Humane Letters Participation Guide
Spirit of Inquiry/Wonder
Excellent:
Engagement shows that the students here to discover something each and every day. They jump into discussion and tenaciously pursue a line of inquiry. They show a desire to learn, make sense of the text, and find ways to connect inquiry to life. Student does not need to match the day's topic to a pre-existing interest to realize there is something worth exploring.
Good:
Engagement shows all of the above but only when the student happens to be moved by the topic that day. In other words, the desire is inconsistent, and the student struggles to find this spirit of inquiry unless it matches up with preferences. Student fails to search for what is meaningful throughout the entirety of the seminar and day to day.
Needs Improvement:
Engagement shows student is only participating for the sake of the participation grade and is not moved by the act of discovery.
Failing:
No engagement with the seminar, student is silent throughout
Expressive Ability
Excellent:
Student is frequently involved throughout the duration of the seminar. Student can honestly say, "We had a good discussion today.”
Comments are made with clarity and precision so that the content of their contributions can be readily understood by their peers.
Student speaks assertively and with confidence/courage.
Good:
Student is either intermittently involved or frequency is grouped up in only a portion of the seminar.
Comments are always attempting clarity and precision, but mistakes are made which make the content of their contributions harder to understand.
Comments feature an abundance of vocal disfluencies such as “like,” “uhm,” “if that makes sense” and other fillers.
Student oscillates between assertiveness/confidence and meekness/fear.
Needs Improvement:
Student is infrequently involved. Student can say to themselves at the end of seminar, "They had a good discussion today."
Comments lack clarity and precision. It is often hard for the other participants to follow the thought without clarificatory questions.
Student lacks the confidence to express oneself in such a way that gives their contributions their properweight. Student prefaces most ideas with warnings or talks down to self.
Failing:
Student says nothing during the seminar.
Critical Thinking
Excellent:
Student is capable of making clear distinctions between assumptions and conclusions or evidence and arguments. Student can analyze an argument and explain its strengths and weaknesses as well as suggest where more evidence or argument is needed. Student can make a clear distinction between their thought and that of the author or another student
Good:
Student recognizes an argument when it is being made, can differentiate in simple cases between evidence and argument, and can identify some assumptions. The student is aware when they do not know and admits to their confusions in an attempt to dissolve them rather than claiming to know while being confused and mistaken. Student can usually distinguish the differences between their view and those of others.
Needs Improvement:
Student is only aware of the most obvious statements made by the author or other students and often confuses their own view with those of the author or other students. Student struggles to identify the claims and assumptions in support of the overall argument. Student seeks to judge rather than understand and makes pronouncements of character and attitude rather than deeply engaging with the text to understand the author's intentions.
Textual Prowess
Excellent:
Comments show meaningful reflection and engagement with the meaning of the text. A good faith effort to unravel the complexities of the material has occurred before seminar so that seminar can start from a point of true inquiry.
Comments are routinely grounded in the text, and the student shows an ability to connect ideas across passages from that day's reading as well as passages across the book as a whole (i.e.meta-connections).
Comments don't just vaguely reference a passage but ground the analysis in the specific words and phrases that interpretations depend on.
Good:
Comments show some reflection and engagement with the meaning of the text before seminar. However, the student is not yet prepared for depth of inquiry. Requires the class to spend seminar time building up personal understanding and reflection on some basics before further inquiry can occur.
Comments are routinely grounded in the text but rarely make meta-connections.
Comments reference the text with relevance and accuracy but lack the specificity mentioned above.
Needs Improvement:
Comments show that the reading was completed but with almost no reflection before seminar.
Comments are rarely grounded in the text.
Comments vaguely and mistakenly reference the text.
Failure:
Comments show that reading was clearly not completed or done so in only the most rudimentary manner.
Comments are never grounded in the text.
Comments make easy mistakes regarding basic comprehension of the text.
Teamwork
Excellent:
Comments show that the student has been attentively listening to their peers since the comments do not repeat basic points already made, make note when they are repeating a passage for a different purpose, follow up on the thread that has already been developed, or ask questions which work to clarify the current thread.
Comments are always polite and respectful. In addition, comments are sensitive to the intellectual and emotional needs of others even while vigorously criticizing opposing opinions.
The student is an effective team member insofar as their comments help guide the discussion to deeper inquiry and attempt to synthesize all contributions into a meaningful whole. In addition, their participation is always constructive. It invites others into the conversation rather than scaring them away or excluding them.
Good:
Comments show that the student is paying attention to the major threads of discussion but is not always trying to comprehend the comments of others. They are hearing but not always actively listening.
Comments are almost always polite and respectful, but they are sometimes disruptive to the flow of conversation or fail to take into account the intellectual and emotional needs of their fellow participants.
Participation is often constructive, but there are times when the participation disrupts the flow of discussion or does nothing to advance the thread of inquiry. Participation may not invite others in, but it also does nothing to scare others away or exclude.
Needs Improvement:
Student shows no evidence that they are listening beyond catching buzzwords; Comments show that they don't know where the thread of conversation truly is.
Comments border on impolite and disrespectful while showing no sensitivity to the needs of their fellow participants.
Comments do more to distract from the main line of inquiry than advance it.
Failing:
Actively disrespecting the other participants; personal attacks; rolling eyes at the contributions of others, Snark and Sarcasm
Sleeping/Disrupting the seminar.
Having side conversations