Alfred Romero
5/3/2023
Professor Frank
LIL 420
ePortfolio Framing Statement
The first learning outcome of the English department is that its students would be able to read texts closely and think critically. To begin with, I’m going to be using my capstone project from this course as the significant project for this discussion to revolve around. Being able to read a text closely and think critically doesn’t refer to just stopping at reading and understanding what the author is stating in their work. I feel as if the critical thinking portion of actually analyzing a text is more so directed at understanding how credible the source would serve in a context outside of the source itself. In my capstone project, I use a source called “The Grand Inquisitor” by Fyodor Dostevsky and a character named Ivan is the center of analysis in my body paragraph for that source. But, rather than just reading and understanding the ideas of Ivan, I was able to connect his ideas with the “Book of Job” and conclude that although his ideas are interesting, “he never directly answers why the innocent suffer” (Romero 4). I think being able to connect an idea in how it relates to other contexts completes the “thinking critically” of this learning outcome.
The second outcome asks students to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of literature in English. Literature is defined as “written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit”. I believe all my sources could be placed in this category, but one that stood out to me when thinking about this definition was “The Trial” by Franz Kafka. Being able to understand literature, similarly to the first learning outcome, is not only to understand what the reading’s literally saying, but to understand its message in other real scenario contexts. When speaking about “The Trial”, I connect the story with the real life concept of societies with embedded systems that drill “subordination into the individual’s mind, convincing them that no matter what they do, they’re always guilty of something” (Romero 7). This is of course speaking in relation to the corruption of bureaucracy, and although this concept isn’t directly mentioned in the story, it’s a broad implication that works its way behind the scenes towards the audience throughout the story. Being able to make this connection from the story to this real life concept of bureaucratic corruption and also the “Book of Job”, as Job was “pushed to the point requesting a trial from the Lord himself” (Romero 8), shows an understanding of the work as a whole, rather than just reading and understanding the story within itself. And understanding literature as a whole and how it relates to other contexts shows an overall understanding of the art itself.
Being able to communicate effectively is the third learning outcome of the English department. This can be observed both in the actual paper and the presentation. While I can’t provide evidence to my presentation through text, I can refer to the paper. Developing a claim and supporting it is a key aspect of being able to communicate effectively. This can be observed in my conclusion where I claim that none of the sources come up with a definitive answer to Job’s question, but how “ideas can be generated outside of Job’s question that initiate the discussion for other topics” (Romero 10).
The final learning outcome for students would be for them to conduct research in literary and cultural studies. While I don’t have as much experience in this field, evidence of it can be found present, not only in this “If I Knew Then” project, but also in the “Library Assignment” found in the “ENG 206” page. Both works are really the only two works where I’ve conducted research by gathering different sources that weren’t already a part of the course’s curriculum.
