After School: CASE 2
Recommendations and evidence
1: STORY
A student hopes a recommendation will repair an average grade. They consider asking the teacher to describe them as perfect. That request misses what the practice college wants: classroom contributions and context that the other materials do not explain. A useful recommendation can describe growth without pretending the grade was different.
Source A asks for one teacher recommendation. It identifies classroom performance, contributions and less visible context as the purpose. The best fit depends on what a teacher can observe and explain. A familiar teacher may be able to discuss revision or contribution that a course grade alone cannot communicate, without pretending the grade was different.
Source B is a brag sheet with coursework, a project, a job, responsibilities and questions. These are places to organize evidence, not instructions to manufacture a glowing story. The student should distinguish work the teacher saw from background supplied by the student. This helps the teacher decide what they can describe firsthand and what needs attribution or clarification.
Source C records a waiver selection and says the recommendation was received. It resolves a status question while leaving the contents unknown. A packet should provide requirements, deadlines, submission instructions and relevant reminders while preserving the teacher's judgment. Checking completion does not give the applicant control over the assessment or guarantee admission.
2: EVIDENCE
These are NPW practice documents. Real-world sources are credited separately below.
SOURCE A — College instruction
NPW practice document. “One teacher recommendation should describe classroom performance, contributions, and context not visible elsewhere.”
What it establishes: Establishes requested purpose.
Question while reading: What makes a recommender a strong fit?
SOURCE B — Student brag sheet
NPW practice document with coursework, project, job, responsibilities, questions the student hopes the letter can illuminate.
What it establishes: Gives the recommender evidence/context. It does not script the letter.
Question while reading: Which details are useful because the recommender personally observed them?
SOURCE C — Waiver/portal status
NPW practice document. FERPA waiver selection + “recommendation received.”
What it establishes: Shows submission status/waiver choice. It does not reveal letter content.
Question while reading: What should a student verify before the deadline?
A establishes the recommender's assignment. B suggests supporting categories but supplies no verified accomplishment or actual anecdote. Label classroom examples separately from outside responsibilities. These receipts cannot support inventing a project result or job history.
Source C establishes status and a recorded waiver choice, not the wording, strength or confidentiality terms of a letter. Those terms must be read in the actual application instructions. The teacher controls what they write; the admissions office or application support team can clarify submission problems. Neither role turns receipt into admission assurance.
3: PRACTICE
Observed classroom evidence fits A's stated purpose. A copied endorsement substitutes the student's judgment, and neither the letter nor packet changes the transcript.
Responses stay in this browser. Use “Download my notes” to keep a copy.
4: TASK
Build a recommender packet that gives usable evidence without scripting praise. Include one clear claim or question, at least two source references, one statement of uncertainty/scope, the person or office with relevant authority, and one realistic next step.
Recommendation packet: Requirement: one teacher letter on classroom performance, contributions and context (A). Evidence sheet: coursework and project reminders observed by this teacher; job and responsibility details separately labeled student-provided (B). Request: Please describe contributions and growth you can support; I am not asking you to copy praise. Administrative fields: verified deadline, portal route and waiver instructions, still to be supplied. Status check: C says received, which does not reveal the contents. Next step: verify completion before the actual deadline and contact admissions about a missing item. Do not invent dates, project outcomes or job duties absent from B.
How would a recommendation packet for a job supervisor differ from one prepared for a classroom teacher?
The FTC explains how advertising can blend into unboxings, influencer posts and games. Useful as evidence behind a classroom examination of creator recommendations.
What changes when a product appears in an ordinary-looking post instead of in a clearly marked ad?
Students annotate three clearly fictional creator cards for product, sponsor, intended audience and evidence. Redesign one card so its advertising relationship is clear.
Make: An annotated ad card and a revised disclosure.
Public readable article; no video is claimed for this item.
45–55 min core, 80–100 min full
| Criterion | Beginning | Developing | Strong | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy & scope | Repeats claim. | Mostly accurate; scope incomplete. | Accurate and properly scoped. | Accurate, scoped, and explicit about uncertainty. |
| Evidence | Little or unrelated. | Relevant source, sometimes overstated. | Explains what sources establish. | Compares sources and limits. |
| Authority | Names actor without role. | Plausible authority. | Explains who decides and why. | Maps proposal, approval, implementation, review. |
| Communication | Vague or audience-mismatched. | Main point understandable. | Clear, specific, audience-aware. | Clear, accessible, precise, well-qualified. |
