43 Listening Journal Exercise

Students will keep a personal journal of their listening activities for six days over a two-week period.

1. Students will utilize a digital journaling application for the exercise
2. Each journal entry will include brief posts (at least a paragraph of 3 – 5 sentences)
3. The exercise occurs over a two-week period (Due at the end of 14 days)
4. Each week students will post (with dates and time of posting) in the journal application when they encounter active listening situations, posting in the journal three times a week for two weeks (Open Pedagogy)
5. At the end of the two weeks, students will submit all six (6) journal posts, along with an analysis of how/well they listened daily, and of why they did (or did not) listen effectively in each situation described (all analysis should include what was learned through lectures and reading in the semester). (Experiential Learning)
6. Additionally, students will be asked to present in class one of their listening posts
7. The cohort/class will create a final peer review/report that will define what they believe each student should remember when listening
8. Finally, the total journal submission exercise should include the students’ honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses as a listener and an explanation of what specific steps the student should take to become a better listener. (Experiential Learning)

Active Listening (25%)

• Comprehension and Accuracy (15%):
  • The journal accurately reflects demonstrating a clear understanding of the key points, arguments, and details.

• Identification of Content Purpose and Audience (10%):
  • The student correctly identifies the purpose, target audience, and the context in which the content was delivered.

Rating Levels:

• Excellent (23-25%): The journal demonstrates a comprehensive and precise understanding of listening (includes precise replication of content, including background noises, etc.)

• Good (20-22%): The journal accurately captures the main ideas and purpose of content listened too

• Satisfactory (18-19%): The journal captures the general content of the discussion/listening

• Needs Improvement (15-17%): The journal shows limited understanding of listening by offering basic generalities

• Unsatisfactory (Below 15%): The journal lacks an accurate representation of the content

Critical Analysis (30%)

• Evaluation of Listening Effectiveness (15%):
  • The student analyzes what they listened for and how closely they listened.

• Consideration of Strengths and Weaknesses (15%):
  • The journal exercise thoughtfully assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the listener through final analysis

Rating Levels:

• • Excellent (28-30%): The analysis is insightful, well-supported, and demonstrates listening skills through examples and narratives offered

• • Good (25-27%): The analysis is thorough and mostly well-supported, with a clear evaluation of strengths/weaknesses.

• • Satisfactory (22-24%): The analysis covers basic aspects of listening.

• • Needs Improvement (19-21%): The analysis is superficial, with limited evaluation

• • Unsatisfactory (Below 19%): The analysis is incomplete or lacks critical analysis 3. Reflection and Personal Connection (25%)

Personal Insights and Relevance (15%):

• The student reflects on how listening connects to their own experiences, learning, or understanding

Growth and Learning (10%):

• The journal highlights what the student learned from the listening experience and how they plan to apply these insights in their own communication practices.

Rating Levels:

• • Excellent (23-25%): The reflection is deeply personal and insightful, clearly linking the listening experience to personal growth and future public speaking aspirations.

• • Good (20-22%): The reflection is thoughtful and relevant, connecting the listening experience to the student’s personal experiences and learning goals.

• • Satisfactory (18-19%): The reflection makes a basic connection between the listening experience and personal insights, though it may lack depth or specificity.

• • Needs Improvement (15-17%): The reflection is brief or lacks a clear connection to personal growth, with limited insight into how the experience will influence future communication.

• • Unsatisfactory (Below 15%): The reflection lacks personal engagement or fails to connect the listening experience to the student’s growth or future aspirations.

Clarity and Organization (20%)

• Coherence and Flow (10%):
  • The journal is well-organized, with ideas presented in a logical sequence that enhances understanding.

• Writing Quality and Mechanics (10%):
  • The journal is free of grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors, and is written in a clear and professional style.

Rating Levels:

• • Excellent (18-20%): The journal is exceptionally well-organized and clearly written, with no errors and a strong, professional tone.

• • Good (16-17%): The journal is well-organized and mostly error-free, with minor lapses in clarity or professionalism.

• • Satisfactory (14-15%): The journal is organized and understandable, with some errors that do not significantly impede comprehension.

• • Needs Improvement (12-13%): The journal is somewhat disorganized or contains frequent errors, making it difficult to follow.

• • Unsatisfactory (Below 12%): The journal is poorly organized, with numerous errors.