Access to higher education is a defining feature of the American Dream. In Ralph Ellison’s “Battle Royal,” the humiliation of the “battle royal” becomes a necessary evil, a hurdle the narrator has to leap over in order to win a college scholarship. What is humiliating about the battle royal experience (may be more than one thing)? How does this pervert the narrator’s access to higher education and thus “the American Dream”?example from last week’s question:Similar to what was discussed in the crash courses, what class you’re born into tends to be the one you stay in growing up. People in the lower class, according to crash course, often are more involved in crime. The plot of “Barn Burning” includes events of crime and unstable jobs for Abners family. Faulkner writes, “‘It cost a hundred dollars. But you never had a hundred dollars. You never will’” (p. 342). The landowner says this to Abnur when deciding what his punishment should be for ruining and not being able to fix the rug. The landowner doesn’t make him pay the full one hundred dollars, because he knows he won’t ever be able to pay him back. This story shows how a family who is stuck in the lower class can’t move their way up because they are doing the jobs that won’t ever give them enough money to move their way up. They don’t have the opportunity to get a job that makes more money. The story wants us to recognize how the kid is stuck in this household where bad decisions continue to get made and he has no way out of his class structure because he was born into it. The story ends with, “He went on down the hill, toward the dark woods within which the liquid silber voices of the birds called unceasing- the rapid and urgent beating of the urgent and quiring heart of the late spring night. He did not look back” (p. 347). As the kid runs into the woods, I can’t help but think his life will lead to him just finding another low paying job. He doesn’t have guidance as a young kid. Which is why I am criticizing how the class system in America works.Interpreting Literature, Interpreting Society
Online Discussions: Instructions and Criteria
Overview
Throughout the remainder of the course you will be asked to engage in online discussions in small
groups. You will share your thoughts on class topics as well as engage with each other in exploring the
connections among literature, ideology, and society with special attention given to analyzing the literature. You
will contribute 1 Initial Post in response to weekly discussion question(s), and you will contribute 2 or more
Replies in response to your colleagues’ posts.
Purpose
Asynchronous discussion enhances learning as you share your ideas, interpretations, and analyses with
the class. You develop and refine your thoughts through the writing process, plus broaden your classmates’
understanding of the course content. Use the following feedback to improve the quality of your discussion
contributions.
Instructions
1. Find the discussion board that corresponds to the current week (e.g., Forums > Week 11 Forum >
Group # Topic).
2. Read and ponder the weekly discussion question(s). It will be posted as the Forum Description.
3. Compose and submit your Initial Post by Tuesday, 1:00PM US Central Time.
a. Click “Start a New Conversation” to begin post.
4. Return and read your colleagues’ posts. Reply to at least one of your colleagues’ posts by
the end of Wednesday.
5. Return and read your colleagues replies. Reply to at least one of your colleagues’ replies
by the end of Friday.
•
Posts should be evenly distributed during the discussion period—Monday through Friday (i.e., your
posts should not be concentrated all on one day or at the beginning and/or end of the period).
•
Initial Posts should be a minimum of 125 words (not including quoted material).
•
Subsequent Replies should be a minimum of 75 words (not including quoted material).
1 Of 4
Other Requirements
Posts should be substantive and engaging –i.e., helping the discussion move forward. There are a variety of
ways to make your posts “substantive” and “engaging”:
• Provide concrete evidence from literary works that support your posts. Include author and page
number.
• Provide some basic dissection and deciphering of the aforementioned evidence.
• Describe possible consequences or the implications of particular interpretations.
• Avoid posts that are limited to ‘I agree’ or ‘great idea’, etc. If you agree or disagree with a post, then say
why you agree or disagree by supporting your statement with evidence from and analysis of the
readings.
• Challenge something that has been posted in the discussion.
• Suggest a different interpretation based on evidence mentioned by someone else or using new
evidence.
• Reinforce an existing interpretation based on evidence not previously mentioned. Although similar,
you should put your own twist on the interpretation.
• Pose a clarifying question. If you pose a question, you should include a potential or tentative answer to
the question within the same post.
• Pull in related information from videos and/or lectures.
• Address the Forum Question (don’t let the discussion stray).
Examples of What NOT to do
Although the following examples indicate agreement or disagreement with a prior post, each example
is too general and too superficial to help move the discussion forward.
Example 1 – “Interpreting the violent imagery in the beginning of the short story is a good idea.”
• Example 1 is not substantive nor engaging post because it’s simply a compliment to the
student that posted the original message. It doesn’t move the discussion forward or add anything
substantial to the discussion.
Example 2 – “I have to agree. [Rephrasing something another student has already written].”
• Example 2 is a not substantive nor engaging post because the student is simply agreeing with
a statement made by another student. This message does little to move the discussion forward.
Example 3 – “I disagree with your analysis of the conflict. Can you please tell me how you came to your
interpretation?”
• Example 3 is a not substantive nor engaging post, because although the student disagrees,
they do not expand on their question by explaining why they disagree.
2 Of 4
Grading
Your Online Discussion score for a given week will be based on the quality (substantive and engaging),
quantity, and distribution of your posts during that week’s discussion. Posts will be evaluated based on the
following criteria:
Initial Post (1st post)
Demonstrates
Comprehension and
Analysis
10 points
Displays an excellent
understanding of the
required readings,
literary analysis, and
course-related concepts
(e.g., ideology, race,
patriarchy, etc.).
Supports any
interpretation with
evidence, dissection,
and deciphering.
Reply Posts (2nd and
more posts)
Demonstrates
Engagement and
Analysis
Evidence is cited
appropriately.
Actively stimulates and
sustains further
discussion by
— affirming an existing
interpretation with new
evidence that creates
new insight;
— expanding an
existing interpretation
by creating a new,
different interpretation
using the same
evidence; or
— disagreeing with an
existing interpretation
and explaining why.
No matter the approach,
posts are supported by
analysis (dissection and
deciphering).
8 points
Displays an
understanding of the
required readings and
literary analysis
Supports any
interpretation with
evidence, dissection,
and deciphering.
6 points
Displays an
understanding of the
required readings.
Literary “analysis”
mostly repeats and
summarizes.
Sources are not cited.
Evidence is cited
appropriately.
Moderately contributes
to the ongoing
conversations by
— affirming an existing
interpretation with new
evidence;
— expanding an
existing interpretation
by creating a slightly
different interpretation
using the same
evidence; or
— disagreeing with an
existing interpretation
and explaining why.
Some, but incomplete
support offered.
3 Of 4
Posts shallow
contribution to
discussion.
Agrees or disagrees,
praises or criticizes with
little to no engagment
(e.g., “I agree”; “I love
what you said about X,
Y, Z.”)
Does not enrich
discussion.
0 points
Post shows little or no
evidence that readings
were completed or
understood. Postings
are largely personal
opinions or feelings, or
“I agree” or “Great
idea,” without
supporting statements
with evidence and
analysis.
Posts do not respond to
peers’ replies.
Or ignores discussion
question/topic.
Timeliness and
quantity
3-4 or more posts; well
distributed throughout
the week (M-F).
Follows deadline;
Posted on three
different days
2-3 posts partially
distributed throughout
the week.
Follows deadline;
Posted on two different
days.
4 Of 4
2-3 posts not distributed
throughout the week.
Posted all within 24
hours.
0-1 post.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment