Historical Brewing vs Modern Day Brewing

See handout and video for detailed instructions. The handout describes the assignment in detail. The Video describes the essence of the assignment, hopefully lessening any fears you might have about writing. 

Video Link: https://vimeo.com/osu/review/286948538/1120ed0714
Instructions for Essay: Historical Recipe vs. Modern Brewing Practice
Due date: This assignment is published in the Week 2 Content with the due date indicated on Canvas. Late assignments will not be accepted.
Originality: The essay is an individual project and every student is solely responsible for his/her own report. All essays turned into Dropbox will be evaluated in Turn-it-in, which is a software package used to assess originality. Turnitin reports the percentage that a students writing assignment matches text in a massive database of online information. Please refer to the Provosts Syllabus Addendum for details on OSUs academic integrity policies.
Guidelines for Essay: The length of the essay should be 2-4 pages, double-spaced. You should choose one aspect of the Ninkasi beer recipe that made the brewing of primitive beer possible, with the goal of learning through literature/Internet based research how the current scientific understanding of that topic was derived. In other words, compare one step in the ancient practice to the equivalent modern brewing practice and consider first, how the ancient process would have worked to make beer and second, how that ancient practice led to the modern day practice. The critical thinking and writing rubrics implemented at OSU a decade ago will be used to evaluate your critical thinking and the quality of your writing.
The essay format is open, meaning that you can write in any essay style you prefer (e.g., narrative, descriptive, expository, or persuasive). At least one source should be cited or several if they are relevant.
Suggested topics: The Ninkasi recipe mentions sweet aromatics, which could refer to additive(s) that might have served as preservative or flavoring agents, as hops do in modern beer: a possible topic could be to trace the use of herbs, etc., leading to hops. The original Ninkasi recipe includes the line, You are the one who spreads the cooked mash on large reed mats; a possible topic could be to consider how the Mash steps in the Mouer recipe reflect the ancient description in the Hymn to Ninkasi and how effective it might be compared to modern mashing. Or perhaps you noticed something in the Hymn to Ninkasi that has no modern counterpart component or something that was lacking in the ancient recipe; these too could be possible topics.
10% of final grade
Point-by-point rubric for report grading:
Suitable title (10 pts)
Identification and summary of issue or topic (15 pts)
Stated perspective and position on the issue (15 pts)
Assessment of the issue and supporting evidence (15 pts)
Discussion of conclusions and implications (15 pts)
Organization (10 pts)
Style (10 pts)
Mechanics (10 pts)
Partial scores will be given. For full credit, please write your essay according to ALL of the numbered points above! For definition of the scored essay components, please see the detailed Assessment Rubric below
Assessment rubric:               
1 -4: Critical Thinking Rubric (Content)
Level of achievement
Identification and/or summary of the problem/question at issue.
No identification and/or summary of the problem.
The main question is identified and clearly stated.
The main question and subsidiary, embedded, or implicit aspects of a question are identified and clearly stated. 
Presentation of the STUDENT’S OWN perspective and position as it is important to the analysis of the issue.
The students own position relative to the question is not provided.
The students own position on the question is stated; however, little support for the position is provided.
The students own position on the issue is stated and support has been drawn from experience or information not available from assigned sources.
Assessment and appropriate use of supporting data/evidence.
No supporting data or evidence is utilized.
Evidence is used but not carefully examined. Source(s) of evidence are not questioned for accuracy, precision, relevance, and completeness.
Inferences of cause and effect are stated, but not completely or entirely accurately. Facts and opinions are stated although not clearly distinguished from value judgments.
Evidence is identified and carefully examined. Source(s) of the evidence are questioned for accuracy, precision, relevance, and completeness.
Accurately observes cause and effect. Facts and opinions are stated and clearly distinguished, and value judgments are acknowledged.
Discussion of conclusions, implications and consequences.
Conclusions are not provided.
Conclusions are provided without discussion of implications or consequences. Little or no reflective thought is provided with regards to the assertions and little attempt at synthesizing the various input is made.
Conclusions are clearly stated and discussed. Implications and consequences of the conclusion are considered in context, relative to assumptions, and supporting evidence. The student provides reflective thought with regards to the assertions, indicating synthesis of the various points of view or input presented.
5-6: Writing Rubric
Most paragraphs are rambling and unfocused; no clear beginning or ending; inappropriate or missing sequence markers.
Most paragraphs are focused; discernible beginning and ending paragraphs; some sequence markers.
Paragraphs are clearly focused and organized around a central theme; clear beginnings and endings; appropriate, coherent sequences and sequence markers.
Inappropriate or inaccurate word choice; repetitive words and sentence types; inappropriate or inconsistent point of view and tone.
Generally appropriate word choice; variety in vocabulary and sentence types; appropriate point of view and tone.
Word choice appropriate for the task; precise, vivid vocabulary; variety of sentence types;
consistent and appropriate point of view and tone.
Frequent non-standard grammar, spelling, punctuation interferes with comprehension and writer’s credibility.
Some non-standard grammar, spelling, and punctuation; errors do not generally interfere with comprehension or writer’s credibility.
Standard grammar, spelling, punctuation; no interference with comprehension or writer’s credibility.
* Level 2 indicates achievement of some characteristics of Level 1 and some of Level 3
         Level 4 indicates achievement of some characteristics of Level 3 and some of Level 5
Assessment: 0%, Student does not complete assignment; Level 1 = 60%; Level 2 = 70%; Level 3 = 80%; Level 4 = 90%; Level 5 = 100%
Adapted from Oklahoma State University Critical Thinking and Evaluation of Student Writing Artifacts Rubrics – General Education Assessment Committee, 2006