As you may have suspected (and as I think I may have actually declared in class), part of asking you to do these blog assignments is trying to coerce you into doing the readings. BUT I've definitely upped the volume of how much reading I'm asking you to do at once, and I don't have the time to read through summaries from everyone of sixty/seventy pages at a time, anyway. So here's what I think I'm going to ask you to do for this assignment:
* PIck one chapter to summarize. You're reading three (4, 5, and 6) overall, but you only have to summarize one in a paragraph. You must, in your summary, explain how the title of the chapter relates to its contents.
* Provide commentary/feedback in a short paragraph on at least one different chapter. (You can ask questions or comment on three, if you like, including the one you're summarizing, but at least some of this paragraph must be about a different one.) This is wide open to you; you can mention a part you didn't quite understand, talk about a part you liked or disliked, etc. If you get stuck, here's a couple things to think about:
Do you feel that there's anyone here that "deserved it?" Even if not, is there an appropriate use of public shaming?
Both Justine Sacco and Dave Eshelman give explanations - arguably excuses - for their behavior. What do you think of the reasons they give for what they did or said?
Do you see a relationship between Keohane's "How Facts Backfire" and these chapters? (I sure do.)
No comments:
Post a Comment