Assignment: You are assigned two companies, one that you will create on your own, and a competitor.
Using the WSJ paper, find an article on a technology company that interests you. You now need to create an imaginary competitor to that company.
Create a very high level SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) regarding your competition for the technology. Draw from as much information as you can find in WSJ paper and using various archives available through your Wall Street Journal online subscription. Look for articles that describe your competitors news and technology that may impact your company.
Provide a summary of the information you find in the articles that will impact your technological innovations that create threats or opportunities for your company.
Individual Paper: turn in a summary paper outlining your findings
Individual Presentation: you will present on your company and conclusions
SYS/IT 202W Writing Rubric
Does not have skills
Has some skills, still needs some essentials
Has foundation, basics
Confident in skills; applies them well.
–Use of disciplinary questions, values, and methods of analytical or critical thinking.
|–No clear thesis, central idea or sense of purpose.
–No clear development of ideas and arguments Ideas are not elaborated or supported or are not related to each other. Seems more a pastiche, or conglomeration of info
–Writer appears unaware of disciplinary questions, values, and analytical or critical thinking methods..
|–Vague or overly general thesis, central idea or purpose.
–Parts of paper not clearly related to thesis, although information is usually relevant. Ideas may stay on too general a plane or may be stated but lack clear, sufficient elaboration or argumentation.
–Writer uses some disciplinary questions, values, and analytical or critical thinking methods in parts of essay.
|–Coherent thesis that sets up paper well.
–Sense of “almost there,” ideas on the verge of coming together in interesting, original, or solid way. Not fully or consistently articulated or carried off. May contain occasional lack of clarity, relevance, development, or insight or lack of progress in argument.
–Writer uses disciplinary questions, values and analytical or critical thinking methods throughout but is unaware of complexity or interrelationships.
|–Coherent thesis, convincingly stated.
–Key questions, proposed analyses clearly formulated and well-developed. Clear sense of disciplinary values or methods. Supporting points clearly linked to thesis and each other. Conclusions well supported. Easy to follow. –Writer shows nuanced understanding of disciplinary questions, values, analytical or critical thinking methods and employs them with confidence and skill..
|–Marked scarcity of credible or relevant evidence.
–Evidence not analyzed, explained, or applied.
–Sources not properly cited or not cited at all.
|–Uneven selection of credible or relevant sources.
–Evidence not clearly analyzed, explained, or applied, or
— Occasional lapses in citation.
|–Generally evidence is credible, relevant, and sufficient for purpose.
–A attempt is made to analyze, explain, or apply the evidence though it falls short in some way.
|–Varied selection of credible sources,
–Evidence is cogently analyzed, explained, or applied.
–Consistent, correct citation
–Writing for Reader
–Command of writing conventions
|–Unfocused; generally incoherent.
–Readers aren’t led to a conclusion.
–Errors in paragraphing, grammar, usage, spelling, or punctuation are numerous and often interfere with meaning
–Inappropriate diction for audience, writing occasion, or discipline..
|–Recognizable purpose but some gaps in consistency or clarity;
–Over-reliance on reader to fill in gaps in logic, context, or explanation.
–Occasional lapses in diction, paragraphing, grammar or mechanics that interfere with meaning or are inconsistent with “college-level” writing.
|–Focused, clearly stated
–Good sense of reader needs and what is needed to accomplish communicative goal, though it falls short.
–Conforms to standard academic usage, including diction, paragraphing, and mechanics. .
|–Focused, clearly stated, builds to conclusion or toward main purpose. Overall impressions is that it is a well-written, credible argument.
–Clear addressing of reader needs and interests;
–Good grasp of standard academic usage in all aspects.
|Has more than three deviations from the formatting guidelines.||Has two or three deviation from the formatting guidelines.||Has one deviation from the formatting guidelines.||Follows paper formatting guidelines exactly|
|Thesis Statement||Has three or more deviations from the thesis statement guidelines.||Has two or three deviations from the thesis statement guidelines.||Has one deviation from the thesis statement guidelines.||Follows thesis statement guidelines exactly|
|Counter-arguments||Has no counter-arguments to the thesis statement||Has counter-argument(s), but not from reputable sources.||Has one counter-argument to the thesis statement that is cited from a reputable source||Has multiple counter-arguments to the thesis statement that are cited from reputable sources|
*Supporting Evidence = researched sources (from periodicals, websites etc.); materials cited from class texts; lab or research data.
Additional Criteria Checklist
- Thesis is underlined in first paragraph (5 points)
- At least 3 works referenced, each cited at least once in correct APA style (10 points each)
- No spelling errors, except in cited quotations and proper names (2 points each)
- No grammar/style errors or warnings, except in cited quotations and proper names (2 points each)