Academic
Exchange Quarterly Winter 2004
ISSN 1096-1453 Volume 8, Issue 4
To cite, use print
source rather than this on-line version which may not reflect
print copy format requirements or text lay-out and pagination.
Reading Journals: a
versatile assessment strategy
Jeanine
Graham,
Jeanine Graham, Ph.D., is a Senior
Lecturer in History
Abstract
Introduction
How best to
encourage undergraduate students to read widely, wisely and well is a constant
challenge for university teachers and one that can be complicated by students’ varying
family and employment commitments, time management strategies, and prior
experience of tertiary education.
Assessed reading journals offer one solution. Easily adapted in scope and scale, this
commonplace teaching and learning strategy can be easily adjusted to work effectively
at both graduate and undergraduate levels and with outcomes that link directly
to recommended teaching practice about providing on-going developmental feedback (Hyland, 2000). The
case study below demonstrates how the strategy can be used in ways not usually canvassed
in the literature on journals, logs and diaries (Moon, 1999; Gibbs, 1995). It
suggests that both learning and employability objectives can be achieved
through a flexible system that accords well with recognized goals of assessing
for understanding (Ramsden, 2003).
A second-year level example
The most straightforward
use of a reading journal is as a record of a student’s independent or assigned
reading, preferably with a strong reflective component. In a introductory course on Victorian Britain,
for example, a group of some sixty students accessed, read and annotated a
range of published resource material. Locating contemporary newspapers and
periodicals, parliamentary debates and official reports extended the students’
literacy information skills. Other categories, such as monographs, scholarly
and popular articles, websites, novels, biographies and a richly-illustrated
‘coffee table ‘publication, were relatively easy for most students to uncover
but occasional small group or full class discussion on ‘favorite finds’ was a
useful way of sharing search strategies and promoting a sense of collective endeavor
amongst students who had little previous tertiary experience of passing useful references on to others.
For many
undergraduates in that class, it was a novel experience to be involved in
developing both the assignment specifications and the assessment criteria.
Small group discussion in the first week of teaching soon elicited a list of
twelve types of sources that could be explored; identifying the key criteria
for assessment was more difficult. Most groups could agree more readily on the
relatively mechanical aspects (such as accuracy of referencing and standard of
proof-reading) than on the more substantive ways in which a 100-word annotation
might be assessed. There was little
understanding about the scope and structure of an annotation, hence student
hesitation about how best to evaluate one. Examples of informative annotations, adapted
from
Student responses
on all three topics – sources, criteria and the nature of annotations –were
then compared against the instructor’s draft assignment specifications and
assessment criteria, prepared in advance but not distributed until that point.
While few modifications were required, the opportunity to fine-tune the
instructions at this stage, with student involvement, prevented problems from arising
later because of student misunderstanding. The final version of the assignment
instructions was distributed the following day.
End-of-course evaluations reflected a high level of student enjoyment of
the scope and challenges of the reading journal and the way in which the tasks
had been developed. There is obviously scope here for a much more explicit
development of strategies for student self-assessment as part of a
teaching-learning partnership (Boud, 1995).
A third-year level case study
The number of
entries and the total assessment value of a reading journal can be adjusted to match
the teaching and learning objectives of any particular course of instruction
and the potential in-class application of the task can also change to suit a
specific situation. In a third-year-level paper on childhood history, for
example, a shortened journal was adopted so that all individual entries
contributed to a collective course bibliography, copies of which were then
distributed to the entire class by the end of the first five weeks of
teaching. Subsequently, as students worked
on their independent research projects, many made extensive use of resources
which other course members had located and annotated for the bibliography (Graham,
1999). Website access is now an alternative means of dissemination.
Requiring weekly
or fortnightly submission of journal entries ensures that students are engaged
in independent and reflective reading throughout the teaching semester and not
undertaking an intense burst of activity just before the assignment’s due date.
Dividing the journal into two sections and marking each after a five or
six-week period is another strategy for consideration. Informal third-year student feedback suggests
that a reading journal spread over ten or more weeks palls in appeal when there
is little variation of task. Yet a sustained journal also has considerable
potential to be used to enhance ‘employability’ skills - analysis,
communication and teamwork (Yorke and Knight, 2004). It was with very similar objectives in mind
that the strategy was adjusted for another third-year-level class of 30 students.
The key goals this
time were those of fostering a collaborative approach within each of two
separate seminar groups; ensuring that students read steadily throughout the
semester in areas that related to all parts of the teaching program; providing on-going
formative feedback not just final summative assessment comments; and
encouraging students to think much more deliberately about the range of skills
which they were developing and applying in the course. Each week’s task formed the basis for a
regularly scheduled short period of in-class discussion.
Although ten
tasks were originally proposed, with two of these to be optional, in practice eight
tasks were set and students were required to complete all of them, preferably
within the time estimate guideline provided (usually between five and eight
hours). Tasks scheduled for the second
half of the semester were deliberately designed to be shorter so that students
were not compromising work on their independent research projects. Normally, no
entry was to be longer than two pages of typing using a size 12 font. Students
prepared two copies each week, one of which they handed in at the end of
seminars for comment. The other, on
which they often made notes during or after their contribution in discussion,
was retained for their own files. Each week’s entries were reviewed and an
indicative grade noted (as an aide-memoire) by the
instructor but the students were not given a formal mark each time. Entries
were returned in the following week’s classes. Students were asked to retain
the reviewed sheets and to hand these in, at the end of the course, as the full
reading journal for final assessment. Overall, the journal entries were worth
25% of the full course assessment: most students spent 50-60 hours of
independent study on them.
The assessment
criteria (not in rank order) were: completion of the tasks in accordance with
the instructions; relevance of points noted in relation to the tasks set;
thoroughness of analysis of materials read; evidence of a developing
understanding of key concepts and debates; comprehensiveness of response within
the space and time constraints suggested; and the standard of presentation, oral
and written, in the typed entries and seminar contributions. Most students favored
one final grade being given for the overall standard of the reading journal, an
approach which accommodated steady improvement in analysis, referencing and
expression, but some later recommended a calculation based on eight numerical
totals. That system would have negated
the teaching goal of trying to give students the opportunity to improve their
skills in the light of responses from both their instructor and fellow course
members. Feedback aimed to be
‘developmental’ not ‘judgmental’ though some students may have thought the
distinction artificial. As Alan Booth has argued, however, the ‘diagnostic,
summative and formative functions of assessment… are not separate entities but
are part of a continuum in which the aim is improved understanding’ (Booth, 2003).
Details of the reading journal tasks
To enhance student
communication and analytical skills, each task involved a slightly different style
of presentation. In the first week, when all students were reading a seminal
article, they wrote a short commentary (maximum of eight lines) indicating
their response to a methodological question.
They also read sections of two autobiographies, identifying and listing
comparatively the range of themes discussed, and then developing a 300-word
paragraph on the comparative treatment of one of those themes. The second week’s task enabled students to
begin reading either of the optional course texts. They recorded the frequency
and context of references to a central work in the field of childhood history
and prepared a short commentary on one of the more substantial of these
references. From the course text each
student chose five significant sentences, statements or paragraphs that could
be used for in-class discussion. Two were typed (in size 24 font) and
reproduced on overhead transparencies. A summary list of points that could or
should be covered during class discussion was then prepared in relation to each
of the overheads. The outcome was a lively and stimulating set of class
conversations, with all course members coping well with the ‘ordeal’ of
standing up in front of their peers and leading class discussion for the first
time. With these first two tasks, as was
the pattern subsequently, examples of the type of presentation required for the
following week’s journal entry were normally prepared by the course instructor for showing in class and could be accessed by e-mail (or, now, placed on a
website) for any student uncertain about layout or approach.
The third exercise
in the reading journal enabled students to finish reading their chosen course
text. Each course member then selected five topic areas for further
investigation and emailed these to the full class (a strategy that ensured
everyone had reliable e-mail access by this point though postings on a course
website would now be a more efficient alternative). For one of the five areas, students had to
indicate, in full sentences with no grammatical errors, three lines of enquiry
and the related research strategies that could be adopted to start an
investigation. The final part of this
task involved their choosing any two articles noted in footnotes or the bibliography
of the course text; locating the relevant articles in the Journals section of
the university library (an area which some students had never used up to that
point) ; and compiling a 100-word summary of the scope and key argument for
each article. Specific details of font and layout were given and all of the
summaries, consistent in format and with each student’s initials indicating
authorship, were then photocopied as a class set.
Task four, also
intended for full-class distribution, was a timely opportunity for students to
investigate biographical materials. Each student selected one individual whose
activities or ideas had been influential in the history of children or
childhood. Choices were notified to the full class electronically to avoid any
duplication. Within the 400 words
allowed, students were to spend no more than 50 on biographical details; between 150 and 200 on relevant areas of
activity; and the remaining 150 -200 words explaining the influence of their
chosen individual. Three key reference sources were to be listed at the end of each
report. A full class seminar on the role of individuals in relation to
childhood history was both informative and thoughtful in the light of student
work for that week.
Since all
students were required to prepare for a mini-conference presentation on their
proposed independent research projects, there was a deliberate break in the
schedule of reading journal tasks. The change of routine was welcomed by the
students as was the (to them) novel experience of the whole class going off
campus, by bus, to a well-appointed tramping club lodge for a full afternoon of
progress reports. The benefits of the
different class dynamics of that day were obvious in the course for the
remainder of the semester.
The last four tasks
continued to contain a variety of presentation methods and source materials. One
involved a bullet-point listing of major ideas contained within a scholarly
article, followed by an analysis of how one of these ideas had been developed by
the author. Since the article related to children and the media, students then reviewed
current newspaper or magazine advertising to select an item that reflected this
link. They had to explain that choice in three coherent statements. The
following week saw the students reading allocated sections of a lengthy reference
work and identifying three important concepts which were expanded within the
reading. This was a familiar activity;
beginning to consider key points for a broad examination question was not. This
early practice in prioritizing five suggestions and giving a sentence of
elaboration also gave course members an opportunity to share ideas, not always
a hallmark of examination preparation.
Website
resources featured in the seventh task as students located sites on three
different subject areas: curriculum, contemporary issues, and historical
materials. Both descriptive and
evaluative comments were required but word limits prevented this task from
becoming too demanding. For several course members this was the first conscious
consideration of criteria for appraising the scholarly value of websites. And
for the final exercise, students were directed to a substantial collection of
published historical documents and guided to writing a 100-word documentary
analysis for three selected texts. They also highlighted (on photocopies)
phrases which they felt reflected contemporary attitudes towards children and
childhood and provided one-line explanations for their choices. This final task
did not receive separate feedback. Instead students had a one-week period in which
any missed exercises could be finished for inclusion in the full reading journal.
Since several course members had been affected by illness, bereavement and
family complications, this opportunity was well-received and in no way
disadvantaged those whose journal entries had been completed on a regular
basis.
When students
were asked to indicate which of the course assignments should be retained in
future years, their anonymous responses
on the reading journal ranged from
positive - ‘The Reading Journal is a
keeper!’ ; ‘Kept me very busy! Was always a challenge but learnt a lot!’; ‘Very
beneficial for weekly growth. Evaluations kept you focused’; to lukewarm or
critical – ‘Lots of wide reading, which I wouldn’t otherwise have done, but
they were quite random tasks, and often quite annoying’; ‘Too much work
involved for a low percentage of course grade’.
Fewer than 10% of course respondents recorded a negative comment. No one
recommended that this particular assessment strategy be dropped. Several applauded
the inclusion of course texts within the journal tasks. Certainly that strategy
helped to build a basis of shared understanding in the first few weeks of the
course.
From a teaching
perspective, the reading journal tasks, linking in with the seminar/lecture
program, were carefully planned to complement the other aspects of the course
assessment – an independent research project worth 25%, a final examination
worth 40% and a 10% participation mark, no proportion of which was awarded to
students who missed more than 20% of the class meetings. In future years, more
attention will be paid in the first weeks of classes to encouraging students to
think about their reading techniques, skim reading especially, since few had
reviewed this aspect of their learning. Additional opportunities for the
students to reflect more consciously on their learning and writing could be
linked with an expanded style of journal (Moon, 1999) or integrated more deliberately into non-assessed
classroom activities in ways that encourage greater student/instructor
partnership and interaction (Bean, 1996). Adapting the reading journal from an
individualistic assessment strategy to one with a strong element of
collaborative learning, however, has been a very worthwhile practical experiment
and one that will be repeated in future years, with its effectiveness enhanced
as the course instructor gains greater understanding of the conceptual
frameworks underpinning this style of teaching.
Conclusion:
The uneven
quality of student preparation for class discussion poses significant
difficulties for instructors, at undergraduate level especially. Reading
journal tasks which assist students to process required readings while
enhancing their analytical, writing and communication skills, can improve student
participation in class and encourage them to maintain constant engagement with
course materials. The practical orientation of the reading journals may well stimulate
students to embark upon more reflective writing about their learning experiences.
References
Bean, John C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to
Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom.
Booth, Alan. Teaching
Boud, David. Enhancing Learning Through Self Assessment.
Gibbs, Graham. Assessing
Student Centred Courses.
Graham, Jeanine.
'Individual Effort: Collective Outcome: A Case Study of Group Teaching
Strategies in
Hyland, Paul,
‘Learning from feedback on assessment’, in Alan Booth and Paul Hyland, Eds. The practice of university history teaching.
Moon, Jennifer
S. Learning journals: a handbook for
academics, students and professional development.
Ramsden, Paul. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. 2nd ed.
Yorke, Mantze and
Peter T. Knight, ‘Employability: judging and communicating achievements’. No 2
of the Learning and Employability Series.