Reading Journals
You will have six opportunities to submit reading journal entries engaging the readings for that week. Each entry should be 500-750 words long. These journal entries should represent your engagement with and above all your struggle with the reading. It should not be a mini-paper, a book report, or a summary of the readings; the intention is not to demonstrate to me your “mastery of the material”—in fact, I am not the only audience for the journal. In part this starts the class discussion before we get to class. You can write about what you are trying to understand or what you half-understand but are unsure of. I want to know what your questions are, rather than just know whether you can answer my questions. Focus on what is perplexing, provocative, troubling, challenging, or exciting about the text, and try to dig deeper into that point. You can write about how the week’s reading connects with the previous readings or with ideas from previous discussions, journals, or responses. You can problematize, question, critique, or extend, as long as you do so with empathy and the attempt to understand. Scoring points against the author is not the goal.
The journal entries should be formal in style but informal in structure. That is, it should be grammatically correct, carefully considered, thoroughly revised, but it should not have a formal essay structure with an introduction, argument, conclusion. You need not include a formal bibliography, but do name any texts you are quoting or relying on. Try not to use slang — this is a professional setting. Remember that your words do not have the support of your facial expression to allay someone’s confusion about your intention. Be extra polite and clear. Each journal entry might focus on a single point, or take up several points, but explain your points fully. Use quotation sparingly: Bring in a couple of lines from the text you are discussing if the wording is particularly tricky or significant, but don’t quote just to quote. Explaining what the text says in your own words is often better than quotation. You might ask questions that you don’t ultimately answer, but do not to write just a list of questions. Dig into each question. Work each question over.
Focus on deep rather than superficial struggles. If you are unsure how to interpret a passage, work out possible interpretations, and connect pieces of textual evidence. If you find an unfamiliar term, concept, name, or reference, look it up, and only write about it if what you learn leads to some genuine insight. Points of confusion should not be barriers but invitations to further thinking.
The purpose of these journals is to encourage you to engage thoughtfully with the reading, to incorporate writing into the thinking and learning process, and to create an intellectual community inquiring together into these issues, ideas, and texts. Again, I am not the main audience for these journal entries. Journals will be graded on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis. Feedback from me will focus on whether you are on track in doing the kind of thing the assignment is asking you to do, and whether you are fulfilling the criterial What you can learn from each other through reading, responding, and open exchange of ideas can be invaluable, if you engage earnestly.
Satisfactory reading journals will:
- Show a genuine attempt to engage and struggle with the material.
- Be at least 500 words long (your words, not including quotations).
- Be substantially free of significant spelling and grammar errors.
- Be turned in on time (3pm on Mondays)
Each journal entry will be examined in terms of these criteria, but they will also be read in the context of your entire set of journal entries, the evolution of the course and of your work as a writer and thinker.
Peer Responses
By Wednesday at 5pm, you should submit a substantive (500+ word) comment on at least one of the reading journals that was submitted on Monday. The general expectation is that you will do 12 of these over the course of a semester. You can do as up to 2 comments per week for credit. You are welcome to make additional comments or to make short comments, but they will not count as peer responses.
In the responses, you should attempt to engage in a genuine intellectual dialogue about the reading materials. Do not attempt to imitate the condescending comments you imagine an instructor would make. Avoid the third-person — speak to your peers directly. Your goal is not to praise (but probably you should do just a little bit of that), and it is definitely not to criticize or to judge your peers. You should grab on to the points raised by your colleague and attempt to carry the discussion even further. Again, the purpose is to engage and to struggle, to work together to inquire into these ideas and texts. And again, this should be formal in style, informal in structure.
It is particularly important in this assignment to be respectful. Remember that your words do not have the support of your facial expression to allay someone’s confusion about your intention. Be extra polite and clear. Recognize and respect that other people may come from different backgrounds or have more or less experience in this area. Sometimes, we have to discuss difficult, sensitive, or controversial topics. Do your best to speak respectfully, tactfully, and not to attack anyone. Criticism should target texts and ideas, not persons or groups, with the aim of understanding, not scoring points. Be sensitive to how what you say can be heard. Assume that everyone else is doing their best. Be generous with others’ honest mistakes. We all make them occasionally. Assume that all contributions are made in good faith, and do your best to gently suggest ways of improvement.
Satisfactory peer responses will:
- Show a earnest attempt at empathetically engaging with the journal being responded to and carry the discussion further.
- Be at least 500 words.
- Be substantially free of significant spelling and grammar errors.
- Be turned in on time