These notes outline the process that I go through in reading (and re-reading) learning reflection, and that you might go through in reading and assessing your own and those of others.

First, I go through and strike out passages which are not relevant to the learning identified in the general statement about the aims of the course in the course introduction.  Specifically:

• I cross out all evaluations of the course or my teaching, good or bad: there will be a place for that, in the course evaluation process, but if you're assessing your learning it's not relevant;
• I cross out general expressions of enthusiasm about how much the writer has learned or how hard she's worked;
• I cross out general statements of things the writer thinks or now knows about literary journalism, its context, etc., which don't refer to how those ideas developed through experiences in the course;
• I cross out general statements of change of attitude without specifics ("I now think literary journalism is really important");
• I cross out summaries of what the writer has done unless they are specifically tied to learning;

• the learning is tied to a particular, concrete experience -- of reading something, writing something, talking with someone, finding something in the library.
• the learning is clearly definable and attributed to an experience
• evidence is offered that the learning has changed the writer's behavior -- for instance, evidence of what was said earlier contrasted with what the writer would say now
• the learning is directly related to one of the stated goals of the course
• there's a kind or method or result of learning that is a surprise to me, and which I think is relevant to what this course is attempting to help people achieve

• the nature and range of varieties of literary journalism, and writing generally
• the ways society, culture and context affect writing, especially journalism
• the role of public writing -- not only of journalism, but of writing defined more generally
• how an idea or understanding learned in one context was extended into another
• deepening your own abilities, about things like writing for different audiences and engaging in structured discussions
• methods and strategies of learning and working toward understanding, tied to particular experiences

Finally, I reread the printouts looking for any possible excuse to raise a mark. I look, this time, for indications that the writer could have produced evidence of learning, though she didn't in fact do it. I consider that I probably didn't make myself clear enough about how the final synthesis should at least take into account the suggestions about constructing a synthesis. I raise some of the marks. At this point I reread the reflections of the people who have been mentioned more than a couple of times by others as having contributed to their learning; if there is some doubt about a final evaluation of a reflection, I give that person the higher possibility.

All this allows me to make the following range of judgments:

• I don't see evidence here that would allow me to make any alteration in a mark generated by sheer participation; thus, a minimum mark would not be changed
• I see evidence here of learning that is, according to the definition in the university calendar, of C level; if so, a mark lower than C, or the absence of any mark, generated by sheer participation, would be raised to C
• I see evidence of learning that matches the calendar descriptions of work meriting a B or an A, and the same thing would apply; a minimum mark that was lower than that would give way to the higher mark.

To make all this more concrete, I suggest you apply this reading process to your own synthesis a few days before the deadline for submitting it (and to those of other people in the class who have posted theirs).

If you find, as most people will, that you actually did address issues like these directly, feel comfortable. If not, revise it. It's always worth letting a piece of writing sit for a bit and coming back to it; plan to do that.