Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Directions for Self-Evaluations

Everyone should send me an email or hand me a written version of their self-evaluation by Tuesday at the latest.

I want three things. First, a self-rating on a scale of 1 to 5 of your participation in class, and a second self-rating on a scale of 1 to 5 of your work on the blog (for almost all of you, this amounts to a self-evaluation of your critiques of the writing of other students. Third, feel free to include a sentence or two, or at most a short paragraph, commenting on your performance in either area, or both.

Here's what these scores mean.

1) You only rarely participate in class / your critiques are often short & perfunctory (you usually focus on trivial details, and that only briefly, or you simply praise them then quit) -- or you don't even do them.
2) You have something substantive to say perhaps once a week / your critiques are sometimes acceptable, and sometimes sub-par.
3) You have something useful to say most classes / your critiques are consistently acceptable, but in no way extraordinary; for instance, you might focus on minor details but consistently avoid talking about their main argument.
4) You constructively participate several times each class / your critiques are more often good than acceptable.
5) You believe that nobody in the class has more useful things to say than you / your critiques are consistently thoughtful and detailed (you *always* spend your hour on them).

Note: I'm asking for this because I really want to know what you think. Generally speaking, I will be guided by honest self-evaluations; if you are obviously exaggerating, though, I won't be happy. Here's another way to put it: I'll tolerate a little inflation, if you seem to have honestly thought through your own work, but only a little.

No comments: