Guidelines for Thought Paper

Based on the report/ own readings of the journal article presented, use the guide questions below to write your thought paper: 1. What specific issues stand out in the journal article? Do you agree or disagree with how the author/s e plained these issues? !f you agree, which points did the author/s raised that you agree with and why? !f you disagree, which points did the author/s raised that you disagree with and why? ". #oo$ for a parallel journal article that agrees or disagrees with the points that you raised. %sing the parallel journal article, what is/are the point/s which the author/s &entioned that you can use to argue your position on the issues you raised? '. (ow would you relate the article to a present issue, your personal or educational e perience? )e&e&ber, thought papers, which are concise essays *no longer than " double+spaced s&all bond papers, require you to discuss issues, pose questions or proble&s arising fro& the &ajor issue presented. %se the parallel journal article or a news article which &ay pro-ide depth and insights on the article. The challenge is to go beyond summarizing the article! .or&at: 1. %se /0/ 1th or 2th edition on instructions regarding headings and subheadings. ". %se 1"+point font si3e, 4i&es 5ew )o&an or /rial. '. %se 1."1+inch &argin for the left side and 1+inch for all other sides of the page. 6. / &a i&u& of two pieces of short bond paper for the &ain te t, no fly page. Write your na&e, course, year and section, na&e of professor and date of sub&ission at the upper part of the first page. 1. 0aragraph indentation should be 1+7 spaces *or the nor&al tab default,, no running head. CATEGORY &orm '(echanics) ! 5o gra&&atical, spelling or punctuation errors, full /0/ 1th or 2th edition for&at, sources cited, followed instructions *e.g. two short bond papers, double spaced,. Beyond su&&ary, insightful, -ery consistent and thorough in e plaining the issues and defended these -ery well. 9ournal article was integrated well "#$ /l&ost no gra&&atical, spelling or punctuation errors, al&ost /0/ 1th or 2th edition for&at, sources cited, followed so&e instructions. $ / few gra&&atical spelling, or punctuation errors, "+' parts are not in /0/ 1th or 2th edition for&at, sources cited, followed so&e instructions. %#$ 8any gra&&atical, spelling, or punctuation errors, not /0/ 1th or 2th edition for&at, sources not properly cited did not follow instructions.

*uality of +nformation ',no-ledge and application of concepts)

Beyond su&&ary, insightful, consistent and thorough in e plaining the issues and defended these well. 9ournal article was integrated to argue

:u&&ari3e with a few insights, so&ewhat consistent and thorough in e plaining and defending the issues. 9ournal article was fairly integrated to

:u&&ary, no insights, so&ewhat consistent and thorough in e plaining and defending the issues. 9ournal article was fairly integrated to argue position.

to argue position. %se of wor$ personal or educational e perience -ery appropriate

position. %se of personal or educational e perience appropriate

argue position. %se of personal or educational e perience so&ewhat appropriate

%se of personal or educational e perience so&ewhat appropriate