Part 1:  Audience and Purpose Analysis

 
 
 
Part 1:  Audience and Purpose Analysis
Before you start to write your professional philosophy, you should complete an audience and purpose analysis.  This will help to include all the necessary information in your message, to avoid unnecessary points and to write a message which is appropriate for the situation and for the reader(s).
You can complete this section in note or bullet points.  10% of the overall grade for this assignment will be allocated to your audience and purpose analysis.
 

  1. What position are you applying for? What qualifications are needed? What experience is needed?  What skills will the employer be looking for?

 
 
 

  1. Who is / are your reader(s)? What is your relationship with them?

Who are the primary readers? How much are they likely to know about the subject? Are there likely to be secondary readers, tertiary readers or gatekeepers?
 
 
 
 

  1. What information do they need? What are the key points they need to know? What do they know already? Are there any questions/requests which should be included in the message?

 
 
 
 

  1. Where will they be reading? Are they likely to be at home or in the office? Will there be an opportunity to discuss the content with colleagues or with you?

 
 
 
 
 

  1. Why will they be reading? Do they have to read this document? Are they likely to be interested in the content? What will happen if they do not read it?

 
 
 
 
 

  1. How will they read the document? Slowly and carefully? Scanning quickly? Impatiently?

 
 
 
 
 

  1. How are they likely to react? Why?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part 2:  Your Professional Philosophy
Your professional philosophy should be written below.  90% of the grade for this assignment will be allocated to this text (see rubrics for details).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rubric
Name:Professional – Teaching Philosophy
 

  Proficient Competent Adequate Minimally Adequate Inadequate
Audience and Purpose  
Points Range:
8.7 (8.7%) – 10 (10%)
Analysis shows a very clear understanding of issues connected to the audience (or possible audiences) and the purpose.
 
Points Range:
7.7 (7.7%) – 8.6 (8.6%)
A few important elements relating to audience or purpose may be missing, but the analysis contains enough detail to write an effective and appropriate message with minor omissions.
 
Points Range:
6.7 (6.7%) – 7.6 (7.6%)
Most major elements of the audience and purpose analysis are present, although some key elements may be missing. The resulting e-mail would be expected to be mostly effective but with some noticable errors or omissions.
 
Points Range:
6 (6%) – 6.6 (6.6%)
Significant elements of the audience and purpose analysis are missing or incorrect. The resulting e-mail would have serious errors or omissions in its content and style.
 
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 5.9 (5.9%)
Audience and purpose analysis is completely ineffective or missing.
Content  
Points Range:
26.1 (26.1%) – 30 (30%)
A clear and coherent professinal philosophy is presented at the outset, possibly with reference to relevant theory. The body of the text provides a suitable level of detail which is at all times consistent with the central philosophy. The text concludes by effectively situating the writer’s professional practice in a broader social context
 
Points Range:
23.1 (23.1%) – 25.8 (25.8%)
A clear professinal philosophy is presented at the outset, possibly with reference to relevant theory. There may be minor inconsistencies. The body of the text generally provides a suitable level of detail which is generally consistent with the central philosophy. At some points, an inappropriate level of detail may be provided. The text makes an attempt to situate the writer’s professional practice in the broader social context. This may not be entirely successful.
 
Points Range:
20.1 (20.1%) – 22.8 (22.8%)
There are indications of a central philosophy in the early sections of the text, although this may not be entirely clear. There may be inconsistencies. The body of the text provides some detail consistent with the central philosophy provided. Some irrelevant information or detial inconsistent with the central philosophy may also be provided. There is an inappropriate level of detail. Some information provided is inappropriate in a professional context (eg job application) The text makes an attempt to situate the writer’s professional practice in the broader social context. This may be unsuccessful.
 
Points Range:
18 (18%) – 19.8 (19.8%)
Some ideas linked to a professional philosophy are present. The information provided in the body of the text frequently fails to explicitly or implicitly support a professional philosophy. Much of the information provided would be inappropriate in a professinal context (eg. job application) Little attempt is made to situate the writer’s professional practice in a broader social context. The writer seems unaware of his/her role in a broader context.
 
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 17.7 (17.7%)
There is no credible evidence of a professional philosophy.
Organization  
Points Range:
26.1 (26.1%) – 30 (30%)
The ideas are well-organized and presented in a highly effective order. The text is completely logical and easy to follow, with appropriate headings/sections/paragraphs/thesis statements/statement of purpose and topic sentences (where relevant). Effective and accurate use of lexical cohesion and connectors.
 
Points Range:
23.1 (23.1%) – 25.8 (25.8%)
The text is logical in its organization, and generally easy to follow, with appropriate headings/sections/paragraphs/thesis statement/ statement of purpose, and topic sentences (where relevant). Generally effective and accurate .use of lexical cohesion and connectors.
 
Points Range:
20.1 (20.1%) – 22.8 (22.8%)
The text is generally logical in its organization, though may be difficult to follow in places. There is an attempt to use appropriate headings/ sections/paragraphs/thesis statement/statement of purpose and topic sentences (where relevant). Some effective use of lexical cohesion and connectors but there may be errors.
 
Points Range:
18 (18%) – 19.8 (19.8%)
The text lacks organization, and may be illogical or hard to follow in several parts. Some key elements (e.g. thesis, topic sentences, etc.) may be missing or inadequate. Little effective use of lexical cohesion and connectors.
 
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 17.7 (17.7%)
Problems with organization and cohesion make the text entirely ineffective as a professinal philosophy.
Style and Tone  
Points Range:
13.05 (13.05%) – 15 (15%)
A very good range of compound and complex sentences, and simple and complex phrases. There are no fragments or run-ons. Tone and style appropriate throughout. A very good range of appropriate vocabulary.
 
Points Range:
11.55 (11.55%) – 12.9 (12.9%)
A good range of, compound, complex and simple sentences, There are few fragments or run-ons. Tone and style mostly appropriate. A reasonably good range of appropriate vocabulary.
 
Points Range:
10.05 (10.05%) – 11.4 (11.4%)
There may be a limited range of compound and complex sentences. Paper may rely mainly on simple sentences or on repitition of a few limited sentence types. There are some fragments and run-ons. There may be errors in style and tone. Range of vocabulary used may be limited or inappropriate in register at times.
 
Points Range:
9 (9%) – 9.9 (9.9%)
Paper relies almost entirely on simple sentences. Sentence construction is highly repetitive. There may be many fragments and/or run-ons. Tone and style are not appropriate. Range of vocabulary is very limited and seems inadequate to the task.
 
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 8.85 (8.85%)
Style and tone are inappropriate throughout the majority of the text. Issues with sentence fragments, run-ons and vocabulary choice maket he text difficult to understand.
Correctness  
Points Range:
13.05 (13.05%) – 15 (15%)
No errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar or capitalization.
 
Points Range:
11.55 (11.55%) – 12.9 (12.9%)
No errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar or capitalization.
 
Points Range:
10.05 (10.05%) – 11.4 (11.4%)
Some errors in punctuation, grammar, spelling and capitalization that may at times make it difficult to understand the essay.
 
Points Range:
9 (9%) – 9.9 (9.9%)
Major errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling and capitalization which frequently impede understanding of the essay.
 
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 8.85 (8.85%)
Meaning unclear throughout due to issues in language accuracy.

 

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Posted in Uncategorized

Part 1:  Audience and Purpose Analysis

 
 
 
Part 1:  Audience and Purpose Analysis
Before you start to write your professional philosophy, you should complete an audience and purpose analysis.  This will help to include all the necessary information in your message, to avoid unnecessary points and to write a message which is appropriate for the situation and for the reader(s).
You can complete this section in note or bullet points.  10% of the overall grade for this assignment will be allocated to your audience and purpose analysis.
 

  1. What position are you applying for? What qualifications are needed? What experience is needed?  What skills will the employer be looking for?

 
 
 

  1. Who is / are your reader(s)? What is your relationship with them?

Who are the primary readers? How much are they likely to know about the subject? Are there likely to be secondary readers, tertiary readers or gatekeepers?
 
 
 
 

  1. What information do they need? What are the key points they need to know? What do they know already? Are there any questions/requests which should be included in the message?

 
 
 
 

  1. Where will they be reading? Are they likely to be at home or in the office? Will there be an opportunity to discuss the content with colleagues or with you?

 
 
 
 
 

  1. Why will they be reading? Do they have to read this document? Are they likely to be interested in the content? What will happen if they do not read it?

 
 
 
 
 

  1. How will they read the document? Slowly and carefully? Scanning quickly? Impatiently?

 
 
 
 
 

  1. How are they likely to react? Why?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part 2:  Your Professional Philosophy
Your professional philosophy should be written below.  90% of the grade for this assignment will be allocated to this text (see rubrics for details).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rubric
Name:Professional – Teaching Philosophy
 

  Proficient Competent Adequate Minimally Adequate Inadequate
Audience and Purpose  
Points Range:
8.7 (8.7%) – 10 (10%)
Analysis shows a very clear understanding of issues connected to the audience (or possible audiences) and the purpose.
 
Points Range:
7.7 (7.7%) – 8.6 (8.6%)
A few important elements relating to audience or purpose may be missing, but the analysis contains enough detail to write an effective and appropriate message with minor omissions.
 
Points Range:
6.7 (6.7%) – 7.6 (7.6%)
Most major elements of the audience and purpose analysis are present, although some key elements may be missing. The resulting e-mail would be expected to be mostly effective but with some noticable errors or omissions.
 
Points Range:
6 (6%) – 6.6 (6.6%)
Significant elements of the audience and purpose analysis are missing or incorrect. The resulting e-mail would have serious errors or omissions in its content and style.
 
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 5.9 (5.9%)
Audience and purpose analysis is completely ineffective or missing.
Content  
Points Range:
26.1 (26.1%) – 30 (30%)
A clear and coherent professinal philosophy is presented at the outset, possibly with reference to relevant theory. The body of the text provides a suitable level of detail which is at all times consistent with the central philosophy. The text concludes by effectively situating the writer’s professional practice in a broader social context
 
Points Range:
23.1 (23.1%) – 25.8 (25.8%)
A clear professinal philosophy is presented at the outset, possibly with reference to relevant theory. There may be minor inconsistencies. The body of the text generally provides a suitable level of detail which is generally consistent with the central philosophy. At some points, an inappropriate level of detail may be provided. The text makes an attempt to situate the writer’s professional practice in the broader social context. This may not be entirely successful.
 
Points Range:
20.1 (20.1%) – 22.8 (22.8%)
There are indications of a central philosophy in the early sections of the text, although this may not be entirely clear. There may be inconsistencies. The body of the text provides some detail consistent with the central philosophy provided. Some irrelevant information or detial inconsistent with the central philosophy may also be provided. There is an inappropriate level of detail. Some information provided is inappropriate in a professional context (eg job application) The text makes an attempt to situate the writer’s professional practice in the broader social context. This may be unsuccessful.
 
Points Range:
18 (18%) – 19.8 (19.8%)
Some ideas linked to a professional philosophy are present. The information provided in the body of the text frequently fails to explicitly or implicitly support a professional philosophy. Much of the information provided would be inappropriate in a professinal context (eg. job application) Little attempt is made to situate the writer’s professional practice in a broader social context. The writer seems unaware of his/her role in a broader context.
 
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 17.7 (17.7%)
There is no credible evidence of a professional philosophy.
Organization  
Points Range:
26.1 (26.1%) – 30 (30%)
The ideas are well-organized and presented in a highly effective order. The text is completely logical and easy to follow, with appropriate headings/sections/paragraphs/thesis statements/statement of purpose and topic sentences (where relevant). Effective and accurate use of lexical cohesion and connectors.
 
Points Range:
23.1 (23.1%) – 25.8 (25.8%)
The text is logical in its organization, and generally easy to follow, with appropriate headings/sections/paragraphs/thesis statement/ statement of purpose, and topic sentences (where relevant). Generally effective and accurate .use of lexical cohesion and connectors.
 
Points Range:
20.1 (20.1%) – 22.8 (22.8%)
The text is generally logical in its organization, though may be difficult to follow in places. There is an attempt to use appropriate headings/ sections/paragraphs/thesis statement/statement of purpose and topic sentences (where relevant). Some effective use of lexical cohesion and connectors but there may be errors.
 
Points Range:
18 (18%) – 19.8 (19.8%)
The text lacks organization, and may be illogical or hard to follow in several parts. Some key elements (e.g. thesis, topic sentences, etc.) may be missing or inadequate. Little effective use of lexical cohesion and connectors.
 
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 17.7 (17.7%)
Problems with organization and cohesion make the text entirely ineffective as a professinal philosophy.
Style and Tone  
Points Range:
13.05 (13.05%) – 15 (15%)
A very good range of compound and complex sentences, and simple and complex phrases. There are no fragments or run-ons. Tone and style appropriate throughout. A very good range of appropriate vocabulary.
 
Points Range:
11.55 (11.55%) – 12.9 (12.9%)
A good range of, compound, complex and simple sentences, There are few fragments or run-ons. Tone and style mostly appropriate. A reasonably good range of appropriate vocabulary.
 
Points Range:
10.05 (10.05%) – 11.4 (11.4%)
There may be a limited range of compound and complex sentences. Paper may rely mainly on simple sentences or on repitition of a few limited sentence types. There are some fragments and run-ons. There may be errors in style and tone. Range of vocabulary used may be limited or inappropriate in register at times.
 
Points Range:
9 (9%) – 9.9 (9.9%)
Paper relies almost entirely on simple sentences. Sentence construction is highly repetitive. There may be many fragments and/or run-ons. Tone and style are not appropriate. Range of vocabulary is very limited and seems inadequate to the task.
 
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 8.85 (8.85%)
Style and tone are inappropriate throughout the majority of the text. Issues with sentence fragments, run-ons and vocabulary choice maket he text difficult to understand.
Correctness  
Points Range:
13.05 (13.05%) – 15 (15%)
No errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar or capitalization.
 
Points Range:
11.55 (11.55%) – 12.9 (12.9%)
No errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar or capitalization.
 
Points Range:
10.05 (10.05%) – 11.4 (11.4%)
Some errors in punctuation, grammar, spelling and capitalization that may at times make it difficult to understand the essay.
 
Points Range:
9 (9%) – 9.9 (9.9%)
Major errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling and capitalization which frequently impede understanding of the essay.
 
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 8.85 (8.85%)
Meaning unclear throughout due to issues in language accuracy.

 

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Posted in Uncategorized