You are being asked to write two (2) short essays (Assessment 1 and Assessment 2, both of which are worth 40 marks) that conform to the convey-analyze-apply method you been working on in this course. The aim is to have you synthesize information you have learned throughout the course: due June 19; worth 40% of total mark.
Assessment 1 [worth 40 marks]
Choose two (2) of the six concepts from list A.
In your short essay, consider the strengths of these two concepts for safeguarding environmental justice and/or sustainability in regard to one (1) of the environmental issues from list B. Both lists are found below.
Your essay should demonstrate your ability to convey, analyze, and apply in the following way:
1) CONVEY:
Identify the author who introduces or discusses the environmental issue (List B) as well as the author who introduces or discusses each concept (List A).
Explain how the author from List B explains or defines the issue, and
how the author of each concept from List A explains of defines the concept.
NOTE: In convey, you are conveying the problem (List B), as well as possible solutions (List A) to the problem. Be sure to keep the convey section short and precise.
2) ANALYZE & APPLY: Supporting all your claims, discuss how the insights you gained from the readings linked to the two concepts (List A) might help us safeguard environmental justice and/or sustainability in regard to the environmental issue you have selected (List B).
Note:
You can analyze the two concepts together (by identifying a linking theme), or separately (by discussing them one-by-one). Be sure to put more effort in analyze and apply.
Remember, when supporting your claims, it might be useful to consider the “CREST” schema in the How to Engage the Readings. In regard to the examples you employ to support claims, these can be supplied by the author, or can be examples you choose on your own. All supporting data serve to illustrate the value of the terms for solving – safeguarding environmental justice and/or sustainability – the specific issue in question.
Consult the Mid-Term review tutorial slides, your individual feedback from the TA and the general feedback from TAs.
Format
600 (+\- 10%)
Short answer essay/paragraph form
Black 12 pt. font (single or double-spacing is fine)
Be sure to identify the 2 key terms you have chosen AND the environmental issue in the title of this essay
List A: Six terms to choose from (choose 2 out of the 6)
Gaia as metaphor
Traditional knowledge (TK)
Steady-state economic model
Dialectic contingency
Slow knowledge
Precautionary principle
List B: Three environmental issues we discussed in Part 1 of this course (choose 1 of the 3)
Carson’s discussion on chemical pollution and the resultant biodiversity loss
Mitchell’s discussion of ocean warming and acidification and the problems for life it presents
The NFB video’s discussion on Climate Change and its effects on land and the people in the global South
Assessment 2 [worth 40 marks]
Choose one (1) of the following and construct a coherent and well-supported argumentative essay.
OPTION 1: In the conclusion of the book For Earth’s Sake, Stephen Scharper says, “We can make ourselves more knowledgeable, change all our laws, fashion new policies, and even design cutting-edge sustainable technologies, but none of these will take hold until we change our relationship with creation.” Explain what Scharper means by this, showing how he supports his claim (convey). Discuss his argument in light of what we discussed with respect to two of the following: new technology and geoengineering, green growth (through decoupling), provincial/federal water management systems, the current [western] culture of fast knowledge (application). Are you in agreement with Scharper’s claim? Why or why not (analysis)? You are encouraged to include examples from all class readings, lectures and videos, along with your own experiences to support your claim.
Or
OPTION 2: Imagine James Lovelock and Stephen Scharper are sitting at a café at a university having a conversation on the state of the environment today. You join them in their conversation. Convey the arguments that each would likely put forth about a specific environmental problem both would likely be interested in. Compare how each would address the above problem, incorporating your own analysis of their claims, and applying your own suggestion(s) on how to address the above problem based on what you have learned from other authors in class. Make sure to identify the problem clearly in the beginning of your essay.
Format and Submission
600 words (+\- 10%)
Short answer essay/paragraph form
Black 12 pt. font (single or double-spacing is fine)
Be sure to identify which of the two options (1 or 2) you have chosen in the title of your essay
Submission for both Assessments 1 & 2 together
Submit both Assessment 1 and 2 together as a single file.
TA comments from previous assignments: I see that you have applied Carson’s work to your understanding of GMO technology – which is great. What seems to be missing is your analysis/critical engagement with Carson’s work. In scholarly writing, you should always introduce an author by using their first and last name, and then switching to last name only. Please be sure to refer to scholars by their last names. (from Short Answer Assignment in uploaded documents)
TA comments in Midterm Assignment in uploaded documents : I have also flagged some potential issues with the use of the concepts as you do not appear to be using them in the same sense that they were used by the authors. For example, Vandana Shiva is actually very critical of the application of Western technologies and solutions like monoculture to the global South. Similarly, I am not sure I fully understood the way you were using groupthink. Groupthink really refers to how people tend to adopt the perspectives/beliefs of the group… seeking group consensus rather than conflict, which can serve as a barrier to environmental awareness and action when it disrupts the status quo belief of a community.In general, make sure to clearly define each term. Remember that an example is not the same as a definition (which is a more general description of what the term means). Another way you might have made more room for the critical analysis/apply section is by cutting out overly general statements that don’t support your analysis (such as the first few sentences of the intro here). However, for the final I suggest spending much less space conveying the environmental issue itself since that left you very little room to apply/analyze with the three concepts in the end.
Evaluation
36-40/40
Student conveys claims and evidence precisely and accurately. She analyzes and applies proficiently using evidence (i.e.: comparisons, examples, statistics, and testimony), to develop a critical line of reasoning, applying logical argument which convincingly supports claims. Student also writes very clearly, conforming well to formal essay style.
32-35/40
Same as above except one or more issues in conveying, analyzing, applying, or writing was less satisfactorily performed.
28-31/40
In conveying student avoids ambiguity for the most part with no major factual errors. She analyzes and applies satisfactorily employing an adequate amount of evidence to develop a detailed line of reasoning, which adequately supports claims. She writes clearly, conforming to essay style.
24-27/40
Same as above except one or more issues in conveying, analyzing, applying, or writing was less than satisfactory.
20-23/40
Student employs some vague generalities and/or has some factual errors when conveying. When analyzing and applying she provides limited amount of evidence to develop and support an argument. Writing is not always clear and style is not entirely proper for an essay.
19 or below/40
Throughout work the argument is vague and imprecise and/or student commits factual errors. She uses little or no evidence, making for a weak argument. Writing is unclear and not proper for an essay.