Smagorinsky Chapter 6: Refining the Unit Focus

I found the reading assignment for this chapter (p. 140-146) a bit frustrating.  Smagorinsky suggests creating goals for a unit in which the teacher has assigned an overarching concept.  He then defines in-process texts and activities & culminating texts and activities as two types of assessments.  Next, he provides examples of two different in-process goals: response logs and student-centered discussion. 

Neither of these in-process assessments are new information to me and Smagorinsky does acknowledge that these types of assessments have been around for quite some time.  What I was hoping to gain from this reading, however, was more specific information on how to determine what goals I should establish for a unit and how to reach the assigned goals once I have chosen them.  Unfortunately, he does not break down the process of thought for how to choose goals for a unit.  He doesn't even really explain what different types of goals a teacher could employ.  Instead, he reviews the three types of overarching concepts from a previous chapter (theme, stance, and strategy) and launches into the two different types of assessments he suggests for his example unit on negotiating themes.  In the creation of my unit plan, I am left with the thought that I should employ one of these in-process goals, but I am not really sure why or what other choices I have in the matter.

Furthermore,  Smagorinsky's descriptions of the in-process assessments lacks sufficient explanation.  For example, the reading log contains directions for the teacher to provide to students, but does not clarify these directions.  The directions indicate that students are required to give a personal response to the passage as well as a personal evaluation of the passage.  What is the difference?  What criteria should students to use in their evaluation of the passage?  How do I clarify this to my students when they inevitably ask me this question?  Surely, they will ask, but Smagorinsky has not provided an answer.  Also, before starting students on a response log, teaching a mini-lesson on open-ended questions versus closed questions is crucial, but Smagorinsky offers no guidance on crafting such a lesson in this chapter.  In his explanation of the second in-process goal, student-generated discussions, there is again a lack of elaboration on how to guide students into generating their own questions for discussion, how to teach them to ask open-ended questions, and what teaching responsibilities to assign oneself.  He mentions that some of this information is addressed in chapter 9, but I'm left to wonder why these explanations would not be provided at the introduction of these concepts.

I also have issue with the terminology Smagorinsky uses because I find it a bit confusing.  Isn't the "goal" of these activities to help students develop confidence in analyzing literature and develop a tool for learning different way of thinking about literature?   If so, then why are "in process texts and activities" referred to as a goal when in reality they are a means to achieve that goal, a strategy, an activity, a method.