Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Remember – your actual journal entry should be somewhat brief; most of your time should be spent thinking about the questions asked and the issues raised. Your thoughts should then be distilled into a mini-argument that will respond affirmatively to the four tests for evaluating arguments: truthfulness of premises, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity.
For this journal assignment, briefly answer each of the following prompts:
If you include references to outside sources (beyond the textbook), make sure you cite them properly.
Writing Requirements (APA format)
This activity will be graded using the Journal Grading Rubric.
Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 4, 5, 6
Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Journal Grading Rubric – 35 ptsJournal Grading Rubric – 35 ptsCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength5.0 ptsMeets length requirement0.0 ptsDoes not meet length requirement5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent Reflection15.0 ptsReflection demonstrates a high degree of critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions activities, and/or assignments. Insightful and relevant connections made through contextual explanations, inferences, and examples.12.75 ptsReflection demonstrates some degree of critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and/or evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions activities, and/or assignments. Connections made through explanations, inferences, and/or examples.11.25 ptsReflection demonstrates limited critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and/or evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions, activities, and/or assignments. Minimal connections made through explanations, inferences, and/or examples.9.0 ptsReflection lacks critical thinking. Superficial connections are made with key course concepts and course materials, activities, and/or assignments.0.0 ptsLittle or no reflection; copies or repeats text or lecture.15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePersonal Growth10.0 ptsConveys strong evidence of reflection on own work with a personal response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates significant personal growth and awareness of deeper meaning through inferences made, examples, well developed insights, and substantial depth in perceptions and challenges. Synthesizes current experience into future implications.8.5 ptsConveys evidence of reflection on own work with a personal response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates satisfactory personal growth and awareness through some inferences made, examples, insights, and challenges. Some thought of the future implications of current experience.7.5 ptsConveys limited evidence of reflection on own work in response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates less than adequate personal growth and awareness through few or simplistic inferences made, examples, insights, and/or challenges that are not well developed. Minimal thought of the future implications of current experience.6.0 ptsConveys inadequate evidence of reflection on own work in response to the self-assessment questions posed. Personal growth and awareness are not evident and/or demonstrates a neutral experience with negligible personal impact. Lacks enough inferences, examples, personal insights and challenges, and/or future implications are overlooked.0.0 ptsNo evidence of reflection.10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Quality5.0 ptsWell written and clearly organized using standard English, characterized by elements of a strong writing style and basically free from grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling errors.4.25 ptsAbove average writing style and logically organized using standard English with minor errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling.3.75 ptsAverage and/or casual writing style that is sometimes unclear and/or with some errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling.3.0 ptsPoor writing style lacking in standard English, clarity, language used, and/or frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling. Needs work.0.0 ptsLacks coherence; errors in grammar, usage and spelling interfere with readability and understanding to significant degree.5.0 pts
Total Points: 35.0PreviousNext
We value our customers and so we ensure that what we do is 100% original..
With us you are guaranteed of quality work done by our qualified experts.Your information and everything that you do with us is kept completely confidential.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
The Product ordered is guaranteed to be original. Orders are checked by the most advanced anti-plagiarism software in the market to assure that the Product is 100% original. The Company has a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism.Read more
The Free Revision policy is a courtesy service that the Company provides to help ensure Customer’s total satisfaction with the completed Order. To receive free revision the Company requires that the Customer provide the request within fourteen (14) days from the first completion date and within a period of thirty (30) days for dissertations.Read more
The Company is committed to protect the privacy of the Customer and it will never resell or share any of Customer’s personal information, including credit card data, with any third party. All the online transactions are processed through the secure and reliable online payment systems.Read more
By placing an order with us, you agree to the service we provide. We will endear to do all that it takes to deliver a comprehensive paper as per your requirements. We also count on your cooperation to ensure that we deliver on this mandate.Read more