The Rewrite Policy Is An Opportunity For You To Improve

The Rewrite Policy Is An Opportunity For You To Improve The Grade Of A

The Rewrite Policy provides students with an opportunity to enhance their grades by revising either an already graded essay or a submission that received a zero grade. This policy is not intended for students to make up for missed assignments but rather to improve work that has already been submitted and assessed. Students are permitted to select up to two essays for rewriting under specified conditions.

To qualify for a rewrite, students must meet one of two criteria:

1. The essay received a grade other than zero, and the student desires to improve it. Corrections and suggestions provided by the professor, typically located on the first two or three pages of the graded paper, can be utilized to enhance the essay. Students can ask the instructor for additional guidance if needed. In rewriting, students should make any modifications they believe will improve their work. The revised essay must be submitted by the last day of the Summer Intersession, July 30, via an attachment sent through a Canvas "Inbox" message. The subject line of the message should specify the essay number as Rewrite Essay #1, #2, etc., and the message text should state, "Rewrite of Essay #1 (or appropriate number) attached."
2. The essay received a zero grade because it was incomplete—missing components such as rough drafts, outlines, checklists, or failing to meet the required length. Students can select up to two essays for rewriting under these circumstances. The process involves rewriting the essay, including the necessary elements to address the original deficiencies. Since a zero grade indicates no prior corrections or suggestions from the professor, students are encouraged to seek guidance if needed. The revised essay must be submitted by July 30 via Canvas "Inbox," with the subject line indicating the essay number, and the message body stating, "Rewrite of Essay #1 (or appropriate number) attached." The improved submission will be graded, replacing the original grade if significantly better.

Both types of rewrites require submission by the deadline, and the new grade will replace the previous one if the revision demonstrates substantial improvement.

Paper For Above instruction

The rewrite policy serves as a valuable opportunity for students to improve their academic performance by revising and resubmitting essays. This policy recognizes that students may learn and develop their skills through the revision process, which promotes deeper engagement with the material and enhances writing proficiency. It also provides a mechanism for students to recover from initial shortcomings, whether they result from inadequate effort, misunderstandings, or unforeseen circumstances. Implementing a structured rewrite process encourages students to take ownership of their learning by critically evaluating their work and making necessary improvements.

From an educational perspective, the rewrite policy aligns with principles of formative assessment, whereby students use feedback to refine their skills actively. Allowing students to select up to two essays for revision fosters a sense of agency and responsibility, motivating them to invest effort into enhancing their work. This approach underscores the importance of mastery learning, emphasizing that initial failure is not final but rather an integral part of the learning journey. The opportunity to rewrite is especially pertinent in developing writing skills, as multiple drafts facilitate reflective thinking and iterative improvement.

Moreover, the policy accommodates different learning styles and circumstances. For example, students who receive a grade other than zero can leverage instructor feedback to refine their ideas, organization, and mechanics. Conversely, students with incomplete submissions, resulting in a zero, can use the rewrite process to address missing elements like outlines or drafts, which are essential for developing a comprehensive and cohesive essay. This flexibility encourages students to learn from their mistakes and understand the significance of meeting assignment criteria.

However, it remains critical that students adhere to the fixed deadline of July 30 for submitting revised essays. Timely submissions demonstrate organizational skills and respect for the course timeline. The process also encourages students to evaluate their work critically before resubmitting, ensuring that revisions are substantive and meaningful. The policy's structure ensures fairness, transparency, and consistency, as grades for revised essays are based on demonstrated improvement, not merely the act of rewriting.

In conclusion, the rewrite policy not only provides a second chance for students to improve their grades but also fosters essential skills such as critical thinking, self-assessment, and perseverance. By embracing this opportunity, students can deepen their understanding of course material, refine their writing abilities, and experience personal growth. Educators benefit too, as the process reinforces the importance of formative feedback in achieving academic excellence and lifelong learning skills.

References

• Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. Pearson Longman.
• Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Corwin Press.
• Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
• Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
• Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.