Tag Archive for michael fay

World Lit: Justice and Culture

Standards

  • ELAGSE9-10RI6 Determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how an author uses rhetoric to advance that point of view or purpose. Georgia ELA
  • ELAGSE9-10RI5 Analyze in detail how an author’s ideas or claims are developed and refined by particular sentences, paragraphs, or larger portions of a text (e.g., a section or chapter). Georgia ELA
  • ELAGSE9-10RI1 Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text. Georgia ELA

Learning Target
Students will consider both sides of an issue and debate with their classmates.

Opening Session
Check out this ancient news coverage from CNN in 1994! We’re going to be reading and debating about this case today.

Work Session
Grab your Springboards!!

Today we’re going to be learning about a case from 1994 about a teenager named Michael Fay. Michael Fay was an American teenager in Singapore and committed some nonviolent crimes and as punishment, in accordance with Singaporean law, he was sentenced to be struck with a rattan cane. His dad, who was still in America, went to the media with the case, and a huge debate about the appropriateness of caning as a punishment broke out across the country.

Today we have two articles on this issue, one on the “for” side and one on the “against” side. I’m going to split the class in half. Half of you will read one article, the other half will read the other. Once we have all had a chance to read, I want to have a little debate. We will have a class discussion on caning as a punishment and whether or not we think it was fair or appropriate.

Closing Session
To close out, go to your book and do Second Read questions 1-4.

Assessment
Formative (book check, class debate)

Differentiation
Process (learning style, jigsaw discussion, debate)

World Lit: Justice and Culture, Day 1

Standard: ELAGSE9-10RI8 Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning.

Learning Target: I can analyze and synthesize details from two texts about justice.

Opening Session: So far this unit we’ve focused on cultural perspective told through stories and narratives. For the remainder, we will focus on cultural perspective through argumentation. And you guessed it – that means we will be writing an argument! So let’s start this unit by unpacking Embedded Assessment 2, The Counterargument Assignment!

Work Session: Today we’re going to start out with a little pre-reading activity on page 177 in your Springboard. I would like for us to complete the chart by yourself, then we will go over it aloud.

We’re going to be reading two articles about something controversial that happened way back in 1994, the Michael Fay case. As the background info in the book explains, the controversy was about whether or not an American citizen should be beaten (caned, technically) for a crime he committed in Singapore. Although this type of punishment can be considered “torture,” there is no denying that Singapore has a much lower crime rate than the United States.

We will read the first article today, “Time to Assert American Values”. After reading, I want you guys to do the Second Read questions, and I also want to examine the author’s argument. What points did he make? Can you make any arguments that refute those points, or explain why they are wrong?

Tomorrow we will read the next article in the book, which takes the opposing viewpoint, and have a little silent debate!

Closing Session: Share out! What do you think?

Assessment: Informal (book check)

Differentiation: Process (scaffolding), Student Choice

World Lit: Justice and Culture, Continued

Standard: ELAGSE9-10RI8 Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning.

Learning Target: I can analyze and synthesize details from two texts about justice.

Opening Session: Let’s review what we discussed yesterday with a video from 1994!

Work Session: Today we’re continuing with what we were doing yesterday, reading about the Michael Fay case from 1994. The article for today is entitled “Rough Justice: A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate About Crime and Punishment”. We will read this article aloud, briefly do the Second Read questions aloud together, and then have a little silent debate!

For this debate, you and the person sitting across from you will need a single sheet of notebook paper to share. One of you will be “for” the caning punishment, and one of you will be “against.” Decide now who is taking which side.

Once you’ve chosen sides, take 3 minutes to mentally come up with 3 reasons that support your side. Then, when I say go, one if you will write that reason down. You have one minute!

Now trade papers, and you have one minute to read the reason your partner wrote and explain why that reason is wrong. You may recall that this is known as refuting an argument.

Now we repeat! The second partner (person who just refuted) will keep the paper and write down their first reason why they’re write, then trade, and the first partner will refute the argument.

This will go on until each partner has written their 3 reasons down and the other partner has refuted them. The idea here is to practice refuting your opponent’s argument, in preparation for our next Embedded Assessment!

Closing Session: Let’s reflect! How did you like today’s activity? Was it difficult? Annoying? Did it make you mad at your partner?

Assessment: Informal (book check)

Differentiation: Process (scaffolding)

World Lit: Justice and Culture

Standard: ELAGSE9-10RI8 Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning.

Learning Target: I can analyze and synthesize details from two texts about justice.

Opening Session: So far this unit we’ve focused on cultural perspective told through stories and narratives. For the remainder, we will focus on cultural perspective through argumentation. And you guessed it – that means we will be writing an argument! So let’s start this unit by unpacking Embedded Assessment 2, The Counterargument Assignment!

Work Session: Today we’re going to start out with a little pre-reading activity on page 177 in your Springboard. I would like for us to complete the chart by yourself, then we will go over it aloud.

We’re going to be reading two articles about something controversial that happened way back in 1994, the Michael Fay case. As the background info in the book explains, the controversy was about whether or not an American citizen should be beaten (caned, technically) for a crime he committed in Singapore. Although this type of punishment can be considered “torture,” there is no denying that Singapore has a much lower crime rate than the United States.

We will read the first article today, “Time to Assert American Values”. After reading, I want you guys to do the Second Read questions, and I also want to examine the author’s argument. What points did he make? Can you make any arguments that refute those points, or explain why they are wrong?

Tomorrow we will read the next article in the book, which takes the opposing viewpoint, and have a little silent debate!

Closing Session: VOCAB!

  1. Sophistry
  2. Rationalize
  3. Marginalize
  4. Propagation
  5. Inhumane
  6. Patriarch
  7. Dichotomy
  8. Accord
  9. Draconian
  10. Sovereign

Assessment: Informal (book check)

Differentiation: Process (scaffolding), Student Choice