Tag Archive for cultural perspectives

World Lit: The Counterargument Assignment!

Welcome! For the next three days you will be working on The Counterargument Assignment, which is your second (and final) Embedded Assessment for this unit.

Standard: ELAGSE9-10W1 Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.

  1. Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
  2. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level and concerns.
  3. Use words, phrases, and clauses to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims.
  4. Establish and maintain an appropriate style and objective tone.
  5. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.

Learning Target: I can develop an argument about an issue that provides evidence and refutes a claim by providing a counterclaim.

Opening Session: Grab your laptops! Remember to get your number!

Work Session: You will have the entire class period for the next three days to work on your Counterargument Assignment. I suggest you spend most of the day researching today. I will take about 45 minutes and show you all how to do your Works Cited, so keep track of where you found your information and do your in-text citations with the author’s last name in parentheses.

Here is your complete Counterargument Assignment handout.

Closing Session: Return your laptops to the cart IN THE RIGHT SLOT WHERE THEY GO!!!

Assessment: Formal (essays will be graded)

Differentiation: Process (scaffolding), Interest (student choice)

World Lit: Taking a Stand Against Explotation

Standard: 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.

Learning target: I can read an argument and analyze how the author builds it, and I can write an essay that explains how an author builds an argument to persuade an audience.

Opening Session: Sub Attendance!

Work Session:

Hi y’all! I’m not here today!

  • Grab your Springboard books and open to page 210.
  • Read the editorial “Diners should pay attention to workers, not just the food”
  • Do the second read questions 1-4 on page 212
  • Do the Working from the Text activity on page 213, where you disassemble the essay you just read into an outline.
  • If you have time, do the “Explain How an Author Builds an Argument” for extra credit

Closing Session: Clean up the room and thank the sub!

Assessment: Informal (book check)

Differentiation: Process (flexible groups)

World Lit: Taking a Stand on Legal Issues

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 the use of rhetorical appeals in an argument and compare and contrast how different writers approach a subject or issue.

Opening Session: Take a look at this banned commercial and tell me, do you think this is an appeal to ethos, pathos, or logos?

Work Session: Today we’re going to be looking at different types of rhetorical appeals. This should mostly be review from what we did while talking about Antony’s “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” speech, but it’ll be some good practice at identifying which type of appeal is being used. While I was in a training class learning how to teach you guys using Springboard, my table of teachers actually disagreed on what kind of appeals were being used here – so you can see it’s not always clear-cut!

We will be doing activity 2.14 in your book, starting on page 190. We’re going to read “On Surrender at Bear Paw Mountain, 1877” and “On Women’s Right to Vote”. These are two short texts that use different rhetorical appeals throughout. Afterwards, we will have a brief discussion on the different rhetorical appeals for review, and then I want you to do the “Writing to Sources: Explanatory Text” prompt on page 193.

Closing Session: TOTD: which rhetorical appeal do you think is MOST effective on you personally?

Assessment: Informal (Book check)

Differentiation: Process (Scaffolding)

World Lit: Taking A Stand Against Hunger

Standard: 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.

Learning Target: I can identify an authors purpose and analyze an argument presented, and I can synthesize information from print and nonprint persuasive texts.

Opening Session: Share Out! What’s your opinion on child hunger? You think it sucks, right? Do you think America is doing enough to combat child hunger? If not, what more could we do?

Work Session: Today and tomorrow we’re going to be doing activity 2.15 in your Springboard book, which starts on page 194. Today we’re going to read a Proclamation (woah, that’s a genre we’ve never read before!) and look at a chart and some statistics, so let’s get started!

After reading the proclamation, I want to have a brief discussion over the Second Read questions. Do you feel that the world is doing a good job of holding up the proclamation we just read? If not the world, is America? Is it the duty of Americans (or people from countries similar to ours) to make sure children in other parts of the world don’t go hungry? Why or why not?

Let’s now look at the charts and statistics given on page 197. Are these surprising? How do they square with the proclamation we just read? Let’s do a quick think-pair-share for Second Read question 3.

Closing Session: Vocab review – quiz is TOMORROW because we have CardinalCon on Friday!

Assessment: Informal (book check)

Differentiation: Process (scaffolding)

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)