|
| |
POSITION PAPER: Alternative 1 to grant proposal (30% course grade)
Write a 10- to 15-page position paper on a public library issue. In a
position paper, you should present at least two sides of the issue, and give a
carefully reasoned defense of the side you take. There are many important issues
on which reasonable folks can differ; in this essay you should explore the
questions before resolving them, and give due weight to counterarguments before
settling on a conclusion.
Do not do an online presentation and a position
paper on the same topic. For instance, internet use policy could be a topic for
either a presentation or a paper. The presentation would have to
establish why a policy was needed, but it could focus on how to
write and implement the policy. The position paper would explore the whys in
more depth: what kinds of policy could be adopted? what are the advantages of
one over another? what kinds of risks do we take if we defend unregulated
intellectual freedom, or if we impose limits on it?
Although some controversies
are more conspicuous than others, you will find debatable questions in every
area of public library service: Why choose one form of personnel management over
others? Why should (or shouldn’t) the public library be involved in literacy
training? How can we justify (or change) the fact that public libraries are more
used by people who have education and money to buy books than by people who
haven’t? Why should the lion’s share of materials budgets go into the adult
collections, even when children and teens comprise the majority of a library’s
users?
Your paper should address the questions and issues raised by your topic. It
should include a statement of the issue; a development of each side, supported
by published research and commentary; a discussion of the pros and cons; and a
conclusion.
Criteria for grading
Papers will be graded on the basis of content (40%), organization (35%), and
mechanics (25%).
4. Above the Standard (B+ or A-)
 | Content
 | Central question relevant to course and interesting; topic clearly
defined |
| Well-developed, meaningful rationale for exploring topic |
| Sources used (e.g., journal articles and URLs) relevant and
authoritative; research findings are included and critiqued as relevant |
| Conclusions interesting, useful, and logically based on evidence and
arguments presented in paper |
|
| Organization
| Coherent; includes information needed for intelligent layperson to
follow argument |
| Balanced; emphasizes main points, subordinates details |
| Logical; arguments hang together, and ideas are developed; full
sentences and well-developed paragraphs predominate |
| Individual; own text predominates over quotes and bulleted lists |
|
| Mechanics
| Sources are cited appropriately (for figures, details, and unique
ideas as well as direct quotes) |
| Grammar and spelling correct; language is used clearly and effectively |
| Paper is submitted on time and in a
compatible format, e.g., as a Word document or in rich text format |
|
3. Meets the Standard (B)
| Content
| Central question relevant to course; topic defined |
| Meaningful rationale for exploring topic |
| Sources used (e.g., journal articles, URLs) relevant |
| Conclusions interesting, useful, and logically based on evidence and
argument |
|
| Organization
| Coherent; includes information needed for intelligent layperson to
follow argument |
| Balanced; emphasizes main points, subordinates details |
| Logical; arguments hang together; full sentences and well-developed
paragraphs predominate |
| Individual; own text predominates over quotes and bulleted lists |
|
| Mechanics
| Sources are cited appropriately (for figures, details, and unique
ideas as well as direct quotes) |
| Grammar and spelling correct; language is used clearly |
| Paper is submitted on time and in a
compatible format |
|
2. Approaches the Standard (C+ or B-)
| Content
| Central question may not be adequately related to
course; topic may be vague |
| Rationale may be vague or unpersuasive |
| Sources used may be less relevant
|
| Conclusions may be trite, superficial, unrelated to evidence, or
dependent on evidence and argument insufficiently developed in the paper |
|
| Organization
| May lack information needed for intelligent layperson to follow
argument |
| Balance flawed; main points may be submerged in details |
| Logic flawed; arguments may be undeveloped; points may be repeated
without additional evidence or insight, as if repeated assertion could
substitute; sentence fragments and undeveloped paragraphs may obscure
connections between ideas |
| Less independent thought; own text may serve only to link a collage of
quotes and bulleted lists |
|
| Mechanics
| Although there is a bibliography, sources for facts and ideas in the
text may go uncited; or citations may be incomplete, misspelled, or
otherwise inadequate to their purpose |
| Grammar and spelling may be incorrect; language may be used vaguely
and ineffectively |
| Paper may be late or in an unreadable
format |
|
OTHER alternatives to grant proposal (30% course grade)
Is there some aspect of public library services you really
would like to delve into this semester? If you have a fully formed idea, present
me a proposal; if you just have a half-formed notion, try to explain it. We may
be able to negotiate a structure for your project that will satisfy your needs
and meet the course objectives.
For large enough projects, collaboration might be
justified. For instance:
| as of August 30, 2005, only six students are registered
for this course. This is about the right size for a research team, and if we
find a topic that all or most of you want to do serious original research
on, we could organize by the second or third week of class and develop a
strategy for collecting data. |
| two or three of you might decide to develop a service
web site for the use of one or more public libraries |
|
