Hi Gators,
Get ready to blog! Everyone should have a blog by Tuesday because that’s the day I’d like us all (yes, me included) to start blogging on the theorists. I had originally wanted to specify exactly what you should blog about, but I thought that would go against the spirit of blogging! Hence, you see no asterisks indicating the specific readings about which to blog. As the head Gator in charge, I’ll start entering some posts on Freud and James to give you an example, at least from my menopausal brain, as to what strikes me as interesting with these theorists.
Your posts need not be profound. These blog posts are partly to be a place to discuss “out loud” what you find confusing, irritating, intriguing, puzzling, groovy, etc., about the theorists in general or, as I’d prefer, about something specific that you find confusing, irritating, intriguing, puzzling, etc., in their texts.
You are to respond to the primary text. That means Freud’s own words in The Future of an Illusion and in James’ own words in The Varieties of Religious Experience not Pals or Phillips talking about Freud or James nor little snips of Freud or James in Pals or Phillips. The Pals and Phillips texts are considered secondary literature. They provide and analysis of the texts under examination; they are not the original texts themselves. Your 100 word summary of the key idea or argument might be the summary of the entire book (with Freud this is easy) or an entire chapter, a certain paragraph. Your critical discussion, however, should show evidence that you’ve read the entire assignment (or the entire partial assignment) such that you are discussing the problematic passage with an eye toward the whole. In other words, don’t blather on about how confusing a passage is when you haven’t bothered to continue reading the section or chapter in order to figure out for yourself what the author meant. Does that make sense?
Otherwise, there are no hard and fast rules here. It all depends on how you are approaching your particular blog post for this week, for instance. You’ll often get a chance to “officially” blog on a theorist more than once. Skim through the syllabus to get an idea of the assigned blogs. Remember: once you’ve done the assigned posts, you can blog about anything else related to class. Here’s what I’ve written on the revised, revised syllabus.
Reading Responses: Blog, Forums, and Wikis:
To facilitate class preparation and discussion, students are required to answer discussion questions posted in the class forum on iLearn and to post reading responses on the theorists listed where indicated on the syllabus. What it is that you blog about is up to you; who it is that you blog about is indicated on the syllabus. These responses reflect student reading and comprehension of the reading assignments. In addition to the assigned blogged reading responses, you may also make separate blog posts on anything else that is related to the coursework.
Your blogged reading responses are to include the following: First, summarize in 100 words (max) the key ideas or arguments of the reading, second, provide one question for class discussion based on your reading, third, offer your own critical reflections on the reading(s). For example, you might discuss how the reading builds on or contradicts other readings, or how the reading agrees with and/or contradicts your personal experience or understanding.
Blog, Forum, and Wiki Criteria
Try to get your assigned blog posts done in a 24 hour time frame. I will usually leave 10 minutes at the end of the class for you to make notes for your blogs. Your iLearn forum posts are due no latter than 9pm Wednesdays and 9am Mondays. While the rhetorical standard for blog, forum and wiki work is not always as rigorous as is expected for academic essays and paper, remember that we are involved in an academic endeavor. All your written work should represent your best effort. Posts strewn with grammatical and spelling errors will be severely penalized. Proofread your work before clicking that “submit” button.
All assigned posts will be graded collectively each week on the basis of a) percentage of assignment completed, b) comprehension level, and c) critical reflection. The points possible for each week are as follows: exemplary (5 points), acceptable (3 points), or sub-standard (1 point).