ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY

LOYOLA SCHOOLS

COURSE SYLLABUS

COURSE NUMBER: POS 100

TITLE : Politics and Governance
DEPARTMENT : Department of Political Science
SCHOOL : School of Social Sciences
SEMESTER AND SCHOOL YEAR: 2nd Semester, SY 2019-2020
NUMBER OF UNITS: 3 units
FACULTY : Oliver John C. Quintana, M.A.
SECTION, SCHEDULE & VENUE: Section J (TTh 2:00-3:30 PM, CTC 102)

A. Course Description

Politics and Governance (POS 100) is the introductory course to the persons, structures, and processes
involved in the operation of the political system, including the study of basic political concepts,
institutions of government, and the complex relationship between the citizenry and the state.

The course highlights theories that make sense of change and continuities in Philippine governance, as
well as the spaces for citizen participation such as elections and local governance. Focus is on the
Philippine context and its contemporary political issues and problems.

B. Learning Outcomes

At the end of the course, the students should be able to:

At the knowledge level

1. Examine various concepts, ideas, and frameworks about the state, institutions, governance,
and citizenship;

2. Assess the relationship between these concepts vis-à-vis power and politics;

At the skills level

3. Demonstrate the proficient use of the various tools and ideas in evaluating and designing
social and political reform alternatives;

4. Construct a critical stance towards the state, its institutions, and democratic practices;

At the attitude level

5. Design and implement an information campaign that will allow citizens to maximize their
capacities and actively take part in the process of democratic citizenship; and

6. Build reform constituencies that push for greater transparency, accountability, and people
participation in governance.

7. Propose new forms of citizen engagement and alternative avenues to further advocacies.
C. Course Outline, Timeframe, and Required Readings*

I. The State (Weeks 2 – 5: January 28, 30, February 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, 20)

1. Defining politics/the political

Heywood, A. (2013). ‘What is politics?’, Politics (4th edition). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 1-26.

Kerkvliet, B. (2009). ‘Everyday Politics in Peasant Societies (and Ours)’, The Journal of
Peasant Studies Vol. 36, No. 1, 227-243.

2. Power

Hay, C. (2002). ‘Divided by a Common Language? Conceptualizing Power’, Political

analysis: a critical introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 168-193.

3. The Philippine state

Zialcita, F. (2011). ‘Toward a Community Broader than the Kin’, Authentic though not
exotic: Essays on Filipino Identity. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 37-
80.

Anderson, B. (1991). ‘Introduction’ and ‘Cultural Roots’, Imagined Communities:

Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (2nd edition). London: Verso, 1-36.

Migdal, J. (1998). ‘A Model of State-Society Relations’, Strong Societies and Weak States:
State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 3-41.

Quilop, R. (2006). ‘Nation-State Formation in the Philippines’, Morada, N & Tadem, T.

(eds.) (2006) Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Quezon City:
Department of Political Science, University of the Philippines-Diliman, 1-12.

II. Institutions and Governance (Weeks 6 – 9A: February 27, March 10, 12, 17)

1. Institutions and development

Leftwich, A. & Kunal, S. (2011). ‘’Don’t mourn: Organize’: Institution and organizations
in the politics and economics of growth and poverty-reduction’, Journal of International
Development Vol. 23, No. 3, 319-337.

Leftwich, A. (2005). ‘Democracy and development: Is there institutional incompatibility?’,

Democratization Vol. 12, No. 5, 686-703.

*
Other important dates/deadlines to remember:
Week 1: January 23 – Discussion of Course Syllabus/Class Management
Week 5: February 20 – Submission of Topic Proposal for the Group Project
Week 6: February 25 – EDSA People Power Anniversary (No Classes)
Week 7: March 3, 5 – Research Break I (Submission of Group Project Design)
Week 11: April 2 – Research Break II (Implementation of Group Project)
Week 12: April 6-12 – Holy Week Reflection Days (No Classes)
Week 14: April 21 – Course Synthesis and Final Lecture/Class Activity (For Graduating Students)
Week 14: April 22-24 – Final Oral Exams (For Graduating Students)

2
 2. Elites: local and global

Anderson, B. (2004). ‘Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams,’

Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the World. Quezon City: Ateneo
de Manila University Press, 192-226.

Mendoza, R., Beja, E., et. al. (2016). ‘Political dynasties and poverty: measurement and
evidence of linkages in the Philippines’, Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2, 189-
201.

Abinales, P. (1998). ‘Local Strongmen, Provincial Politics and Frontiers: The Case of
Alejandro Almendras and Davao Politics’, Images of State Power: Essays on Philippine
Politics from the Margins. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 63-99.

Thompson, M. (2012). ‘Asia’s hybrid dynasties’, Asian Affairs Vol. 43, No. 2, 204-220.

3. Human rights

Eldridge, P. (2002). ‘Human rights, democracy and development in Southeast Asia,’ The
Politics of Human Rights in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, 32-59.

Kraft, H. (2001). ‘Human Rights, ASEAN, and Constructivism: Revisiting the ‘Asian
Values’ Discourse’, Philippine Political Science Journal Vol. 22, No. 45, 33 – 54.

III. Democracies (Weeks 9B – 11: March 19, 24, 26, 31)

Magadia, J. & Ramos, E. (2010). ‘A Second Look at Democracy’, Department of Political

Science (2010) Philippine Politics: Democratic Ideals and Realities. Quezon City: Ateneo
de Manila University Press, 1-24.

Eaton, K. (2003). ‘Restoration or Transformation? ‘Trapos’ versus NGOs in the

Democratization of the Philippines,’ The Journal of Asian Studies Vol. 62, No. 2, 469-496.

Hutchcroft, P. (2008). ‘The Arroyo Imbroglio in the Philippines’, Journal of Democracy

Vol. 19, No. 1, 141-155.

McNair, B. (2011). ‘Politics, democracy and the media’, An Introduction to Political

Communication (5 edition). Oxfordshire: Routledge, 15-26.
th

Abao, C. (2017). ‘Engaging Duterte: That Space in Between Populism and Pluralism’,
Curato, N. (ed.) (2017) A Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early
Presidency. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 301- 318.

IV. Citizenship (Week 13: April 14, 16)

Joppke, C. (2007). ‘Transformation of Citizenship: Status, Rights, Identity’, Citizenship

Studies Vol. 11, No. 1, 37-48.

Diokno, M. (1997). ‘Becoming a Filipino citizen: Perspectives on Citizenship and

Democracy’, Democracy and citizenship in Filipino political culture (Vol. 1). Quezon City:
Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines, 17-38.

3
 V. Decentralization and nation-building (Weeks 14 – 17: April 21, 23, 28, 30, May 5, 7, 12, 14)

1. Local governments and urban governance

Salvador, A. (2010). ‘Decentralization, Democracy, and Local Governance in the

Philippines: Concepts, Issues, and Practices’, Department of Political Science (2010)
Philippine Politics: Democratic Ideals and Realities. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press, 189-212.

Ocenar, R. (2013). ‘Planning and Budgeting of Selected Barangays in Five Provinces: A

Synthesis of Findings’, Ocenar, R. & Tapales, P. (eds.) (2013) Local Government in the
Philippines: A Book of Readings (IV): New Directions in Local Governance. Quezon City:
Center for Local and Regional Governance and National College of Public Administration
and Governance, University of the Philippines.

Tiongson, M. (2017). ‘The Business of Local Governance: The Transformation Story of

San Jose City, Nueva Ecija’, Hechanova, M., Teng-Calleja, M. & Franco, E. (eds.) (2017)
Transforming Local Government. Quezon City: Bughaw, Ateneo de Manila University
Press, 103-120.

Tapales, P. (2015). ‘The Nature and State of Local Government’, in Reyes, D., et. al. (2015)
Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader, (3rd edition, vol. 1).
Quezon City: University of the Philippines - National College of Public Administration and
Governance, 5-20.

Araral, E., Hutchcroft, G., et. al. (2017). Debate on Federal Philippines: A Citizen’s
Handbook. Quezon City. Ateneo de Manila University Press.

2. Mindanao

Wadi, J. (2006). ‘Islamic Nationalism and Philippine Politics’, Tadem, T. & Morada, N.
(eds.) (2006) Philippine Politics and Governance: Challenges to Democratization and
Development. Quezon City: Department of Political Science, University of the Philippines-
Diliman, 89-104.

Rivera, T. (2008). ‘The Struggle of the Muslim People in the Southern Philippines:
Independence or Autonomy?’, Tuazon, B. (ed.) (2008) The Moro Reader: History and
Contemporary Struggles of the Bangsamoro People. Quezon City: Policy Study
Publication and Advocacy (PSPA) and the Center for People Empowerment in Governance
(CenPEG), 38-55.

Ferrer, M. (2016). ‘Forging a Peace Settlement for the Bangsamoro: Compromises and
Challenges’, Hutchcroft, P. (ed.) (2016) Mindanao: The Long Journey to Peace and
Prosperity. Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing Inc., 99-131.

*Supplementary readings may be assigned to provide additional information and deepen the
discussion on a particular module and/or topic.

D. Suggested Readings

Abinales, P. (2010). ‘National Advocacy and Local Power in the Philippines’, Kasuya, Y.
& Quimpo, N. (eds.) (2010) The Politics of Change in the Philippines. Manila: Anvil, 391-
417.

4
Dahlgren P. (2009). Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication and
Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Guzman, J. & Montiel, C. (2012). ‘Social representations of foreign aid: Exploring

meaning-making in aid practice in Sulu, Southern Philippines’, Journal of Pacific Rim
Psychology Vol. 6, No. 1, 1-17.

Digeser, P. (1992). ‘The Fourth Face of Power’, The Journal of Politics Vol. 54, No. 4,
977-1007.

Grindle, M. & Thomas, J. (1991). Public choices and policy change: The political economy
of reform in developing countries. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Hanisch, C. (1970). ‘The Personal is Political’, Firestone, S. & Koedt, A. (1970) Notes from
the Second Year: Women’s Liberation. New York: New York Radical Women, 76-78.

Haugaard, M. (2012). ‘Rethinking the four dimensions of power: domination and

empowerment’, Journal of Political Power Vol. 5, No. 1, 33-54.

Hedman, E. (2006). In the name of civil society: From free election movements to people
power in the Philippines. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Ileto, R. (2001). ‘Orientalism and the study of Philippine politics’, Philippine Political
Science Journal Vol. 22, No. 45, 1-32.

Institute of Philippine Culture. (2005). The vote of the poor. Quezon City: Institute of
Philippine Culture.

Jose, L. (2010). ‘Politics, You and Democracy, Department of Political Science (2010)
Philippine Politics: Democratic Ideals and Realities. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press, 25-42.

Kerkvliet, B. (1995). ‘Toward a More Comprehensive Analysis of Philippine Politics:

Beyond the Patron-Client, Factional Framework’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies Vol.
26, No. 2, 401-419.

Lara, F. and Champain, P. (2009). Inclusive Peace in Muslim Mindanao: Revisiting the
Dynamics of Conflict and Exclusion. London: International Alert.

Leftwich, A. (2011). ‘Chapter 12: Theorizing the State’, Burnell P. (2011) Politics in the
Developing World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Linga, A. (2008) ‘Understanding the Bangsamoro right to self-determination’, Tuazon, B.

(ed.) (2008) The Moro Reader: History and Contemporary Struggles of the Bangsamoro
People. Quezon City: Policy Study Publication and Advocacy (PSPA) and the Center for
People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG), 95-112.

Magadia, J. (2003). State-society dynamics: Policy making in a restored democracy.

Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

McCoy, A. (2017). ‘Global Populism: A Lineage of Filipino Strongmen from Quezon to

Marcos and Duterte’, Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies Vol. 32, Nos.
1-2, 7-54.

5
McCoy, A. (2007). An anarchy of families: State and family in the Philippines. Quezon
City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Miranda, F., Rivera, T., et. al. (2011). Chasing the wind: Assessing Philippine democracy.
Quezon City: Commission on Human Rights.

Montiel, C., Baquiano, M. & Inzon, C. (2013). ‘Conflicting group meanings of territorial
rights in Central Mindanao: Muslim-Christian social representations of land entitlement’,
Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology Vol. 7, No. 1, 1-11.

Montiel, C., De Guzman, J. & Macapagal, E. (2012). ‘Fragmented ethnopolitical social

representations of a territorial peace agreement: The Mindanao peace talks.’ Journal of
Pacific Rim Psychology Vol. 6, No. 2, 37-47.

Montiel, C., Rodil, R., & de Guzman, J. (2012). ‘The Moro struggle and the challenge to
peace-building in Mindanao, Southern Philippines’ Landis D. & Albert, R. (eds) (2012)
Handbook of ethnic conflict: International perspectives. New York: Springer, 71-92.

Moreno, A. (2008). Engaged Citizenship: The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the

Philippines (CBCP) in the Post-Authoritarian Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University.

Ocenar, R. (2015). ‘The History and Structural Evolution of the Barangay in the
Philippines’, Dela Rosa Reyes, D., Tapales, P. et. al. (eds.) (2015) Introduction to public
administration in the Philippines: A reader (Volume 1, 3rd edition). Quezon City: UP-
NCPAG, 393-406.

Prill-Brett, J. (2015). ‘Contested Domains: The Indigenous Peoples Right Act (IPRA) and
Legal Pluralism’, Tolentino, D. (ed.) (2015) Tradition and Transformation: Studies on
Cordillera Indigenous Culture. Baguio City: Cordillera Studies Center, University of the
Philippines Baguio, 171-190.

Quimpo, N. (2008). ‘Contested Democracy: An Alternative Interpretation of Philippine

Politics’, Contested Democracy and the Left in the Philippines After Marcos. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University Press, 21-53.

Raquiza, A. (2012). State structure, policy formation, and economic development in

Southeast Asia: The political economy of Thailand and the Philippines. London:
Routledge.

Santos, S. (2001). ‘Introduction’ and ‘Constitutional Obstacles to a Peace Settlement with

Islamic Rebels in Mindanao’, The Moro Islamic Challenge: Constitutional Rethinking for
the Mindanao Peace Process. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1-38.

Scott, J. (1985). Weapons of the Weak, Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven
and London: Yale University Press.

Sidel, J. (1997). ‘Philippine Politics in Town, District, and Province: Bossism in Cavite and
Cebu’, The Journal of Asian Studies Vol. 56, No. 4, 947-966.

6
E. Course Requirements

Weight ELO ELO ELO ELO ELO ELO ELO

Assessment Method
(%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Class Participation/Recitation 10 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Quizzes 20 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Reflective Essays 20 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Group Project 30 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Final Oral Exam 20 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Total 100

Class participation/Recitation. Students are expected to come in class prepared at all times.
They are expected to have read the assigned readings for the week and actively participate
in class discussions. They should also familiarize themselves with current issues and events
in Philippine politics and society.

Other class activities such as group discussions and mini-debates aim to evaluate the
students’ understanding of basic political concepts, and to test their skills in reasoning and
argumentation.

Quizzes. Unannounced short quizzes (worth 5 points each) based on the assigned readings
and class lectures will be given throughout the semester.

Reflective Essays. Students are required to submit two (2) short reflective essays on a film,
documentary, art exhibit, or a scheduled class field trip. The purpose of these activities is
to allow the students to reflect how they confront, question, and negotiate with political
realities taking place outside the classroom.

Guide questions, supplementary readings and other details regarding the paper will be
provided as we go along.

Group Project. For the group project, students are required to plan, design, develop and
implement an information campaign that deals with an important issue, problem or
controversy in contemporary Philippine politics and society.

The creative output, which can be executed in any form (e.g. social media page, fundraising
event, merchandise production, campaign posters, poetry reading night, etc.), should
respond to a pressing social, political and/or economic issue in a transformative manner,
and offer a fresh perspective and critical discussion of the problem. Moreover, students are
expected to link their project to the broader discourse on democracy and citizenship.

The breakdown of the 30% allotted for the group project is as follows: 10% project
research, planning, and design, 15% implementation and final report, and 5% peer
evaluation. Schedule of consultations, presentation dates, and other details will be posted
in the class Facebook group later on during the semester.

Final Oral Exam. Each student will be asked to write separate thesis statements pertaining
to the modules on (i.) politics/power, (ii.) the state/nationalism, (iii.) any other topic
covered during the semester and to defend any one of these thesis statements (chosen at
random) for nine minutes. Afterwards, the teacher may ask further questions for one
minute.

7
 The exam will be graded based on the originality of the discussion and its nuanced synthesis
of the course materials. Students are also expected to provide examples relevant to their
own disciplines and/or contemporary political realities. Additional guidelines for writing
are given later during the semester.

F. Grading System

A Excellent 92 and above

B+ Very Good 87-91
B Good 83-86
C+ Very Satisfactory 79-82
C Satisfactory 75-78
D Pass 70-74
F Fail 69 and below

G. Classroom Policies and Other Guidelines

1. Attendance and tardiness. Attendance will be checked at the beginning of each class.
Students who arrive after their names have been called twice will be marked late.

Lateness will be recorded as ½ cut. Leaving the class early (without permission) will be
considered as a cut. The university policy on absences and tardiness will be strictly enforced
(that is, a maximum of 6 cuts for TTh classes). Students who go beyond the allowed total
number of cuts will receive an automatic grade of W (Withdrawal).

As per Rule #25 under Academic Regulations, p. 24 in the Loyola Schools Undergraduate
Student Handbook (2016 Edition), no distinction shall be made between excused and
unexcused absences.

2. Absences and make-up activity. There is no make-up activity for missed quizzes, exams
and other class activities due to unexcused absences.

Students who cannot make it to class due to hospitalization or an official school activity
(e.g. conference, competition, immersion, etc.) should present the necessary documents
(i.e. medical certificate, signed letter from the home department, the ADAA, the team
coach, or the OSCI formator) to the teacher during the next meeting in order to be allowed
to make up for missed requirements.

3. Class beadle. The class beadle shall be responsible in creating a Facebook group and
directory for the class. S/he is also in charge of coordinating with the teacher regarding
class announcements (i.e. cancellation of classes, changes in the class venue, photocopying
of readings, etc.) and other important matters.

4. Use of mobile phones and other gadgets. Mobile phones and other electronic devices must
be kept in silent mode at all times.

While students are prohibited from using their cellphones and smartphones during class,
the use of laptops for note taking is allowed. However, anyone who is caught surfing the
Internet, playing games, doing coursework for other subjects, or using their devices for
other purposes will be immediately sent out of the classroom.

8
 5. Cheating and plagiarism. Any form of cheating and/or plagiarism shall be punished and
dealt with in accordance with university guidelines on academic and/or intellectual
dishonesty.

As stated in Section E: Offenses Involving Dishonesty under the Code of Conduct for
Students, pp. 41-42 in the Loyola Schools Undergraduate Student Handbook (2016
Edition), cheating in any major course requirement will merit an academic penalty of F in
the course.

6. Submission of requirements. Students should submit hard copies of their papers during
class hours. As a general rule, output sent via e-mail will not be graded. Late papers will
get a 10% deduction per day.

7. Optional bonus work. Bonus points will be given to students who will attend on-campus
talks, lectures and other relevant events endorsed by the teacher. Students who submit
reaction papers will also receive additional points. Guide questions and other
announcements will be posted on the class online group.

8. Consultations. Students are highly encouraged to visit the department and consult with the
teacher if they have any questions, clarifications, suggestions, difficulties and/or any other
pressing concerns regarding the subject matter being taught, course requirements or student
life, in general.

Students can also post their queries on the class online group, send a private message on
Facebook, or e-mail the teacher at oliverjohnquintana@gmail.com.

H. Consultation Hours

Wed & Fri (9:00 – 11:00 AM), Tues & Thurs (3:30 – 5:00 PM), or by appointment
Department of Political Science, 3/F Room 300 Ricardo & Dr. Rosita Leong Hall
Tel. No.: (+632) 8426-6001 loc. 5250 or 5252

I. Appendix

Appendix A
Rubric for the Reflective Essays

(A) Excellent (B) Good (C) Satisfactory (D) Pass

Creativity and Exceeds the Meets all the Meets basic Fails to meet the
originality parameters of the parameters of the parameters of parameters of the
(25%) assignment, with assignment. the assignment. assignment.
original examples/ Provides
insights or a examples, but
particularly engaging insights need
style. further
articulation.

Argument Central argument is Central argument Central Central argument

(25%) clear, interesting, and is clear and argument is unclear or it is
demonstrable (i.e., demonstrable. is demonstrable not demonstrable.
based on evidence, but not entirely The claims made
clear. A few of do not support the

9
 not opinion). The The claims made the claims made central argument.
claims made clearly support the do not clearly Arguments
and obviously central argument. support the contradict each
support the central central other.
argument argument.

Understanding Discussion and use Discussion and Discussion and Discussion and
and use of key of examples reflect a use of examples use of examples use of examples
concepts and robust and nuanced reflect a solid reflect a basic reflect little
theories understanding of key understanding of understanding of understanding of
discussed in concepts and theories key concepts and key concepts and key concepts and
class from the course. theories from the theories from the theories from the
(25%) course. course. course.

Structure and Ideas are presented The reader can The reader The reader cannot
flow of in a clear, logical and follow the flow of cannot always follow the flow of
discussion coherent manner discussion with follow the flow discussion.
(25%) throughout the paper, very little effort. of discussion.
with strong topic
sentences to guide
the reader. The
reader can
effortlessly follow
the flow of
discussion.

Appendix B
Rubric for the Group Project

(A) Excellent (B) Good (C) Satisfactory (D) Pass

Composition The work’s The work The work offers The work does
(25%) progression is progresses some form of not progress or
well-executed, adequately and progression and demonstrates a
demonstrating demonstrates good demonstrates lack of
mastery of the use of the elements passable awareness awareness of
elements of the of the form. of the elements of how the form
form. the form. operates.

Communication The intended The intended The intended The intended

(25%) political theme is political theme is political theme is political theme
enacted clearly, explored in the only seen in the is not visible
uniquely, and work through work through in the work at
interestingly by all integral parts of the incidental dialogue all.
elements of the text and/or art and and/or narration.
work. their progression.

Coherence All elements work The elements of all Some elements feel The work
(25%) to enhance each work and make out-of-place, but makes little to
other and the sense together. the work is still no sense.
overall project. comprehensible.

10
 Creativity The work engages The work offers a The work attempts The work
(25%) with, challenges, reasonably fresh to do something offers nothing
or subverts take on existing new with existing new.
existing ideas in a ideas and gives it a ideas, but the
truly interesting new perspective or novelty is cosmetic
way. context. at best.

Appendix C
Rubric for the Final Oral Exam

Excellent. Shows mastery of the module and exceptional analysis of chosen topic. Discussion
A
is perfectly clear, coherent, and well-structured. Shares personal examples and insights
beyond what was discussed in class.
B+ Very Good. Student has a firm grasp of the module and provides critical analysis. Discussion
is substantially clear and organized. Has insights and examples that need further articulation.
Good. Module is comprehensively understood. Discussion is organized. Indicates evidence
B
that thought has gone into the work and a rudimentary level of independent analysis and
original reflection was done. Has insight but insight is not developed.
Very Satisfactory. Demonstrates adequate understanding of main themes and ideas. However,
C+
discussion needs more structure. Moreover, ideas merely echo those discussed in class and
there might be only a minimal evidence of the student’s independent thought and analysis.
Satisfactory. Meets the standards at the minimum level expected from a college student.
C
Module is sufficiently understood and explained, but discussion lacks organization. Key
concepts and ideas may be simplistically articulated.
D Pass. Indicates that major ideas in the module are understood but at a very basic level. Lacks
any real articulation of ideas and/or does not sufficiently provide analysis and insight.
F Fail. The student clearly does not understand the module. Discussion lacks substance and
direction. Shows absence of preparation.

11