International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2009, Volume 20, Number 3, 488-502 http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ ISSN 1812-9129 Improving Writing with a PAL: Harnessing the Power of Peer Assisted Learning with the Reader’s Assessment Rubrics Stephen G. McLeod, Gavin C. Brown, Preselfannie W. McDaniels, and Lawrence Sledge Jackson State University In response to widespread concern that many American students do not write well enough to meet the requirements of higher education and the workplace, the College Board’s National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges has called for a writing revolution. A key component of this revolution is evaluation, with particular emphasis on the need to align writing standards, writing instruction, and writing assessment. Teachers of writing want to provide their students with the kind of quality feedback that coaches and personal trainers provide their clients, but large classes and heavy teaching loads often frustrate their intention. Peer assessment can alleviate this problem. In fact, research indicates that when students are given valid and reliable assessment instruments to guide the process, feedback from peers can be as effective as—or more effective than—feedback from professors. As a direct response to the Commission’s call for curricular alignment, Jackson State University has launched the Reader’s Assessment Project, a project that seeks to harness the power of Peer Assisted Learning by developing and applying a series of analytic Peer Assessment rubrics for specific rhetorical modes. While analytic rubrics are useful in identifying broad areas for improvement in student writing, such rubrics are sometimes difficult to use because they address general qualities of effective writing without reference to the way those qualities operate in specific rhetorical modes, such as comparison/contrast or process. Analytic scoring also tends to be time- consuming.The Reader’s Assessment Project at Jackson State University seeks to overcome these drawbacks by developing mode-specific analytic instruments that are aligned with the reading process. In this article, members of the Reader’s Assessment team review the relevant literature, outline the conceptual framework and methodology of the project, and explain how they have harnessed the power of Peer Assisted Learning with the Reader’s Assessment rubrics through a strategy that they call CARE (creating a reassuring environment). In response to widespread concern that “the level The Frustrations of writing in the United States is not what it should be,” the College Board has established the National As any English professor will tell you, large classes Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and and heavy teaching loads exacerbate the problem Colleges (National Commission, 2003, p. 24). While addressed by this writing revolution. That is precisely the National Commission (2003) concedes that students why the National Commission’s (2003) call for do possess a modicum of basic writing skill, the increased financial, technological, and human resources problem is that students do not write well enough to is so significant—and so welcome. Nevertheless, meet the requirements of higher education and the English professors are not holding their breath. It has workplace. So serious is this problem, the Commission been 86 years since Edwin Hopkins (1923) published argues, that nothing less than a “writing revolution” his groundbreaking study The Labor and Cost of the will suffice to solve it (2003, p. 24). In its sweeping Teaching of English, and English language agenda, the Commission calls for “making writing a professionals have been calling for smaller classes and centerpiece of the curriculum” (2003, p. 26), for at least more humane teaching loads ever since. The National doubling both the time and the financial resources Council of Teachers of English (1980) has issued allocated to student writing, for applying existing relevant policy statements for the elementary, technology and developing new technology to facilitate secondary, and college levels. Some progress has been writing instruction and writing assessment, and for made, but not nearly enough and not in nearly enough providing the requisite professional development to places. As Popken (2004) observes, “To this day, for faculty in all disciplines. In addition, the Commission many hundreds of writing teachers…, composition is places significant emphasis on the role of evaluation, still very costly labor” (p. 63) stressing the need to align writing standards, writing instruction, and writing assessment. The assessment Peer Assessment to the Rescue instruments presented in this article constitute a direct response to this call for curricular alignment and can So, until the needed resources arrive, what can be contribute significantly to the Commission’s writing done in the meantime? Part of the answer to this revolution at both the local and the national levels. question can be found in the writing process itself. McLeod, Brown, McDaniels, and Sledge Improving Writing with a PAL 489 Many writing teachers have found Peer Assisted wait; they can quickly compare and correct Learning (PAL) to be helpful. Topping (2001) defines their understandings” (p .x). Moreover, in PAL as “the acquisition of knowledge and skill through contrast to an overloaded professor, who has active helping and supporting among status equals or many student essays to evaluate, a peer matched companions. PAL involves people from reviewer can concentrate on the one essay similar social groupings…helping each other to learn assigned to her and more easily provide a and learning themselves by so doing” (p. 2). Simply rich, detailed response (Topping et al., 2000; put, then, PAL is learning with a pal. An important Venables & Summit, 2003). form of PAL is peer assessment, which involves “formatively and qualitatively evaluating the products Research indicates that peer assessment tends to or outcomes of others in the group” (Topping, 2001, p. be more accurate when its stated purpose is 3). An important part of learning to be a writer is formative (improving a work in progress) rather than learning to assess one’s own writing and the writing of summative (assigning a grade to a finished product) colleagues, learning to give and to receive effective (O’Donnell &Topping, 1998). Research also feedback. In training students to engage in this mutual suggests that feedback can be enhanced by the use of assessment process, professors are building additional assessment instruments, variously called guides, quality into writing processes and products, preparing checklists, or rubrics (O’Donnell & Topping, 1998; students for business and the professions (where peer Soles, 2001). When students are given valid and review is an important part of the workplace), and reliable assessment instruments to guide the process, transforming classes into learning communities feedback from peers can be as effective as—or more (Heinrich, Neese, Rogers, & Facente, 2004). Research effective than—feedback from professors (O’Donnell studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of peer & Topping, 1998; Topping, 1998). assessment as a component of writing instruction across Not only do valid and reliable rubrics serve as a broad spectrum of disciplines and educational levels: evaluation tools, but they also serve as teaching tools from agronomy to zoology (Liu, Pysarchik, & Taylor, because they specify the expectations for 2002), from elementary school (Mullen, 2003), to assignments (Saddler & Andrade, 2004). As Soles graduate school (Heinrich et al., 2004; Topping, Smith, (2001) asserts, “Shared rubrics empower students, Swanson, & Elliot, 2000)—including students with they urge students to become active participants in special needs (Ammer, 1998). At the undergraduate the writing process, and they substantiate the level—the focus of this study—researchers and connections among teaching, learning, and practitioners provide impressive testimony for the assessment” (p. 15). Soles’ insights are consonant benefits of peer assessment (Topping, 1998). Among with Huot’s (2002) call for a re-articulation of these benefits are the following: writing assessment in terms of its impact on teaching and learning. They are also consonant with • Peer assessment helps students develop Isaacson’s (1999) call for “instructionally relevant important social skills as they learn to give and writing assessment” (p. 29). As Isaacson affirms, receive frank, tactful, and respectful feedback “Student self-assessment and peer review are the from others (Ammer, 1998; Heinrich et al., principal means of bringing assessment and 2004). instruction very close to one another” (p. 40). • Peer assessment contributes to students’ professional preparation because peer The Jackson State University Reader’s Assessment assessment is a vital component of work in Project academe, business, and the professions (Liu, Pysarchik, & Taylor, 2002; Venables & In keeping with the findings of research and the Summit, 2003). testimony of educational practitioners, the Jackson • Peer assessment fosters positive attitudes State University Center for University Scholars has toward writing and builds the self-confidence funded a project to develop the Reader’s Assessment of student writers (Light, 2003). Series, a group of instruments to assess essays in • Peer assessment promotes learning about the various rhetorical modes. Students can use these disciplines and learning about the writing instruments as a guide for planning an essay and as process itself (Venables & Summit, 2003). self-assessment or peer assessment tools for • Peer assessment is timely and efficient. As improving an essay in progress. Professors and Walberg (1998) observes, “Working alone or graduate teaching assistants can use the instruments as during teacher presentations, learners can carry summative assessment tools when essays reach final forward or even practice mistakes. In a small form. The Reader’s Assessment instruments are group, or in pairs, however, they need not analytic assessment instruments, but they are not McLeod, Brown, McDaniels, and Sledge Improving Writing with a PAL 490 analytic instruments of the kind that teachers of writing to identify five features that would mark performance at usually encounter. the top of the rating scale for a particular criterion The usual approach to constructing an analytic statement. Scoring is thus simplified, for if all five evaluation scale is to identify (i.e., list) the desired features are present, the essay receives the top score on writing qualities and to include a rating scale for each that criterion. If only four of the features are present, quality. While analytic instruments of this type are the essay receives the next-to-highest score and so on. useful in identifying the broad areas for improvement in Thus, while our approach to assessment is decidedly student writing, such instruments are sometimes qualitative, we have tried to facilitate the scoring difficult to use because they address general qualities of process by defining the scoring levels in terms of effective writing without reference to the way those observable and countable markers of quality. As an qualities operate in specific rhetorical modes, such as example of how this works, we have included the comparison/contrast or process instruction. Another assessment instrument for process instruction essays drawback of analytic scoring is that it tends to be time- (Appendix A) and its accompanying scoring guide consuming (Mertler 2001). The Reader’s Assessment (Appendix B). Project seeks to overcome these drawbacks by Not only is the instrument distinctive in its developing mode-specific instruments that are aligned format, but it is distinctive in its method of with the reading process. We have already developed development as well. The Reader’s Assessment instruments for assessing essays in the instruments have been designed as tools of Peer comparison/contrast and process instruction modes. We Assisted Learning and, appropriately, the development are currently developing an instrument for assessing process has involved a great deal of Peer Assisted research-based argumentative essays, and we plan to Learning among our faculty and our students. Five develop an instrument for classification essays. phases are involved in the development of each Five assumptions undergird the development of the instrument: a development phase, an evaluation for Reader’s Assessment instruments: content validity, a scoring application, an evaluation for interrater reliability, and a refinement phase. Faculty Assumption 1: The act of reading an essay involves from our department, students, and faculty from other the reader in five experiential phases, which the departments have been involved in the process. The reader experiences in the following order: the title, project is conducted under the guidance of a formative the introduction, the body, the conclusion, and the committee of Jackson State University writing faculty total impact. and an external mentor from the Mississippi Assumption 2: The qualities of effective writing are Writing/Thinking Institute. interactive in their effects on a reader. The instruments have been specifically developed Assumption 3: The qualities of effective writing for use in our freshman English courses, but we also interact differently at each experiential phase of the look for ways in which we can validly apply or validly essay. adapt them to other courses within our department. For Assumption 4: The qualities of effective writing example, we have found the instruments to be effective interact differently for different rhetorical modes tools for training pre-service teachers to implement (e.g., comparison/contrast, process instruction, PAL, and we have begun to apply the instruments in classification, argumentation). our undergraduate and graduate teacher preparation Assumption 5: The effectiveness of assessment courses. We have also successfully applied the Reader’s instruments can be increased by developing them Assessment for process instruction (Appendices A and in a manner consistent with Assumptions 1-4 and B) to an undergraduate course in technical writing. by aligning their format with the reading process. Our vision for the future of the Reader’s Assessment Project is to expand beyond our own In accordance with these assumptions, the format department by serving as consultants to other of each Reader’s Assessment instrument is aligned with departments across the curriculum as they develop the reading process. The basic procedure for rubrics tailored to their own discipline-specific writing constructing each instrument is to operationalize the assignments. Our experience at Jackson State qualities of effective writing (i.e., development, unity, University indicates that peer assessment instruments coherence, and technique) in the form of criterion such as those we have developed can provide clear statements for each experiential phase of an essay in the criteria to students before they begin a writing particular rhetorical mode of interest. The basic assignment, guide them during the process of preparing procedure for constructing the scoring guide is to define the assignment, and assist them in the formative each point on the rating scale for each criterion assessment of their own work and that of their peers. statement in terms of observable features of the writing. Such instruments can lighten the professor’s burden of Because we have used a five-point scale, we have tried providing formative feedback, build additional quality McLeod, Brown, McDaniels, and Sledge Improving Writing with a PAL 491 into the processes and products of writing, and make confirm. This process also offers the added benefit of the task of reading and assessing the finished product building confidence by accustoming students to doing much more pleasant. presentations and answering questions. Through this process, we also emphasize the importance of good Implementing PAL with CARE speaking and its relationship to reading, writing, and listening as key skills in teaching and learning. As our experience—and a large body of research Use PAL only for formative review. This step literature—indicate, PAL is an effective method of alone takes a lot of pressure off the students and aligning writing standards, writing instruction, and removes a major source of resistance to peer review. writing assessment. PAL works. It works, however, When students see themselves as “graders,” they may only when the faculty and students make it work. We lack self-confidence in doing the peer review and in have found that the key to successful implementation is using the instruments and scoring guides; some students a strategy that we call CARE: Creating a Reassuring may also think that by scoring the essay as leniently as Environment. The challenge is to transform the class possible, they will get the same easy review in return. from a disconnected group of individuals—many of For these reasons, we explain, at the outset, that PAL them freshman—into a learning community with the peer assessment is not the same as grading an confidence to give and receive frank and respectful assignment. Instead, PAL peer assessment is providing responses to each other’s writing. From our own guidance and feedback to improve an essay in progress experience with the CARE strategy, we offer the as well as to highlight the strengths of the author’s following recommendations for implementing PAL work. If students know that their essays will be revised with CARE. after the peer review, they are more likely to give better Orient the students to Peer Assisted Learning. We feedback and desire the same in return. In fact, in a explain the concept, method, and benefits of PAL early formative review situation, giving frank, respectful in the course so that we and our students are intentional feedback is the best thing one student can do for in our application of PAL. On the first day of class, we another. We have found that frank, respectful feedback also begin to form a learning community by having can result in better final products, better grades, and-- pairs of students interview each other and introduce most importantly--better writers. each other to the class. This first assignment gives the Stress the student writer’s AUTHORity. students the opportunity to get to know each other, and Whether the student is receiving feedback from us, it constitutes the first step in establishing an atmosphere from a classmate, or from a tutor in the campus writing of collegiality. If students are going learn with a PAL, center, we stress the following theme: “Writing is a they must first become colleagues. Throughout the decision-making process. You are the author. You must course, we provide numerous opportunities for students decide what to do with the feedback that you receive.” to build trust in each other and confidence in Knowing that they are responsible for their own writing themselves as they practice giving frank and respectful decisions gives the students a sense of AUTHORity and feedback in groups of two or three. builds their confidence. We also build confidence by Train the students to use the Reader’s Assessment recognizing and reinforcing the strengths of the essay instruments. We train the students to use the assessment while giving the student an honest, positive, instruments by taking them through the scoring improvement-oriented critique. instructions step by step. We make sure to define any In conclusion, we realize that when many unfamiliar terms via the scoring guide and to students first come to us, they lack confidence in distinguish between terms that might be viewed as themselves or in the writing they produce. That is why synonymous, such as tips, feedback, and precautions we build confidence and encourage achievement by (Appendix B). Once they understand the standards, we applying PAL with CARE as we have described. In let them practice by scoring a sample essay; then they doing so, we strengthen the connections among writing discuss the rationale for their ratings in class. standards, writing instruction, and writing assessment. Make each peer review count. We stress the As we engage our students in multiple opportunities to importance of giving quality responses by making each internalize the principles of effective writing, build peer review count as an in-class writing assignment. their confidence, and enhance their educational When students know that they will get credit for giving experience, we find that PAL in indeed a very effective meaningful, honest feedback, they tend to give better way to CARE for our students. feedback. We also require our students to read their draft essays aloud to the class as well as the feedback References they received from their peer reviewer. During this process, other classmates may also respond, and we Ammer, J. J. (1998). Peer evaluation model for also have the opportunity to question, comment, and enhancing writing performance of students with McLeod, Brown, McDaniels, and Sledge Improving Writing with a PAL 492 learning disabilities. Reading and Writing Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. Quarterly, 14(3), 263-282. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic Heinrich, K. T., Neese, R., Rogers, D., & Facente, A. writing between postgraduate students. C. (2004). Turn accusations into Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, AFFIRMATIONS: Transform nurses into 25(2), 149-169. published authors. Nursing Education Venables, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing Perspectives, 25(3), 139-145. scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Hopkins, E. (1923). The labor and cost of the Innovations in Education and Teaching teaching of English in colleges and secondary International, 40(3), 281-290. schools with especial reference to English Walberg, H. J. (1998). Foreword in K. J. Topping & composition. Chicago: National Council of S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer assisted learning (pp. ix-xii). Teachers of English. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Huot, B. (2002). (Re)Articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan, UT: Utah SU. _______________________ Isaacson, S. (1999). Instructionally relevant writing assessment. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, STEPHEN G. MCLEOD, EdD, is an assistant 29-48. professor of English and graduate faculty member at Light, R. (2003). Writing and students’ engagement. Jackson State University. He directs the Reader’s Peer Review, 6(1), 28-31. Assessment Project, the Strengthening the Core Liu, J., Pysarchik, D. T., & Taylor, W. W. (2002). Curriculum and Academic Leadership Project, and the Peer review in the classroom. Bioscience, 52(9), Richard Wright Center for the Written Word (the 824-829. campus writing center). His research interests include Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for the assessment of writing, Peer Assisted Learning your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research (PAL), and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning & Evaluation, 7(25). Retrieved January 31, 2008, (SoTL). from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25 Mullen, M. P. (2003). Excellence in elementary GAVIN C. BROWN holds the Bachelor of Science in editing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Criminal Justice from Jackson State University, where No. ED479069) he has served as a graduate assistant and a member of National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools the Reader’s Assessment Project. He is currently and Colleges. (2003). The neglected ‘R’: The need completing his thesis for the Master of Arts in for a writing revolution. Peer Review, 6(1), 24-27. English. His research interests include Twenty-First National Council of Teachers of English. (1980, June). Century African-American literature, Asian poetry, NCTE policy statements on teachers’ workload. and the application of psychological theories to the SLATE: Support for the Learning and Teaching of analysis of literature. English, 5(6), 2. O’Donnell, A. M., & Topping, K. (1998). Peers PRESELFANNIE W. MCDANIELS holds the PhD in assessing peers: Possibilities and problems. In K. English from Louisiana State University, Baton Topping & S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer assisted learning Rouge. She is currently an assistant professor of (pp. 255-278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. English at Jackson State University, where she Popken, R. (2004). Edwin Hopkins and the costly labor coordinates the Freshman English Program. Her of composition teaching. College Composition and current research interests include composition Communication, 55, 618-41. pedagogy and adolescent literature. Saddler, B., & Andrade, H. (2004). The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 48-52. LAWRENCE SLEDGE, MA, has more than twenty Soles, D. (2001, March). Sharing scoring guides. Paper years of experience in teaching writing at the college presented at the annual meeting of the Conference level. He is an instructor of English at Jackson State on College Composition and Communication, University, where he teaches in the areas of Denver, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction composition, world literature, and professional and Service No. ED450379) technical writing. His research interests include the Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between role of technical communication in society, the students in college and university. Review of cognitive aspects of meaning and form (including Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276. grammar) in language, and the multidisciplinary Topping, K. J. (2001). Peer assisted learning: A relevance of language concepts. He recently chaired practical guide for teachers. Newton, MA: the Name Society Session of the South Central Brookline. Modern Language Association (SCMLA). He is McLeod, Brown, McDaniels, and Sledge Improving Writing with a PAL 493 president-elect of the Mississippi Council of Teachers of English (MCTE). Acknowledgements This article was funded by a grant from the Jackson State University Center for University Scholars. Dr. Linda Irby of the Mississippi Writing/Thinking Institute (Mississippi State University), an affiliate of the National Writing Project, serves as the mentor for the Reader’s Assessment Project. McLeod, Brown, McDaniels, and Sledge Improving Writing with a PAL 494 APPENDIX A READER'S ASSESSMENT: PROCESS INSTRUCTION* Gamma version  2007 by Stephen G. McLeod and Gavin C. Brown Title of Essay: ______________________________________Writer: ____________________________ Reader: _____________________________ Date: __________________ Indicate the degree to which each statement applies to the essay by circling the appropriate number. Some statements carry a higher maximum point value than others because of differences in relative importance. *Please note the following limitation: This instrument is designed for assessing only process instruction essays (i.e., “how to” essays), where the reader is expected to perform the process. TITLE 1. The title is effective. (Note: The title may include a subtitle.) 1 2 3 4 5 hardly applicable applicable highly applicable Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION 2. The writer provides me with a motive for learning the process. 6 10 No Yes Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. The thesis is a sharply focused assertion about the process (e.g., its importance, its ease or difficulty, its benefits, its outcome). 11 12 13 14 15 hardly applicable applicable highly applicable Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ McLeod, Brown, McDaniels, and Sledge Improving Writing with a PAL 495 BODY 4. The writer explains the steps of the process in chronological order. 6 10 No Yes Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. The writer explains the steps in sufficient detail and with sufficient clarity so that I can perform the process. 11 12 13 14 15 hardly applicable applicable highly applicable Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. The writer provides me with precautions, tips, feedback, and troubleshooting instructions at appropriate points. 6 7 8 9 10 hardly applicable applicable highly applicable Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. The paragraph divisions are appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5 hardly applicable applicable highly applicable Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. By using transitions of time or other transitions as appropriate, the writer guides me smoothly through the process. 1 2 3 4 5 hardly applicable applicable highly applicable Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ McLeod, Brown, McDaniels, and Sledge Improving Writing with a PAL 496 CONCLUSION 9. The writer effectively culminates the essay. 6 7 8 9 10 hardly applicable applicable highly applicable Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ TOTAL IMPACT 10. The writer has presented the process in a “reader friendly” way. 6 7 8 9 10 hardly applicable applicable highly applicable Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. The technical aspects of the writing (i.e., sentence structure, grammar, punctuation, diction, usage, spelling, and mechanics) support the writer’s credibility. 6 7 8 9 10 hardly applicable applicable highly applicable Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ McLeod, Brown, McDaniels, and Sledge Improving Writing with a PAL 497 APPENDIX B READER'S ASSESSMENT: PROCESS INSTRUCTION ESSAY SCORING GUIDE* Gamma version  2007 by Stephen G. McLeod and Gavin C. Brown Title of Essay: _______________________________________________Writer: ____________________ Reader: _____________________________ Date: __________________ *Please note the following limitation: This instrument is designed for assessing only process instruction essays (i.e., “how to” essays), where the reader is expected to perform the process. Indicate the degree to which each statement applies to the essay by circling the appropriate number. Some statements carry a higher maximum point value than others because of differences in relative importance. TITLE 1. The title is effective. (Note: The title may include a subtitle.) 1 2 3 4 5 hardly applicable applicable highly applicable Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Award a score of 5 if the title (a) captures your attention with an arresting phrase, a vivid figure of speech, or a question, (b) specifies the process to be explained, (c) aligns with a process instruction strategy, (d) is free of technical errors, and (e) follows the instructor’s format specifications. Award a score of 4 if the title does four of the above. Award a score of 3 if the title does three of the above. Award a score of 2 if the title does two of the above. Award a score of 1 if the title does only one of the above. Award a score of 0 if the title is missing, and so note in the comments section. INTRODUCTION 2. The writer provides me with a motive for learning the process. 6 10 No Yes Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Award a score of 10 if the writer supplies one or more cogent reasons for learning the process.