ELI 162 Guidelines for Your
Reading/Writing Journal
You will be doing two journal entries during the term. You can choose a
chapter from a non-ELI textbook or an article WITH REFERENCES.
If the article does not have references/bibliography, you need to
choose another article.
When you first select your reading, please fill out and submit the
following form. I will let you know by email if your reading is
acceptable.
The Reading
Find a textbook or periodical related to your field.
Choose a chapter or article that interests you and photocopy it. If
you are using an Internet article, print it out. Remember that it must
have a bibliography to count.
Write the bibliographic reference on the photocopy. It will look
something like this:
For an article - Clinton, W. (1996). Why I want to be President.
Famous Magazine, 17 (2), 25-27. [17= the volume; (2) =
the issue; 25-27= page numbers]
For a book - Clinton, H. (1996). It takes a village. New York:
Famous Publisher.
On the photocopy, circle the main idea. Then, highlight the
important points as you would if it were material for one of your classes.
Turn in your highlighted photocopy when the journal article is due.
Put as the Subject in your e-mail message, say 'Summary of' and the
title of your reading.
In the body of the message, begin with the bibliographic reference.
It will look something like this in your e-mail message:
For an article - Clinton, W. (1996). Why I want to be President.
_Famous Magazine_, _17_ (2), 25-27. [17= the volume; (2) = the issue;
25-27= page numbers]
For a book - Clinton, H. (1996). _It takes a village_. New York:
Famous Publisher.
Notice the use of underlines before and after the title in an e-mail
message to show that the title is underlined.
The summary should be about one-fourth the size of the original
article. It includes none of your own opinions-- you are reporting
as accurately as possible that author's point of view, not yours, in a
summary. (The critique is the time to put in your two cents' worth.)
Mention the author's name and the title of the reading somewhere in
your summary.
Make sure you've given the main idea and only as many details as are
necessary to make the author's point of view clear.
Read through your summary before you send it and paraphrase
any places where you've used the original writer's words.
Put as the Subject in your e-mail message, say 'Critique of' and the
title of your reading.
Mention the author's name and the title of the reading somewhere in
your critique.
The critique is where you respond to what the author wrote the way
you might discuss a topic with someone in person
You can agree or disagree with the content and say why.
You can talk about what you found surprising or hard to believe.
You can discuss the way the information was presented -- whether it
was easy or difficult to understand, how it was organized, the quality of
the graphics, etc.
You can talk about something the article reminded you of, such as a
similar situation you were in yourself or what your friends or relatives
in your country might say about a similar topic.
You can have any opinion you like about the reading, but you must be
understandable and give reasons for what you say about it.
Grading
Each summary and critique is worth 35 points. You can get up to 10 points
on the reading:
Turning in an article in your field that is at least five pages long
Circling the main idea
Highlighting the supporting details
You can get up to 25 points on the summary and critique:
Putting the bibliographic reference in the right form
Writing a good summary
you include the author's name, title, and main idea
you include only the most important details
the summary is well-paraphrased, without plagiarism
Writing a good critique
it's clear that you've thought about what you're saying
your critique is a response to the author--you connect your opinions
to the author's point of view
you give reasons for your opinions
Feedback
(Thanks to Jon Dorbolo for the inspiration behind this form!)
http://ucs.orst.edu/~healeyd/162journal_guidelines.html Last
updated April 4, 2000 by D.Healey,
Deborah.Healey@orst.edu. Based on work by Marino/Polensek, revised
9/95, 6/98, 9/99 by D.Healey.