peer review
If the assignment does not meet one of the criteria in the rubric, be sure to let the student know how they can improve. In addition, your assignment is to engage with what another student has said following the guidelines laid out by Dr. Betsey Barnett in her lectures on Multicultural Understanding. In the peer review, you must demonstrate that you understand what another student is saying by relating it to other course materials and your own personal experience. Your goal is to demonstrate understanding rather than agreement, disagreement, or judgement. Peer review is NOT a space to harass, intimidate, or patronize another student. It is not a space to play devil's advocate, or to start a debate. One excellent way to demonstrate multicultural understanding is to connect what the student has discussed to examples and themes in our other course materials for that week, or to recount a related personal experience that you have had. Please avoid compliments or critiques. "I really liked it when..." and "I agree with what you said..." are two statements to avoid. For more details on how to communicate using understanding rather than agreement or disagreement, please take another look at Dr. Barnett's lectures in the day one and week one modules.
Rubric：
word count: 260
In the first section of your paper I gave you a 1 because you quoted the text, but you did not give a complete summary. it might be hard for Dr. Kleisath to know from your writing that completed and understood the full reading. Dr. Kleisath asked us to put all of our quotes in context, meaning explain where in the story that quote came from, and why you think it's important.
For "Parable", you picked a quote that briefly describes the transformation of community that happened throughout Lauren's early life. You stated that Lauren goes along with the baptism but feels no connection with her father's God. Your chosen quote is not only applicable to Butler's novel, but to other situations in the world today where people are encouraged to "go with the flow" or face serious social repercussions. For example, some people may not agree with their religious leaders if they hear them preaching against the LGBT community, but it would take a lot of courage to go against a community leader, so a lot of people might remain quiet.
In your reflection on Loewen, you noted that heroification not only gives an incomplete message about historic figures, but that without it, such people might not have even deserved to be studied in the first place. I am someone who places an extremely high value on honesty, and your point reminded me of how complex honesty can be. Are we being honest if we tell the truth, but only represent the part of the truth that we like?