Socratic Seminar
Reflection
Format:
Typed, double-spaced, 1-2 pages, 12 pt. Times News Roman, 1” margins
In your
reflection, you should discuss the following categories:
1.
Specific ideas you found particularly interesting and why. Give specific examples and explain your
reasoning. Please include who said the
idea (this shows me you were listening carefully).
For
example, “I found Brad’s speculation that not wearing white after Labor Day is
connected to the Puritan’s dress code for wearing somber outfit interesting
because I had not made that connection myself.
However, I am not sure I agree with this connection because I am
wondering whether those arbitrary color rules have more to do with Southern
etiquette and Emily Post rather than Puritanism. I need more information on this; however,
Brad’s comment jump started my thinking on the ways in which we dress in America
today and how they might be connected to Puritanism.”
2.
Unanswered questions or ideas you are still
grappling with regarding the topic. Explain
why you still have these questions or intellectual tensions.
For
example, “I question George Will’s argument that Puritan asceticism has led to
the gross accumulation of “material delights” in our society today. Were people truly rebelling against the
Puritan way of life or was capitalism in and of itself a driving force? Can we really link the two? I am not convinced by Will’s reasoning. I need more evidence suggesting that people’s
extravagant spending is a response to Puritanical austerity.”
3.
Discussion of why you scored yourself
on the rubric for each category the way you did and specific
examples supporting your self-score.
For
example, “I responded to Oscar V’s question regarding whether President Bush is
a modern-day Puritan. I referred to the
Puritan Moral Code’s rule that all sins should be punished and connected this
code to Bush’s references to evil in the Middle East needing to be crushed. This example reflects how I was listening
intently to the conversation, following the ideas, and extending them by
providing a relevant example that pushed the discussion forward, which is why I
gave myself an “Excellent” in listening and speaking and reasoning.”
4. The class’s overall participation and assessment of your chosen person– strengths and areas of improvement. Please provide specific examples supporting
your point.
For
example, don’t say: “Everyone was nice.”
Instead say, “Generally, everyone listened carefully to the
speaker. For example, I noticed that
when Luis was speaking, every student was looking at him and taking notes. This also happened when Stephanie talked
about Edwards’s simile about God’s wrath being bent like a bow. However, when Garrett was talking, I saw two
people whispering. This happened several
other times. Due to our class’s
inconsistent listening, I would say it was a strength at times as well as an
area of improvement. Additionally, I
observed [student’s name]. She was
prepared because…”
Also, here is a link to our class-created rubric for you to self-assess on:
https://docs.google.com/a/cpsed.net/document/d/151vVSWXZpOmK3_BNr7a080HU3aafa35oFzQAWhMQupg/edit?usp=sharing
Also, here is a link to our class-created rubric for you to self-assess on:
https://docs.google.com/a/cpsed.net/document/d/151vVSWXZpOmK3_BNr7a080HU3aafa35oFzQAWhMQupg/edit?usp=sharing
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne idea that I found interesting was the idea that Curley’s wife was discriminated partly because of her, and partly because of the assumptions made about women in general. I believe that the idea was brought up by Hannah Torrez. The idea is that men made an assumption about Curley’s wife without even glancing at her. George seemed to have his mind made up about her before he even met her. This shows how gender discrimination was back during the great depression. I believe this to be partly true because while George seemed to make up his mind about Curley’s wife before meeting her, the way that Curley’s wife acted solidified the belief. One question that I had that was not answered during the discussion was how the treatment of Curley’s wife and Lennie similar or different. I feel that the question is opinionated and it could lead to very interesting topics of discussion. Curley’s wife and Lennie are seen as helpless in a way, and both of these characters face some form of discrimination because of it. However, one could argue that they are treated differently, by stating that while Lennie could get a job that requires someone with strength, Curley’s wife could not. Likewise, Lennie could not get a job that requires an education, but Curley’s wife probably could. This is the question that I wanted to ask during the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though I deserve a 3 in the “listening and speaking” category because, while I did speak clearly and maintained eye contact, I did not ask as many questions as I had hoped to. I feel as though I deserve a 4 in “Using Textual evidence” because I answered every question that was not an opinion with a piece of evidence from the text. I feel as though I deserve a 4 in “preparation” because I made sure to have all of my materials and annotations ready before the seminar started. I feel as though I deserve a 3 in “leadership” because I kept the conversation going when it was necessary, and I listened to what others had to say and reflected on their ideas.
In the discussion, everyone seemed to pay attention to whoever was speaking with no side conversations or interruptions. One problem that I noticed with the group is that multiple people tried to show their ideas at once, and I found myself not being able to say my point because I would stop talking if someone else wanted to talk, thinking that I would be able to say my point before the conversations were over. This sadly did not happen. I observed Ethan Izzo, who I believe did a very good job in the seminar, the points that he made were very interesting, and he did speak abiout as often as he should. One thing that he did not do as much as he should have is that referring to the text. These are my thoughts on the Socratic Seminar.
One idea that I found interesting was the idea that Curley’s wife was discriminated partly because of her, and partly because of the assumptions made about women in general. I believe that the idea was brought up by Hannah Torrez. The idea is that men made an assumption about Curley’s wife without even glancing at her. George seemed to have his mind made up about her before he even met her. This shows how gender discrimination was back during the great depression. I believe this to be partly true because while George seemed to make up his mind about Curley’s wife before meeting her, the way that Curley’s wife acted solidified the belief. One question that I had that was not answered during the discussion was how the treatment of Curley’s wife and Lennie similar or different. I feel that the question is opinionated and it could lead to very interesting topics of discussion. Curley’s wife and Lennie are seen as helpless in a way, and both of these characters face some form of discrimination because of it. However, one could argue that they are treated differently, by stating that while Lennie could get a job that requires someone with strength, Curley’s wife could not. Likewise, Lennie could not get a job that requires an education, but Curley’s wife probably could. This is the question that I wanted to ask during the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though I deserve a 3 in the “listening and speaking” category because, while I did speak clearly and maintained eye contact, I did not ask as many questions as I had hoped to. I feel as though I deserve a 4 in “Using Textual evidence” because I answered every question that was not an opinion with a piece of evidence from the text. I feel as though I deserve a 4 in “preparation” because I made sure to have all of my materials and annotations ready before the seminar started. I feel as though I deserve a 3 in “leadership” because I kept the conversation going when it was necessary, and I listened to what others had to say and reflected on their ideas.
In the discussion, everyone seemed to pay attention to whoever was speaking with no side conversations or interruptions. One problem that I noticed with the group is that multiple people tried to show their ideas at once, and I found myself not being able to say my point because I would stop talking if someone else wanted to talk, thinking that I would be able to say my point before the conversations were over. This sadly did not happen. I observed Ethan Izzo, who I believe did a very good job in the seminar, the points that he made were very interesting, and he did speak abiout as often as he should. One thing that he did not do as much as he should have is that referring to the text. These are my thoughts on the Socratic Seminar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBjZ-4MK1WE
Deleteoverview of a socratic seminar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBjZ-4MK1WE
Deleteoverview of a socratic seminar
There were several different ideas that were presented during my Socratic seminar. I had the topic of Steinbeck’s portrayal of Curley's wife and George. One of the interesting points Rachel brought up that i had not picked up on, is Steinbeck continuously giving George animal like characteristics, specifically comparing him to a dog While I was reading, I thought that Steinbeck was doing this to help visualize George’s appearance however as the discussion on this topic went on I started to see what Rachel was saying. She said that she believes Steinbeck was trying to make notion that George is being discriminated. Several members of the group said that being compared to a dog is not so much a compliment. If George was compared to a lion or something mighty it might be different. In addition, we noticed George was the only character being compared to animals, therefor Steinbeck is displaying George’s isolation.
ReplyDeleteWith all the great things brought up during the seminar, there were still a couple questions left unanswered for me. One was if the men on the ranch knew Lennie had a mental disability, would they treat him differently? At this point in the novel, the people on the ranch think that Lennie is just dumb, as George told them Lennie was kicked in the head by a horse. I can see that people although think lower of Lennie than they do of George, they still respect him, and do not take advantage of him. If they knew he was disabled, would they then take advantage of him? Would they do this behind George’s back? Would that cause Lennie to lash out? This question crossed my mind as I was thinking of what might happen later on in the story. Will the men find out and torment Lennie?
On the rubric, I scored myself mainly all 3s and 4s. I felt as though my speaking was clear, my voice level was good, however, I could have used more sophisticated language. This is why I gave myself a 3+ for speaking and listening. Other than that, I asked more than three questions, my eye contact was good, and I listened before I responded. I rated myself a 4 for using textual evidence because each point I made, I supported with relevant evidence directly from the book. In my preparation I analyzed the text and explained my point clearly. In preparation, I graded myself a 3+. I was prepared for the seminar with four good quotes and o=points to make. However, I believe I should have spread out the area i retrieved my quotes, and dug a little deeper into the underlying meaning of Steinbeck’s words. Lastly, for leadership, I rated myself a four. I felt I shined in my group because I started the discussion with the focus question, contributed and asked specific people questions, and I also invited someone into the discussion.
Unfortunately, I was not present for my turn to be in the outer circle, therefore I can not contribute an interesting point someone made.
some ideas that i found interesting is when ethan was discussing how crooks acted the way he did when confronted by curley’s wife. i found this interesting because it does show how crooks acknowledges the power she holds over him, and he uses a protective barrier to defend himself and not show any signs of resisting. this is because she can easily get him in trouble or killed. another thing i thought was interesting that leah said was the sexism shown to curley’s wife. i thought this interesting because it could be argued on both sides. i said that there was an undertone of sexism , but overall, most of the discrimination was because of her personality.
ReplyDeletesome questions that i still have about the discussion are did crooks make lennie worried about george to make himself feel better or because he wants him to feel the pain that he had felt.i wondered this question because it sounds like he was left like that in the past and wants to make lennie feel what he felt, but he also gets happier and more excited when lennie gets worried. another question that i had was why does curley’s wife act flirtatious around the whole group of men, but when she meets the “weaker ones”, she acts rude and judgemental? is it because she wants to make herself seem more powerful, or is there another reason why she acts this way?
in this seminar, everyone paid attention to the speaker and thoroughly formulated their answer. there were lots of thought out questions, and they stayed on the topic of each question for just enough time before moving on. i thought that a lot of the questions and answers pertained to the topic well, and the answers really covered all that the questions asked. overall, it was a great seminar, and i think that the questions were thoroughly answered, and it did not have many silences, meaning that everyone had many thoughts to share.
Last week half of the class participated in the inner circle discussion on Of Mice and Men and how Steinbeck portrayed Lennie and Curley’s wife. I thought it was a good idea and after hearing and discussing the thoughts of each other I gathered new insight on different views of it. For example, either Melissa or Sarah H described that Curley’s wife, who is a woman, was not given a name in the book and she seemed like a possession of Curley as she is referred to as Curley’s wife. They said that she was maybe not given as much an importance and she is not given a name because she is not important enough in the story. Other people chimed in on this statement and agreed that this is discrimination towards women because Steinbeck is classifying women as not important and irrelevant. I thought that this was a unique thought and I had not realized this until they said this to the group. This comment made me think more about women and how they were seen by men and everyone during the Great Depression.
ReplyDeleteI did not have many unanswered questions but one question I did have is what would happen to Lennie if George were to find someone better or if George were to just leave? We touched upon this during the seminar and I thought that he would not leave Lennie because they grew a sort of bond and it would be hard to throw that away. So when someone said that George would leave Lennie if someone was smarter and didn't have a disability but could work just as hard, I questioned that. I thought that that was a weird thought and I wonder why they would think that.
In the Speaking and Listening criteria of the class generated rubric I would grade myself a 3. I don’t think that I excelled in this section and I did not lead the conversation. I asked questions, spoke clearly and moved the conversation along twice, I do think that I could've done more but the topic was more of a discussion than an argument which makes it harder to talk and relate. I think that my biggest problem that separated me from a 4 was that I did not ask more than 3 questions or talked enough in the group. In the Using Textual Evidence I would grade myself a 4 because in my arguments or what I said to back something up, I used the text and read the exact words from the book. The evidence I used from the book was specific and it was relevant to what was being discussed. Once I again I would grade myself a 4 in the next section which was Preparation. I had all my annotations and questions at the start of the seminar and my annotations were specific and related to the textual evidence. In the Leadership section I grade myself a 2. Even though I am normally one to lead conversations and invite people to talk, I did not participate as much as I would have liked to. I didn’t initiate any conversations or topics and I did not actively listen and build upon that.
My assessment on the class participation was pretty good I think everyone talked enough and they were nice to each other. Nobody would interrupt anyone and if they accidentally did they would say sorry and let the other person talk. Everyone listened to whoever was talking and was kind. A few times Murphy and Leah invited someone to talk in the discussion which I thought helped with the overall participation of the group.
“Socratic Seminar”
ReplyDeleteThis was my first time ever doing a socratic seminar. During the socratic seminar, Melissa said that Steinbeck is describing all women as the same when he doesn’t give Curley’s wife a name. This was interesting because, she having no name shows that all women in the eyes of Steinbeck or at least at the time where generalized. Another thing that I found interesting was that Leah said something like, Why does Crook not allow people to come into his room, but feels alone all the time? I thought that this was good question because Crook has the opportunity to have people over, but he shuts them down. One thing I would have said was, maybe not giving Curley’s wife a name shows that people didn’t care about women back then. A question I still have is, “Why can’t Candy speak up for himself more?” I never got a chance to ask this question, but I would like to see the responses. For example, when Slim and Carlson wanted the dog to be killed, he didn’t speak up for himself and say “No”. So they carried along with that act. I also feel like Steinbeck made Candy not speak up for himself to show that older people were ignored, and not cared about. Another question I had was “Why is Curley’s wife be looked at as being a flirt?”. This question is still in my head because, she would just walk in to talk, and she would be yelled at. I feel like they don’t give her a chance. On the rubric I scored myself a 3 on Speaking and Listening because I listened to all the participants, and I spoke clearly and with the right language. I scored a 3 on Evidence because at one point I didn’t back it up. I scored a 4 on preparation because I had all my sections filled, and I scored a 2.5 on leadership because I had no control over any conversation, but I did ask 2 questions and continued the conversations. The class participation was very good, if we could, we could continue talking for the whole period. Everyone got to at least talk twice. My partner, Melissa, would have strengths in all areas. She led a lot of conversations, asked for people to join in, expanded on other people, and did a lot. She was definitely one of the leaders of the socratic seminar. For a first time, this was a very good experience and I am looking forward to more.
Rachel Blustein
ReplyDeleteEnglish 9 Honors
Mrs. Colando
7 December 2015
I would like to start off by saying I really enjoyed to Socratic Seminar. I thought it was a good way for the entire class to express their feelings about the book Of Mice and Men. The entire class got to express what they thought was most interesting, their different views on the text, and what they didn’t really understand. Overall, I thought the Socratic Seminar was a good way to wrap up the text and I really enjoyed it.
There were a few points made that I found to be really interesting. The possibly most interesting point was made at the end of the first seminar. Sarah asked, which social injustice was worse, mental disability or sexism, and who had it worse, Lennie or Curley’s Wife. When this question was first asked, I automatically thought Lennie had it worse, for he was disability whereas Curley’s Wife was just a women. Not that she could change this, but Lennie had no idea what was happening. As time went on and everyone shared out their opinions, my views started to change. Melissa and a view others said Curley’s Wife had it worse, she was a woman, she couldn’t change that, but Lennie has a name and she doesn’t. She is referred to only has Curley’s Wife, like she is property of Curley’s and not worth a name of her own. The other thing I found interesting was in the second seminar. Someone, I don’t remember who, mentioned who went to town and who didn’t. As a group, they figured out it was the weak, the discriminated who were left behind. Candy, the elder, Crooks, the negro, Curley’s Wife, the woman, and Lennie, the mentally disabled were all left behind. I found this interesting because I thought that they just left behind Lennie because they didn’t want him and town, and the rest of them were just a coincidence. It would have never dawned on me that Steinbeck purposely left those four behind. This were the two points that stuck out to me during both of the seminars.
The one question I had that was left unanswered was, why does Steinbeck use specific words to depict Curley’s Wife? This was kind of off topic but I believe it is because he wants to keep Curley’s Wife as a character to play all women, not just one. This is also why she doesn’t have a name, so that her character can be more broad. Other than this one question I thought that both seminars thoroughly answered the questions I had about the text.
I gave myself a four in the Listening and Speaking category because I felt that whenever someone spoke, I listened, processed what they were saying, and then responded. I gave myself a four in Textual Evidence because almost everything I said was based out of the text. I used all four of my quotes from my preparation sheet, plus more. I gave myself a three in Preparation because although I need have the required amount of questions and quotes prepared, I learned the more quotes and questions, the better. Finally, I gave myself a three in Leadership because although I do feel I kept the conversation moving, I kept it going based off of my ideas and did not invite others into the conversation.
Overall, I thought the class was very well prepared. I can not think of one awkward silence in the first group, but there were multiple times where people talked over each other on accident. In the second seminar, although there were the awkward silences, I don’t think they were for lack of preparation, but they were because no one was there to move the conversation along.
In the long and the short of it, I really enjoyed my first Socratic Seminar. It was one of the best ways I have ever wrapped up text of a book, and it was interesting to see what everyone else thought of the text. I liked to see my classmates new and different ideas on the text and I liked to see what everyone understood and what I didn’t.
http://www.readwritethink.org/professional-development/strategy-guides/socratic-seminars-30600.html
DeleteVirak Pond-Tor
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
7 December 2015
My First Socratic Seminar
I felt that the socratic seminar in our class was a very good learning experience for digging deeper into the book Of Mice and Men. It gave everyone a chance to share their opinions about a specific topic and widened my view of some things. For example, what I found interesting was when Sarah Hobin pointed out how George would prefer someone who was not mentally disabled. Sure, it might seem like common sense, but I never thought about it like that. I thought that George and Lennie were the perfect pair for each other and could never live without one another. One thing I have a question about is why did most people think that women were discriminated more than the mentally disabled? I can see where people might say that back then women were just thought of as flirts and could not work, however people did not think that the mentally disabled could work either and if they found out that someone was disabled they might send them to an institution. While grading myself on the rubric I thought about all of the things that I did and said. For speaking and listening I gave myself a four because I believe that I listened to what everyone said and responded accordingly. In the using textual evidence category I scored it as a three because not everything that I said was backed up with evidence from the text. Next, was the preparation section where I gave myself a four because I felt very prepared for this socratic seminar with all of my quotes annotated and my questions written. Lastly, is the leadership category where I scored it as another four. I might not have participated the most, but
Pond-Tor 2
I feel that when I did it moved the conversation forward and built upon what others said. Overall, everyone followed the guidelines given to us for this socratic seminar and participated. What I found very surprising was that nobody was cut off. I thought that people would be dying to get their opinion out there, however everyone was polite and allowed the person speaking to finish their statement. Also, I foresaw a lot more awkward silences during the discussion, but there was always someone there to keep it flowing smoothly. For instance, Sarah Hobin and Melissa Murphy were always participating and moving the conversation forward. I found it interesting how Hannah and others were saying that Crooks was voluntarily separating himself and he was not being discriminated. I am sure that if Crooks had the opportunity to hang out with the other white men on the ranch he would take it. It seems like a lot of my thoughts and assumptions about Of Mice and Men and this learning style were proven wrong during the socratic seminar.
This is a video of how to bring a socratic seminar into the class https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/bring-socratic-seminars-to-the-classroom
DeleteThis is a video of how to bring a socratic seminar into the class https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/bring-socratic-seminars-to-the-classroom
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLeah Ragosta
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9H
7 December 2015
Socratic Seminar
This was my first experience with socratic seminars, and I feel like it really helped to further my understanding on the book and the themes of social injustice portrayed by John Steinbeck. My attention was brought to many good points whilst being on the outer circle. I followed Jake and he brought up that Curley’s wife could just glance towards the men and they would interpret that as attention seeking. Even though I believe that Curley’s wife was somewhat looking for attention, I agree that a woman’s actions were in some way exaggerated in a negative way. Another interesting topic was how Curley’s wife doesn’t have a name. I believe Melissa brought up how Curley’s wife not having a name signifies that Steinbeck is generalizing all women through her. I completely agree with this and I also believe that the characters who face discrimination are always left behind or are not named. For example Candy, Lennie, Curley’s wife, and Crooks were all left behind one night while the others went out.
Although the discussion in both seminars was good, I still have some unanswered questions. One of which is why does Curley’s wife talk bitterly towards Crooks, Candy, and Lennie when she is lonely and wants attention? If she wanted attention then why would she be cruel towards the only people she can talk to? Does she feel like she is the leader or the most powerful of them? I was just confused on why she would be mean when she is isolated and doesn’t like it.
For my scoring, I gave myself a 4 in everything but preparation where I gave myself a 3. I think that I spoke clearly and engaged often in the conversation. I was also respectful and made eye contact with the speaker or whoever I was responding to. Also, I asked many questions to the group. For textual evidence I feel I deserve a 4 because I followed along in the book and brought up multiple quotes to support other’s arguments. For preparation I feel that I deserve a 3 because I prepared a decent amount of evidence but it wasn’t that in depth and could’ve had a stronger relationship to the theme of social injustice. Lastly, I believe that I took control of the discussion quite often whether it be posing a question or responding to someone else's question. I also invited others into the discussion therefore, I rated myself a 4.
Overall, I think that both socratic seminars went very well. There were a lot of good points made. A few that stuck in my head were how characters are often symbolized by animals, and how some don’t even have names. These characters are the ones most affected by a social injustice. I feel like the class did a great job using textual evidence and staying with the topic. This socratic seminar went very well in my opinion and helped with my understanding of “Of Mice and Men”. I’m looking forward to more socratic seminars.
Aaron Ly
ReplyDeleteEnglish 9 Honors
Mrs. Colando
7 December 2015
My First Socratic Seminar
This is the first time I have ever done a Socratic Seminar and I have really enjoyed it because I was able to gather different insights from other people. During the first Socratic Seminar Melissa said that not giving Curley’s wife a name because she seemed like a possession of Curley’s and that she was not given the importance to the story and she was just another character. Many people during that Socratic Seminar agreed with her and just added upon that saying that it was discrimination between men and women as well as sexism. I thought that this was an idea that I have thought about but not really build upon my own ideas until when listening to different people’s responses toward this idea. I was intrigued by this idea because it got me to really think about how men treated women during the Great Depression as well as how they were described as just possession and irrelevant to society.I had a question based on women in general which was why were women more discriminated against than the African Americans and the disabled? Even though women were not able to work or have the manpower to work, they were referred to as flirts, however many disabled people hid that they were disabled so they won't have to go to a mental institution. On the rubric for speaking and listening I would grade myself a 3 because I asked a couple of questions as well as built upon people’s ideas,but I did not ask more than three questions. Although I did not lead the conversation I was able to speak clearly as well as listen to my peer’s responses. In using textual evidence on the rubric I would give myself a 4 because all my answers were referred to the text and I read the words right from the passage as well as used the book as a reference to back up my arguments. Again I would give myself a 4 in preparation because I had all of my quotes and questions ready before we did the Socratic Seminar as well as my annotations. In leadership I would give myself a 3. Even though I didn’t participate that much I was able to ask questions and bring up ideas during the awkward silences.Overall, I feel that this activity went really well and everybody were able to get there points out there. Also, everyone was polite to one another since if one would interrupt they would say sorry and allow the other person to speak. My partner, Sarah H., had strengths in all areas on the rubric and in presentation because she actively engaged in conversations and set points out there as well as built upon others ideas. Sometimes she was even able to lead the discussion with Melissa. In conclusion, this was a good experience and I liked to see what other’s opinions were.
Hannah Torres
ReplyDeleteMrs.Colando
English 9 Honors
12/7/15
Of Mice and Men Socratic Seminar
A week or so ago, I participated in my very first socratic seminar. For the first socratic seminar, I was apart of the inner circle. I was first very nervous that there would be many awkward silences or moments when nobody knew what to say. As it turned out, it was sometimes hard to fit something into the conversation with everyone’s thoughts and different interpretations of the text. When one person would mention a quote, almost everyone would have a different opinion on what Steinbeck was using as his underlying theme. The topic of the Socratic Seminar that I was in during the inner circle was the characterization of Crooks and Curley’s wife.
One of the main points that the group focused on was the fact that Steinbeck characterized Lennie as an animal multiple times throughout the story. When I read this, I mainly though that Steinbeck was only treating Lennie as less of a person. However, Melissa seemed to think the opposite. She said that when she first read that, she thought Steinbeck was relating only the physical characteristics to Lennie.
One question that I still do not have a complete answer to is one that Sarah H. brought up. Towards the end of the seminar, the question that was brought up was whether or not Curley’s wife or Lennie had more discrimination towards them. I honestly was very torn when trying to answer this question. On one hand, Curley’s wife was not even given a name and was discriminated before she was even introduced to some of the men. On the other hand, Lennie was also not allowed to talk to the boss, and was often left behind when all of the other men went out.
On the rubric, I gave myself a four on Speaking and Listening. I believe that I asked questions that prompted other questions and discussions. Before responding or saying something, I would make sure that nobody said the same thing before me. I made eye contact with the group and used a loud, clear speaking voice. For the Referring Textual Evidence box, I gave myself a three. For most of the thing I said I would back it up with textual evidence, but I did not refer back to the text for everything I said. For Preparation, I gave myself a four. Prior to coming into the seminar, I filled out the worksheet with direct quotes from the text. I reviewed the quotes beforehand and used them effectively during the seminar. For leadership, I gave myself a four. I believe that when the conversation kind of dulled down, I would ask another question or include other people in the conversation.
Overall, I believe that both the first and second Socratic Seminars were successful and thorough. In both the first and second seminars, everyone seemed to listen to each other and base what they said off of that. In our class, there seemed to be no side conversations, but being on the outer circle was a little boring at times. Some of us were disengaged at times on the outer circle, but overall I think that our listening was effective.
Sarah Hobin
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
7 December 2015
Self Reflection
The socratic seminar was a new and insightful experience for me. My group had to discuss the discrimination against Lennie and Curley’s wife who are both targeted in the book. The discussion flowed and I found that I was a regular participant in the discussion. I found it interesting when the majority of the group answered my question towards the closing of the seminar. I asked “who is discriminated against more, Lennie or Curley’s wife?”. The group as a whole agreed on Curley’s wife since no one but George knew that Lennie had a mental disability. This connection made by other group members had not been made in my mind before the seminar. I agree with this thought. At this point in the book, Lennie had faced less discrimination than Curley’s wife had. One question I still have that went unanswered, was “is it women in general being discriminated against or is it particularly Curley’s wife that the men do not like”. I think that it is women in general however, I would have liked to hear my classmates opinions on this topic. On the rubric, I graded myself with all fours. I feel that I spoke very clearly and articulated my thoughts well. I made eye contact when speaking and asked multiple questions. Under using textual evidence I gave myself a four because my arguments and points were on topic and relevant. I made direct references to the text and analyzed my quotes deeply. As for preparation, I was completely prepared. Both sheets are completely filled out and detailed. I did not control the group or dominate the conversation. However, if the topic was sidetracking from the main focus question I did my best to steer the group back on track. The seminar was very successful and stayed on topic the majority of the time so there was not a huge need for a leadership role. The socratic seminar was a new experience for me. I feel that I had a positive contribution to the seminar and would like to participate again.
Steven Amaral
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
7 December 2015
Socratic Seminar Self Reflection
I have had multiple experiences with socratic seminars in the past. But, I believe that this one got me thinking about the subject the most. I was in the second socratic seminar but I found many points in the first one that interested me. For example, Zari said how Steinbeck describes Lennie using large animal characteristics. I found this interesting because this shows how there was a social injustice towards Lennie. He wasn't talked about as a normal human. He was talked about as animals such as bears. I do have some unanswered questions about the topics discussed in the seminar though. One is, what is the exact reason why Crooks is isolated from the rest of the men in the long house. There were many interesting points brought up while discussing this, but we didn't really come to a final answer. I would of liked to find out the true reason why he is separated. On the rubric, I scored myself 4 in "Speaking and Listening", 4 in "Using Textual Evidence", 4 in "Preparation" and 3 in "Leadership". I scored myself a 4 in "Speaking and Listening" because I felt that I was paying really close attention to everyones points and I spoke a good amount in the seminar. I felt that I spoke loud enough and made eye contact with the people in my group. I gave myself a 4 in "Using Textual Evidence" because I used textual evidence for all of my points that I brought up. I also made direct references to passages in the novel. I also scored myself a 4 in "Preparation" because, I had all my points and questions prepared before the socratic seminar started. Finally, I gave myself a 3 in "Leadership" because I didn't move the conversation forward as well as I should have. I reflected well on what others said but I did not link ideas very well. For example my group talked a lot about Candy and his dog. I made lots of good points in this discussion, but I did not summarize students ideas enough. Overall I believe that the class's participation was great. I feel that everyone said at least two things in their discussions and we all learned new things because of the socratic seminar. The person I observed was Zari, and I believe she did very well in her discussion. She spoke in the discussion about 8 times, always made eye contact, responded to other speakers, and added multiple follow up questions. What Zari could have improved on was referring to the text. She only did this twice in her discussion. Besides this, she did very well in the socratic seminar.
Cont. These are my thoughts on our Socratic Seminar
DeleteAlicia Francis
ReplyDeleteSocratic Seminar Thoughts
I thought it was interesting, I’m not sure who pointed it out, but how Curley’s wife dominated over Crooks. I thought that whether it was because she was white or a woman, but she was fighting a black man and downsizing him. I thought that people who were ‘in the same boat’ would help and support each other, and maybe she possibly said "Well, you keep your place then, Nigger. I could get you strung up on a tree so easy it ain't even funny." because she knew that she was Curley’s wife. Or it could’ve been because she was a white woman and had power over a black man, from a social injustice view. I also found it interesting that in the socratic seminar, that I was apart from, pointed out that maybe Curley’s wife not having a name could possibly tie into Steinbeck’s generalization of women.
There are a few questions that I did not pertain to what was said in the socratic seminar, but I thought should be asked in general. Why do you think Steinbeck named the book Of Mice and Men, and do you think there are any social injustices tied within the title? Which character would you say is the most discriminated within the story? Do you think that if given a certain situation George would turn his back on Lennie for a better life? Similar to Crooks saying that George wouldn’t come back for Lennie.
I scored myself this way because I did not participate in the seminar as much as I should have.
I believe everyone did a good job with taking the ‘questions’ and giving insightful answers and asking thought provoking questions. They really thought about what was being asked and they ventured further with their answers and they built on top of each other, each classmate adding new thoughts onto the next. They listened to each other and agreed and sometimes supported each other’s ideas with their own convictions. Overall I thought it was a good seminar.
ReplyDeleteSocratic or Socrative?
During our first Socratic seminar as a class, we discussed the questions: “How does Steinbeck’s characterization of Lennie and Curley’s wife highlight social injustice? What are the implications of his social commentary? In other words, what conclusions does Steinbeck want the reader to draw from his portrayal?” The broadness of these questions allowed for the group to discuss many different interpretations of the book thus far, as well as delve in the sections of the book that describe Lennie and Curley’s wife specifically. In the first half of the seminar, the group focused on Steinbeck’s characterization of Lennie. We first discussed Steinbeck’s physical description of him. In the very beginning of the story, Lennie’s features and the way he walks are described to be very bear-like. The group decided this was Steinbeck’s way of telling the reader that society looks upon him as an animal and not as a person. Also, Melissa pointed out that perhaps the way Steinbeck characterizes Lennie as a bear shows how society thinks of him as less intelligent, which I also believe to be an implication of Steinbeck’s description of him. If I could pose another question to the group it would be “Do you think that if the men find out about Lennie’s disability they will treat him differently? Why?” I think that this question would contribute to the discussion by allowing the group to make predictions about what will happen next in the book, as well as highlighting the mistreatment of Lennie, both on a professional and social level. The second half of the discussion focused primarily on Curley’s wife. We made note of how Curley’s wife does not have her own name, which shows how society looks upon her without the same amount of respect as a man. Also, we discussed how the men call her “Curley’s wife”, which shows how she is property of her husband, Curley. The group also decided that without a name, Curley’s wife is a symbol of how all women were treated. I believe this idea was brought up by Anahid and I also think that this is true, even though I never thought that the absence of her name could allow for her character to be applied to all women prior to the seminar. For a portion of the seminar, we focused on George who at times seemed very interested in what Curley’s wife was doing when talking to some of the other men, and at other times could not care less about her. Also, we discussed how the other men and their offensive comments illustrates the unfair gender roles of the time, as well as sexism in general. If I were to add another question to the discussion, I would have asked “Why do you think Steinbeck limits his description of Curley’s wife to what she looks like?” which would have again highlighted the way society looks upon her as nothing but one-dimensional, without valuable opinions or thoughts of her own. A follow-up question to that would be “Is the physical description of Curley’s wife, the way the other men talk about her, and her brief conversation with Lennie and George enough to decide whether she is loyal to her husband or not?” This follow-up question would be effective in gathering some of the other group members’ insight and also would allow us to determine the validity of the men’s opinions of her. On the rubric, I would give myself a three in “Speaking and Listening” because I felt that I was able to listen well to others and that my ideas moved the discussion along, but I thought that I could have contributed more, and I also accidentally interrupted someone while they were speaking. One of the ideas I suggested that moved the discussion along, I thought, was that the absence of Curley’s wife’s name shows how she was not as important to society or to the men in the book. This later developed into a discussion about all women in general. I would give myself a four in “Using Textual Evidence” because I thought that although I did speak few times, I was able to relate it to the text. An example of this was when I quoted Carlson when speaking about how the other men treat Curley’s wife.
I would also give myself a four in the “Preparation” category because I felt well-prepared and ready for the seminar, and I had three questions and five pieces of evidence I could use in the discussion. In the “Leadership” category, I would give myself a three because although I did listen to others, I do not think I participated enough or connected enough of my ideas to the previous speaker’s thoughts to be considered a leader in the discussion. I did not keep count, but I probably only spoke four or five times at the most. As a class, I think we did very well on touching upon some important ideas Steinbeck expresses through his characterization of Lennie and Curley’s wife, as I previously mentioned. We were all very prepared for the discussion and used the text most, if not all of the time in proving a point. Also, I thought that there were very effective leaders in the discussion, like Melissa, who was able to begin the discussion and move it along well through her connections and insightful ideas. I would like to work on participating more in the group, and also be able to embody more qualities of a leader. Some of these qualities would be encouraging group members to participate in the discussion and connecting all of my ideas to those of the previous speaker. In the Socratic seminar I observed, the question was similar in asking how the book highlights social injustice, but instead asked about Crooks and Candy. The group began by discussing Crooks. They decided that although he was socially a victim of racism, and as a result excluded by the other men, he also brings loneliness upon himself by not trusting or allowing others to socialize with him. According to the group, the way Crooks shuts others out of his world is as a result of racism, and makes him a very bitter person. Leah also brought up another way how Crooks’s opinion is not taken seriously by the rest of society during this time period which may be why he is so hesitant to socialize. Another insightful idea that the group brought up in the Seminar was the comparison between Candy and his unfortunate dog. Candy’s dog was old and unable to herd sheep like it used to, and as a result was shot to make room for the other dogs and to rid the ranch of its foul stench. Similarly, Candy is crippled and old, so the other men may only be keeping him around out of pity. As a result, he too may have to suffer an unfortunate fate in losing his job, similar to how his dog lost its life. My partner, Alicia, was very focused during the discussion and was able to expand upon this idea as many other group members had as this comparison between ageism and Candy’s dog dominated a large part of the discussion. I could also tell Alicia was listening to everyone’s ideas, and she followed along with the text and referred her own response to the text. Overall, I think this group did well in participation, as there were no long periods of silence, and they were able to bring up many ideas that I had not thought about prior to the conversation. In conclusion, I thought this Socratic seminar was an effective learning tool, but I see many areas I can personally improve in.
ReplyDeleteHannah DiLullo
ReplyDeleteEnglish 9 Honors
Mrs.Colando
12/7/15
Socratic Seminar Reflection
This was my first time participating in a socratic seminar. I was nervous about the whole experience and thought it would be difficult to keep a discussion going, but it turned out to be really easy, the conversation flowed and before I knew it our 20 minutes had went by. Something I found interesting during the seminar was when someone, I think it may have been Leah , mentioned crooks and the reason he didn't have many friends. We came to a conclusion that his behavior was due to something that had happened in the past causing him to act detached and come across as rude towards people, we thought that he possibly acts this way as a method to protect himself from getting hurt again. In the Speaking and Listening part of the rubric I scored myself a 3 because I felt that I spoke clearly, made eye contact with the group, and asked 3 questions. I didn't score myself a 4 because I feel that I didn't carry the conversation along as well as I could have. In the Using Textual evidence section I scored myself a 4 because I used direct quotes from the text to support my claim and my evidence from the text was specific. As for preparation I scored myself a 4 because I felt that I showed a full understanding of the text. In the leadership section of the rubric I scored myself a 3 because I felt that I moved the conversation along by questioning other students ideas but I didn't move the conversation along as well as I could have. Overall I felt that that the class did a great job with keeping the conversation going and having god text evidence. The person I followed was katie and I think she did well in the discussion,she talked about 5 times , made eye contact with people as they talked, responded to other speakers, and asked follow up questions. I think katie could have improved on referring to the text a little more but all together she did a good job. In conclusion I think the seminar went great and I can't wait for the next one.
Socratic Seminar
ReplyDeleteI believe that our class had a successful first Socratic Seminar, we were engaged in the conversation and the questions that were asked were answered in a good manner. During the
seminar I found many of the ideas that were brought up, as interesting. I liked the Idea that was brought up, by Melissa about Curley’s Wife, and the reason of her not having a name is because she is in a way not worthy of a name. It is like she is Curley’s property and for that reason is not important enough to have a name. It also shows how this was a generalization about women and what they were like. A question I still have is “do you think that if there was another woman in the workplace, would the men still treat her like they treat Curley’s Wife”. I thought that maybe if there was another woman, Curley’s wife would not be out as much bothering the men on the ranch and this would change the way they view women in general. I also had a question that said “Do you think the boss would fire Lennie if he found out that he is disabled.” I feel that the boss may not fire him, but he would be treated in a different way that isolated him from the rest of the men in the workplace. When scoring, I gave myself threes and fours. In the first category of speaking and listening I gave myself a four for all of the bullets, and a three for one of them. The three on the part that says “asks three questions”. I only brought up one of my questions, however I feel that if the seminar was longer, I would have had the time to ask the questions that I had. For the rest of the listening and speaking category I gave myself a four. I spoke so everyone could hear, I responded to others questions and most importantly, I made eye contact while I was speaking. The second category on the rubric was using textual evidence. I gave myself a four for this category because when I made a claim I used a quote to back it up and to validate it. I referenced the text when needed, to strengthen my arguments. I also graded myself with a four on the third category of the rubric which was about preparation. I came to class with my notes and was ready to participate. I had questions and claims that I was prepared to discuss and with the claims I had evidence and quotes from the book to back them up. In the leadership category, I gave myself a three. I think I did well summarizing others’ ideas and linking these ideas to my own. I listened very closely to other people in the inner circle of the seminar, taking in their ideas and viewing them in my own ways. However, I did not really invite others to the conversation and I did not alter the conversation in any major ways. Overall, I think that this Socratic seminar was a success, I felt that we did an outstanding job elaborating on the questions that were brought up throughout the discussion. Everyone seemed to be paying attention to the speakers and the overall discussion. When I was on the outer circle, the person that was chosen for me was Holly. She did a great job keeping the conversation going and inputting her ideas. I liked and agree with her idea that Crooks isolates himself because he wants to be alone and does not want any company. He contributes to his isolation. In conclusion I thought our Socratic seminar was a success.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
ReplyDeleteEnglish 9 Honors
8 December 2015
This was my first time that I have done a socratic seminar and in my opinion, it was a really good ideas because students were able to just talk about a topic for twenty minutes. It went so well that I think we could have gone even more longer if we had more time. In both of the socratic seminars I found it interesting how people had various opinions on a topic. It opened and changed my ways of thinking and elaborating on a topic after seeing other students perspectives. If I was in the first socratic seminar I would have liked to asked, why do you think Curley’s wife wasn’t named in the book? Do you think the author, John Steinbeck might thought she wasn't “worthy” enough to be named? I would have liked to ask this because I wanted to hear what the group had to say about this and what they thought. For the first category in the class created rubric which was speaking and listening I scored myself a four because I was carefully listening to what others had to say and I was active in the seminar. I cooperated and contributed by thoughts and ideas regularly and I also added on to others’ comments. For the next category using textual evidence I would give myself a four because I remember referring to the text about three times and sharing my thoughts on about it. Another category was preparation and I would score myself as a 4- because in the first seminar I forgot my folder in another class and had to go get it. In the future, I will make sure I have everything. However, I was all set once I had my folder because my quotes and responses were completed and I was ready for the seminar. In the last category which was leadership I would give myself a three because I did participate regularly in the seminar and invited others to join but I don’t feel like I dominated the seminar like Melissa and Leah did. I think our class as a whole was very cooperative and respectful. However, I do feel there were a couple of students that could have participated more in the seminar. I followed Sarah S. when I was in the outer circle. She started a discussion when she said in her opinion to say that women should just stay is wrong. I found this was interesting because she was talking about women in general and not just Curly’s wife and by this point she made you can tell that she really focused on social injustice, which was part of the focus questions. In conclusion, the Socratic seminar was huge success and I really enjoyed doing it. I look forward to doing it again in the future.
Personally, I think our first Socratic Seminar went excellently during both trials. The first group (my group) focused on the following questions: “How does Steinbeck’s characterization of Lennie and Curley’s wife highlight social injustice? What are the implications of his social commentary? In other words, what conclusions does Steinbeck want the reader to draw from his portrayal?” The second group where I was in the outer circle focused on these following questions: “How does Steinbeck's characterization of Crooks and Candy highlight social injustice? What are the implications of his social commentary? In other words, what conclusions does Steinbeck want the reader to draw from his portrayal? (Think also here about the connections between Candy and his dog)” In both discussions, I found many new opinions and new revelations about the book and certain social injustices highlighted in the novella. At first, I had never even came to the conclusion that Steinbeck is trying to show women aren't important by neglecting to give Curley's wife an actual name. When one of the people in my circle had said this, I understood the social injustices Curley's wife faced more clearly. I think this is relevant that Steinbeck did indeed not give Curley's wife a name. It shows women were not important enough at this time period that they were probably seen as not deserving of a name.
ReplyDeleteIn the second circle, when I was in the outer circle observing, there weren't many ideas that where an 'aha' moment had occurred. I felt as thought all of the students who participated in it hit key problems that Crooks and Candy face as victims of social injustices or react to the way they've been treated. For example, the person I had to observe was Hannah D., and she made a great point of saying that Crooks kind of puts a front up because of a bad past experience. I had first thought this when I read chapter 4. The only question I've been left with after the Seminar is who has is harder: Crooks or Candy? I'm not sure who would have it worse because both of them are faced with social injustices that truly affect them and how they are treated by the men on the farm. Both Crooks and Candy are excluded from things because of either their race or age. On the rubric, I tried to score myself according to how I really felt how I performed in the Seminar. In speaking and listening, I graded myself a 4. In all areas, I am a good public speaker and am comfortable speaking with my peers about my opinions. For the majority of the time, I let my peers speak and spoke when I needed to and also spoke a good amount of times to contribute to the conversation. In using textual evidence, I graded myself a 3. Although the I did have some quotes to back up my arguments and ideas. However, sometimes I did not have a quote for every single thing I said. In preparation, I gave myself a 4. Overall, I was prepared with the correct annotations and such. Finally, in Leadership I rated myself a 4. From what I remember, I asked many connections and made frequent connections to help the issue of social injustices become more understandable. For example, I remember making a connection with one of the things that my peers said. They highlighted the social injustice of the mentally disabled by showing how Steinbeck compared Lennie to an animal as if he wasn't human. I made the connection of a book I had previously read of people being stranded on an island and as the book went on and on, they became compared to animals more and more as they became dehumanized. When I had to follow Hannah D., I found she did an excellent job and was easy to reflect on. She was responding well to her peers and contributed to the discussion often. In conclusion, I feel as though the majority of the class did a great job and I look forward to Seminars in the future and see what discussions are upon us.
Katie Blake
ReplyDeleteMrs.Colando
English 9 Honors
12/7/15
Of Mice and Men Socratic Seminar
This is not the first time I have done a Socratic Seminar. I had done many in 7th, however this one was different. In this seminar there was no “hotseat” in which anyone on the outer circle could respond in the conversation. I enjoyed the “hotseat” because it allowed everyone to have input and made everyone have to pay attention. This was the first Socratic Seminar done as a class. Overall I believe we stayed on topic, which was “How does Steinbeck’s characterization of Lennie and Curley’s wife highlight social injustice? What are the implications of his social commentary? In other words, what conclusions does Steinbeck want the reader to draw from his portrayal?” I believe we asked other questions such as, “ Who was discriminated against more?” which really made everyone think. One specific point that was mentioned was that Curley’s wife may not have a name since she may represent all women during this time period. Also, during the second part of the discussion which was focused around Curley’s wife, we talked about how she is described as a “tart” which means a woman who dresses or behaves in a way that is sexually provocative, because she was a generalization that all women in this time acted that way. In the first half of the discussion we focused mainly on Lennie and his discrimination based on his disabilities. We focused on how his appearance shows a way that most people considered mentally disabled people to look. Also, we focused on the way George treated him and the fact that George sometimes takes advantage of Lennie. If I could add something to the discussion I would probably add that Curley’s wife may just be lonely considering she is enclosed in the house all day, as women of the time were expected to do. Also, she may act flirty and go out and talk to all the men because she has restrictions on her and is expected to do something that is unfair for her. This is a form of sexism.
The person I had to follow was Medha. She did a good job of staying on track in the discussion and adding her quotes and questions into the conversation. One thing she could have done more of was be a leader and ask others their opinions. Overall I believe she did a great job and succeeded in the seminar. I scored myself the way I did because I felt that I added thought provoking questions as needed. This is the reason I therefore gave myself a four in talking and asking questions, Overall I think that the Socratic Seminar was a success and will improve next time. One thing I would change however, is mixing up the groups because I felt there were too many people trying to talk in the first group that it was hard to find time to ask all the questions I prepared. On the other and, in the second group Leah did a good job and dominated the group because there were many people that were a little more shy in the group if you want to put it that way.
In the Socratic seminar, one thing in particular that i found interesting was when I was sitting in the outside circle was when the inner circle pointed out that Curley’s wife may have been a representation of all women in the time that this book was written. I found this interesting because I had never thought of that possibility, but after hearing them discuss it, I realized that it made sense. After both group discussions I am left with no questions to ask about different topics within the book. I feel that both groups covered most of the discussion topics in Of Mice and Men. Overall in my class I feel as though everyone participated in the socratic seminar, however many people talked very little while others took full control of the discussion. I feel as though everybody should have talked about the same amount during the seminar. However I understand that many people are less confident than others and may not want to speak up. To help with this I think that we could try to allow everyone time to talk about their ideas or opinions. I believe that if we were to make the socratic seminar slightly more controlled so that everybody has a turn to talk; with more people talking and adding their ideas to the seminar I feel that the discussion could go on for longer and possibly cover more topics; and everybody would be equally involved.
ReplyDeleteAnahid
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to how to have a Socratic seminar
http://www.teachertube.com/mobile/video/socratic-seminars-what-is-a-socratic-seminar-290550
https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/bring-socratic-seminars-to-the-classroom
ReplyDeletehttps://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/bring-socratic-seminars-to-the-classroom
ReplyDeletehttp://www.readwritethink.org/professional-development/strategy-guides/socratic-seminars-30600.html
ReplyDeletehttps://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/bring-socratic-seminars-to-the-classroom
ReplyDelete