Upper-division Writing Requirement Review Form (2/11)
I. General Education Review – Upper-division Writing Requirement
Dept/Program
Course # (i.e. ANTH 484.
LS
Subject
455) or sequence
Please note: this
course was approved
in January 2012 for W
as LS 495, and is
being offered as LS
494 in Fall 2012. It
needs an appropriate
number; hence 484.
Course(s) Title
The Novel Ancient and Modern
Description of the requirement if it is not a single course.
II. Endorsement/Approvals
Complete the form and obtain signatures before submitting to Faculty Senate Office.
Please type / print name Signature
Instructor
Stewart Justman
Phone / Email
X5793; umontana.edu
Program Chair
Stewart Justman
Dean
Chris Comer
III. Type of request
New
XXX
One-time Only
Reason for new course, change or deletion
Change
IV Overview of the Course Purpose/ Description
Date
9/7/12
9/7/12
Remove
Though the word “novel” suggests “new,” and though the “rise” of the novel is conventionally dated to the 18th
century, the literary form we call the novel actually originates in an ancient text: the Odyssey. This course will
study and savor two novels: the Odyssey itself and a modern work constructed on completely different, almost
antithetical principles, Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov. (Thus, for example, Homer precludes suspense on
principle while The Brothers Karamazov is breathlessly suspenseful.) As Liberal Studies majors read the Odyssey
in LS 151 (and many of them a work by Dostoevsky in 152), this Capstone course will enable students to
reconsider an inexhaustible work from the higher perspective of the 400 level. The course is designed to allow
time both to ponder and to enjoy two astonishing works, and to enable investigation of such questions as what a
novel is, how a novel is constructed, and why it has risen to literary prominence.
Learning Goals and Writing Outcomes
The course serves five goals identified by the Liberal Studies Program, specifically:
1. To demonstrate a critical appreciation and understanding of the Western humanistic tradition.
2. To grasp significant methodological and hermeneutical issues intrinsic to humanistic inquiry.
3. To construct arguments with skill.
4. To synthesize findings and conclusions cogently.
5. To read critically and ask perceptive questions of the text.
V Learning Outcomes: Explain how each of the following learning outcomes will be achieved.
Students will investigate beautiful and intricate
Student learning outcomes :
Identify and pursue sophisticated questions for texts by posing their own questions, offering
tentative answers (formulated as theses), and
academic inquiry
presenting and reflecting on supporting
evidence. They will practice writing as an
exercise in discovery.
Pursuant to the Information Literacy Tables
Find, evaluate, analyze, and synthesize
published by the Mansfield Library, students
information effectively and ethically from
will learn of important scholars in the field and
diverse sources (see
the nature and mechanisms of scholarly
http://www.lib.umt.edu/informationliteracy/)
publication. Most importantly, they will learn
the difference between simply casting a net and
searching for and sifting digital information.
Manage multiple perspectives as appropriate
Recognize the purposes and needs of
discipline-specific audiences and adopt the
academic voice necessary for the chosen
discipline
Use multiple drafts, revision, and editing in
conducting inquiry and preparing written work
Follow the conventions of citation,
documentation, and formal presentation
appropriate to that discipline
Develop competence in information
technology and digital literacy (link)
Both in class discussion and especially in their
writing, students are expected to be able to
weigh the merits of conflicting perspectives and
if necessary keep the resolution of these
conflicts an open question.
Submitted papers must be appropriate to the
purpose for which they are intended—that of
persuading the reader (the audience) of the
merits of the writer’s thesis. If they present
evidence poorly, if they fail to persuade, or (a
related flaw) if they do not address
themselves to their audience, they fail their
purpose.
Students will have the opportunity to revise one
paper. See syllabus.
As an active publishing scholar I am familiar
with the ways and means of scholarly citation
in different disciplines and can and will explain
these conventions and the reasons for them.
(Note: the term “digital literacy” does not even
appear in the provided link.)
The purpose of the course is not to build digital
literacy, but students will learn about the
selection and use of good digital databases for
literary study.
VI. Writing Course Requirements
Enrollment is capped at 25 students.
If not, list maximum course enrollment.
Explain how outcomes will be adequately met
for this number of students. Justify the request
for variance.
Briefly explain how students are provided with
tools and strategies for effective writing and editing
in the major.
Which written assignment(s) includes revision in
response to instructor’s feedback?
Enrollment in this course will run at around 15.
Students will learn by practice and by doing,
just as they would learn a musical or athletic
skill. Sample topics will be provided, though
students are encouraged to come up with their
own paper topic. A set of explicit writing
standards will be distributed. Students may
also wish to consult the pamphlet “Writing
about Literature” issued by the Writing
Center.
First paper.
VII. Writing Assignments: Please describe course assignments. Students should be required to
individually compose at least 20 pages of writing for assessment. At least 50% of the course grade
should be based on students’ performance on writing assignments. Quality of content and writing
are integral parts of the grade on any writing assignment.
Formal Graded Assignments
Two papers of approximately ten pages each,
and an essay exam (to be done at home) of
about the same length. 100% of the student’s
grade will be based on writing.
Informal Ungraded Assignments
VIII. Syllabus: Paste syllabus below or attach and send digital copy with form.  For assistance
on syllabus preparation see: http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/syllabus.html
The syllabus must include the following:
1. Writing outcomes
2. Information literacy expectations
3. Detailed requirements for all writing assignments or append writing assignment instructions
Paste syllabus here.
Capstone: Spring 2012
LS 495: The Novel, Ancient and Modern
Though the word “novel” suggests “new,” and though the “rise” of the novel is conventionally dated to the
18th century, the literary form we call the novel actually originates in an ancient text: the Odyssey. This
course will study and savor two novels: the Odyssey itself and a modern work constructed on completely
different, almost antithetical principles, Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov. (Thus, for example, Homer
precludes suspense on principle while The Brothers Karamazov is breathlessly suspenseful.) As Liberal
Studies majors read the Odyssey in LS 151 (and many of them a work by Dostoevsky in 152), this
Capstone course will enable students to reconsider an inexhaustible work from the higher perspective of the
400 level. The course is designed to allow time both to ponder and to enjoy two astonishing works, and to
enable investigation of such questions as what a novel is, how a novel is constructed, and why it has risen
to literary prominence.
Learning Goals
The course serves five goals identified by the Liberal Studies Program, specifically:
1. To demonstrate a critical appreciation and understanding of the Western humanistic tradition.
2. To grasp significant methodological and hermeneutical issues intrinsic to humanistic inquiry.
3. To construct arguments with skill.
4. To synthesize findings and conclusions cogently.
5. To read critically and ask perceptive questions of the text.
Reading
Weeks 1 through 7: Several book of the Odyssey per week as assigned
Week 8: Brothers Karamazov, Books 1 and 2
Week 9: BK, Books 3 and 4
Week 10: BK, Book 5
Week 11: BK, Books 6-7
Week 12: BK, Books 8-9
Week 13: BK, Books 10-11
Week 14: BK, Book 12 and Epilogue
Papers
A paper of at least 2500 words is due on any aspect of the Odyssey by March 14, and of The Brothers
Karamazov by May 4. Sample topics: How do stories circulate in Odysseus’s world? How do stories
circulate in the Karamazov world? How does Odysseus resolve conflicting impulses? How does Dmitri
Karamazov resolve conflicting impulses? As with these examples, the two papers may investigate the
handling of the same issue by our two authors; however, they do not have to.
Students will have the option of revising the first paper within one week of its return.
Secondary sources are not required, though some students will use them. Pursuant to the Information
Literacy Tables published by the Mansfield Library, students will learn of important scholars in the field
and the nature and mechanisms of scholarly publication. Most importantly, they will learn the difference
between simply casting a net and searching for and sifting digital information.
In all cases students should be sure to know the text and cite it accurately, have a thesis, state it, defend it
well, and show mastery of the elements of composition. If you use secondary sources, confer with me
about them and cite them appropriately (MLA or Chicago style; APA style if you major in the social
sciences.) Late work subject to penalty.
For detailed writing standards, see below.
Final Exam
A comprehensive essay-exam with three or four questions will be distributed a week before its due date.
Completed exams should run approximately 2500 words. Both papers and exams are to be submitted as
hard copies, not email attachments.
Grades
The two papers and the exam will each count for a third of your grade. Note that the entirety of your grade
is based on writing.
Attendance
Three absences are permitted, after which I will deduct a grade from a paper for each absence. Use your
three absences wisely.
Plagiarism
Categorically prohibited. See the “Plagiarism” language in the UM Catalog. For penalties incurred, see the
UM Student Conduct Code.
Recommended Reading (on Reserve):
Stewart Justman, Literature and Human Equality (Northwestern University Press, 2006)
Robin Feuer Miller, The Brothers Karamazov: Worlds of the Novel (Yale University Press, 2008)
Liberal Studies Writing Standards
An A Paper
Has a sound, original thesis
Supports the thesis with textual evidence
Handles quotations well; does not quote excessively or sloppily
Features developed (not meager) paragraphs
Flows from sentence to sentence without disruptions of logic
Varies the length and construction of sentences
Uses apostrophes correctly; observes parallel structure, rules of agreement, and the like
Is not dogmatic
Avoids jargon and clichés
May use ironic or figurative expressions
Respects the craft of writing
Does not patronize the past
Delights and persuades the reader
A B Paper
Has a sound thesis
Supports the thesis with textual evidence
Handles quotations well as a rule, but may quote excessively or fail to integrate quoted passages
Features some developed and some ill-developed paragraphs
Flows from sentence to sentence with occasional breaks in logic
Tends toward uniform sentence length and construction
Mistakes an apostrophe or two, commits the odd spelling error, but generally handles mechanics
correctly
Slips now and then into repetition, but is not dogmatic
Slips now and then into jargon or cliché, but knows better
Respects the craft
Falls occasionally into anachronisms or patronizing judgments of the past
More or less persuades the reader
A C Paper
Has a thesis barely worthy of argument
Offers some textual evidence
Handles quotations with some carelessness
Features undeveloped paragraphs
Features poor transitions and/or sentences that do not follow
Locks itself into a pattern of sentence construction; is choppy
Shows some fragments, run-on sentences, misused apostrophes, breaks in parallelism and agreement
Repeats
Uses jargon and clichés
Shows little respect for the craft
Falls into anachronisms; makes vast historical judgments
Fails to persuade the reader
A D Paper
Has a thesis unworthy of argument
Offers little or no textual evidence
Misquotes, quotes excessively as a way of dodging work, puts quotations anywhere and everywhere
Features underdeveloped paragraphs, often in no particular order
Is strewn with poor transitions and/or sentences that don’t follow
Is written not only in choppy but defective sentences
Is marred with fragments, run-on sentences, misused apostrophes, faults of parallelism and
agreement
Is repetitive and dogmatic
Relies on jargon and clichés
Shows no respect for the craft
Falls into anachronisms; makes absurd historical judgments
Offends a reader’s intelligence
Stewart Justman
Director, Liberal Studies Program
LA 101
X5793