Because this seminar-style
class depends so heavily on student discussion, careful and critical reading
of the assigned readings is very important. Writing down your reactions
to the readings is an invaluable way to become a more critical reader,
thinker, and discussion participant. As an added benefit, having
critical comments on each of the readings will be helpful as you write
your final exam-paper.
Format
Journals should be typed, double-spaced,
and about 1-2 pages long (some will be shorter).
Journals are not
summaries of the readings, but consist of your reactions to the readings,
reflecting your critical and active thinking. It is helpful to jot
notes in the margins of the article/chapter while you are reading and to
use these notes as a basis for writing your journal. This process
of reflective reading and journal-writing will get easier as the course
goes along.
Some examples of questions you should think about while reading include
the following (in no particular order, and you won't write about each of
these "thinking points" for every article or reading):
What are the
author's assumptions?
E.g.:
What is this author's perspective on how gender differences are caused?
Does the author
provide good evidence
for his/her assertions?
E.g.:
Is the author's statement "Women are ruled by a patriarchal society" supported
by any research evidence?
How is the
information or perspective in this article related
to other material you've read?
E.g.:
This author's perspective on the influence of parents is contradicted by
the study we read by Janis et al. (1988).
If reading
a pair of articles (a debate), does the 2nd article truly answer or respond
to the criticisms raised by the 1st article?
What questions
do you have about the information or perspective in this article?
Try to answer some of your own questions-- it will help
you to think more about the issues, even if you decide later that your
attempts at answers were wrong
E.g.:
What does the author mean by "andogyny"? She seems to mean a combination
of the best male and female characteristics in some places, but in other
places (see p. 244) she implies that it's mostly the best male characteristics.
What research
ideas come to mind while reading this
article?
E.g.:
I wonder whether anyone has tested how male-generic words (e.g., men of
good faith) are perceived by people who have English as a second language.
How does the
information in this article challenge or
support your own beliefs?
E.g.:
I felt angry when I read about the group that thinks men are useless beyond
their reproductive contribution -- clearly, God created both men and women
as good and in his image, so we cannot just rule them out as useless creatures.
Evaluation
You
are responsible for turning in 14 journals over the 19 journal due-dates.
Note that this is an ongoing assignment that is due every week -- you may
not turn in more than one journal at a time, and you may not wait until
December to turn in a pile of entries. Don't be tempted to skip the first
few weeks and count them as "freebies" -- plan ahead for sickness, chaotic
schedules, weekend visitors, etc. that may prevent you from writing entries
later in the semester. Because
your journals will serve as the basis for class discussions, journals must
be completed by the beginning of class; the instructor will collect
them at the end of the class period.
Journals will be graded on a 4-point scale. A score of 3 indicates
a lively and critical mind at work, with good observations and insights,
thoughtful questions, and connections with other readings or class discussions;
a score of 0 indicates that you have merely summarized the reading and
offered virtually no critical insights. Scores of 1 and 2 reflect
increasing amounts of critical insight.
Note
that the journals do not have to be written formally -- using first person
is fine. Having said that, recognize that while a few grammar problems/errors
will not decrease your grade, more extensive problems will be reflected
in a lowered score.
Sample
Journal Entry
(your
journals will be double-spaced)
Crawford & Maracek (1989). Psychology reconstructs the female. Psychology
of Women Quarterly.
The Women as Problem framework that the authors discuss has the implicit
assumption that men have "won" something and women have "lost," and now
women are trying to make up for percieved lacks and deficits. The
very language used in this framework implies that traditionallly male standards
are correct and that women must measure up to that level in order to be
whole. The cultural emphasis on autonomy also stems from typcally
male behaviors -- women prefer more of a relationship-orientation (as we
read in Tannen and in Gilligan's work). Women traditionally have
had more nurturing, communal, non-competitive roles (family, church, schoolteacher)
that are still perceived as less important or valuable than the "real world"
roles in business. And why is the "real world" defined that
way, anyway? Why is staying at home or being a student not the "real world"?
The authors make an intersting comment about women's equality being "the
source of the decay of the social order and male impotence" (page 154).
While it made me feel defensive when I first read it, I think that the
statement may be partly true -- women's demand for equality probably has
destabilized the traditionally male-dominant hierarchy. But where's
the evidence for causing "male impotence"??
Objectivity is usually defined (as it is here) as "value-free." We
discussed a different definition in class last week: two different people
using the same measures will find the same results (although the measure
itself might be faulty). What are the implications of these two different
definitions? The first one is much more philosophical than the other;
the second one seems much clearer. I wonder whether people or their
observations can even be "value-free." As Christians we believe that
God's law is written on our hearts; therefore, values are part of our very
being. We probably cannot be completely "objective" as the first
definition would imply, but maybe we can set aside our biases so that the
second definition is more realistic.
