
Briefly compare and contrast the way the four assigned poems seem to view love or the beloved.
For this prompt the interpretations may vary quite a bit. There is no expected or correct answer, but the most effective answers will demonstrate a deeper rather than a superficial understanding of the poems.
Remember that it is the speakers of the poems who are speaking these views, not the authors (works may be autobiographical, but we cannot be sure of this). Remember to identify each poem by title and author. Include well chosen, brief quotations as needed for support, but most of the answer should be comprised of your own writing.
Discussion Board Instructions
Answer each question, unless otherwise specified. Number your answers (do not copy the prompt into your answers.) Answers need not be of equal length, but all answers must be well developed. The word count total (250+) refers to all answers added together.
In the first sentence or two of your first answer identify the name of the work and full name of the author (if applicable).
Include at least one quotation from the work in your overall response. Use line number(s) to identify the location of your citation. No works cited page is needed.
Grading Rubric
| Levels of Achievement | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Excellent | Good | Adequate | Inadequate | Unacceptable |
| Response: Content Length and Development | 22 Points | 19 Points | 16 Points | 11 Points | 0 Points |
| Meets or exceeds the minimum length requirement. Demonstrates insight and understanding of the text(s) in an excellent, thorough, detailed, clear, and well developed response to the entire prompt. Response is comprised primarily of the student’s own answer(s), but is supported by at least one well chosen quotation. | Meets the minimum length requirement. Demonstrates understanding of the text(s) in a good, clear, well developed response to the entire prompt. Response is comprised primarily of the student’s own answer(s), but is supported by at least one well chosen quotation. | Meets or nearly meets the minimum length requirement. Demonstrates a basic understanding of the text(s) in a developed response to the prompt. Includes an adequate amount of the student’s own answer(s), but may incorporate too much summary, paraphrase, or quotations or lack a quotation for support. | Meets or falls 15%+ short of the minimum length requirement. Inadequately responds to the prompt with answer(s) that are substantively incorrect, superficial, underdeveloped, and/or reliant mostly on summary, paraphrase, or quotations. | Unacceptable development: Fails to meet at least 50% of the length requirement. | |
| Response: Source Identification and Citation | 4 points | 3.5 points | 3 Points | 2 Points | 0 Points |
| Clearly identifies by title and full name of author the name(s) of work(s) to be discussed. Cites material from source(s) as instructed in the assignment. | Identifies the work(s) and author(s). Cites material from source(s) as instructed in the assignment. | Identifies the work(s) or author(s). Cites adequately. | Inadequately identifies source(s) and author(s) and/or inadequately cites source(s). | Lacks identification and citation of source(s). | |
| Response: Grammar and Mechanics | 4 Points | 3.5 Points | 3 Points | 2 Points | 0 Points |
| Response is free or nearly free of errors in grammar (including but not limited to use of full sentences and appropriate word choice) and mechanics (including but not limited to spelling and punctuation). | Response demonstrates occasional errors in grammar or mechanics that do not affect overall clarity. | Demonstrates errors in grammar or mechanics that occasionally affect meaning. | Inadequately meets standards for grammar and mechanics. Clarity is frequently affected. | Unacceptable level of errors in grammar or mechanics. Clarity is greatly affected. | |
| Comment 1: Engagement and Content | 7 Points | 6 Points | 5 Points | 3.5 Points | 0 Points |
| Demonstrates thorough engagement in a comment that is detailed, well crafted, and reflective. | Demonstrates effective engagement in a comment that is effectively crafted and reflective. | Demonstrates an adequate engagement in a comment that addresses at least one point of an answer to the other student’s response. | Demonstrates inadequate engagement in a comment that only superficially or tangentially addresses the content of the other student’s response. | Unacceptable development: Fails to meet at least 50% of the minimum length requirement. | |
| Comment 1: Grammar and Mechanics and Length Requirement | 3 Points | 2.5 Points | 2 Points | 1.5 Points | 0 Points |
| Contains few if any grammar or mechanics issues. Meets or exceeds the minimum length requirement. | Contains few if any grammar or mechanics issues. Meets the length requirement. | Contains grammar and/or mechanics issues that occasionally affect clarity. Meets or falls within 10% of the minimum length requirement. | Inadequately meets standards for grammar and mechanics. Clarity is frequently affected. Meets or falls 15%+ short of the minimum length requirement. | Unacceptable level of errors in grammar or mechanics that greatly affect clarity. (No credit for this element if fails to meet at least 50% of the minimum length requirement.) | |
| Comment 2: Engagement and Content | 7 Points | 6 Points | 5 Points | 3.5 Points | 0 Points |
| Demonstrates thorough engagement with the content of the other student’s response in a comment that is detailed, well crafted, and reflective. | Demonstrates effective engagement in a comment that is effectively crafted and reflective. | Demonstrates an adequate engagement in a comment that engages with at least one point of content in the other student’s response. | Demonstrates inadequate engagement in a comment that only superficially or tangentially addresses the content of the other student’s response. | Unacceptable development: Fails to meet at least 50% of the length requirement. | |
| Comment 2: Grammar and Mechanics and Length Requirement. | 3 Points | 2.5 Points | 2 Points | 1.5 Points | 0 Points |
| Contains few if any grammar or mechanics issues. Meets or exceeds the minimum length requirement. | Contains a few grammar and/or mechanics issues, but these do not affect overall clarity. Meets the minimum length requirement. | Contains grammar and/or mechanics issues that occasionally affect clarity. Meets or falls within 10% of the minimum length requirement. | Inadequately meets standards for grammar and mechanics. Clarity is frequently affected. Meets or falls 15%+ short of the minimum length requirement. | Unacceptable level of errors in grammar or mechanics that greatly affect clarity. (No credit for this element if comment fails to meet at least 50% of the minimum length requirement.) |
- Survey of English Literature I. Authored by : Wendy Howard Gray. Provided by : Reynolds Community College. Located at : http://www.reynolds.edu/ . License : CC BY: Attribution