These notes outline the process that I go through in reading (and re-reading) reflections on learning.and that you can 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 explanations of why the writer didn't complete assignments or what troubles the writer had during the year that made work difficult;
• I cross out general statements of things the writer thinks about drama, theatre, the period, 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 theatre 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  the drama and theatre of the period
• the ways society, culture and context have affected that drama and theatre, and vice versa
• the role of scholarship and learning about drama and theatre in our understanding of it
• how an idea or understanding learned in one context was extended into another
• methods and strategies of learning and working toward understanding, tied to particular experiences

Of course it isn't possible for someone who has been involved in the course and engaged with the process to convey everything she learned.  So I look for evidence of the ability to relate general kinds of learning to concrete events -- readings of particular documents (literary histories, plays, wiki and forum postings), discussions with others, individual experiences with research on line or in the library. Just as I would have done with a final exam, back when I used to give them, I look for a range of different kinds of learning. If nearly everything in the reflection has to do with one thing: say, coming to understand new things about a particular play or playwright, or the criticism of theatre, that's not as impressive in terms of overall learning as a range of different kinds of learning.

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 reflection should at least take into account the suggested questions. I raise many of the marks. At this point I reread the reflections of the people who have been mentioned 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.

So, right now, I suggest you apply this reading process to your own draft reflection. You might, also, compare it with those of others in the class who posted one.

If you find, as a number of people will, that you did address issues like these directly, you should feel comfortable. If you didn't, you should go back and revise, to create a more convincing synthesis.