Take a Moment to Reflect on Civil Rights Speeches and the effects of Rhetoric...
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
Throughout my socratic seminar, my group had the job of depicting Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. The purpose of the seminar was to focus on the main theme of the speech, the persuasive techniques used, and the effect of these appeals on the audience.
ReplyDeleteWhile discussing the persuasive techniques that Martin Luther King used, Dominic shared his thoughts on how MLK used Logos in his speech. He said that MLK being a parent gave him a lot of credibility. Although I have never thought of this before, once he started explaining the concept it made a lot more sense. Since he had kids of his own, more people were able to relate to him, they all wanted the same things, and they all wanted to better the lives of their children.
One idea that I am still pondering on is the comment I made about whether or not African Americans had more respect for MLK, or Robert Kennedy. Although I brought this topic up, I still do not have a clear answer to it. However, many people in the group agreed with the idea that the African Americans would respect MLk more. Although Robert Kennedy was a huge supporter of equality, Martin Luther King was going through the same fight as the rest of them. The fact that he was still facing all of this racism, and remaining calm, it was uplifting to others and worthy of recognition.
When scoring myself on my rubric, I gave myself a four on listening and speaking. I asked my own, as well as follow up questions multiple times. I used a loud clear voice and responded to others after listening to what they had to say. For the using textual evidence column, I scored myself a three. Although I used textual evidence, it was not every time and my analysis of quotes could have gone a little deeper. For the next scoring criteria, I gave myself a three on preparation. I had my text annotated, however I could have looked up more terms and phrases to better understand the text. On the last grading criteria, I scored myself a four on leadership. I believe that in this particular Socratic Seminar, I effectively moved along the conversation and asked others their opinions as well as summarizing or questioning their comments. I also brought up a few questions that I thought were important and that should be discussed in the conversation.
Overall, the group participation was very attentive as well as respectful. There were a few moments when certain group members could have been more respectful or more focused, however for the most part our group was very respectful. We gave our full attention to the speaker and listened to what they had to say. Whether we agreed with them or not, our comments were made in a considerate manner.
I also never would have thought of credibility in the sense of being a parent. However, I totally agree with Dominic now that he brought it up. Having experience as a parent certainly brings upon trust from others.
DeleteI agree, MLK being a parent gives him ethos, and I also thinks it gives him pathos, appealing to other parents.
DeleteI also agree that being a parent gives Martin Luther King credibility and establishes trust
DeleteI also agree that him being a parent gives him credibility because as a father he would want to help his kids and want what's best for them.
DeleteI liked Dominic's comment about Logos. I also agree that since he talks about his children it gives him credibility. People can then relate and feel what he must feel. I however also think that this is Pathos, since it applies to feeling and pity for him.
DeleteBy MLK being black and being able to talk about his children, it definitely gives him a sense of credibility.
DeleteRene Richardson
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
14 March 2016
Socratic Seminar Reflection
During the socratic seminar, there were a lot of interesting topics, and lots of questions I had. Things I found interesting was when they were talking about Wallace having his speech on the 4th of July. They said he did it because he thought the bill was weakening his rights, but obviously it was not. I had no unanswered, but the one answered question was ‘Why did the speaker repeat ‘for those of you who are black?’” The answers that I got was that he repeats it to show how this event in particular affects black people. Someone, however, said “But wasn’t he in front of only blacks” I was thinking that too, but I now understand he did it to show how he is being direct, and also how other people that may feel the same can feel it, but not on the same level. I scored myself a 4 on speaking and listening, I listened and participated well in the discussion. A 3 on textual evidence, preparation, and leadership; I said most arguments with the text, I did not have 1 box filled in, and I asked a lot of questions but did not really lead. Anahid, spoke a lot, refered to text, made eye contact, and responds. She said, “The repetition of ‘Dream’ make show's emphasis on how important it is and how much he wants things to be changed and out there.”-she had the MLK speech. Sarah Sylvia, spoke a decent amount, made eye contact, responded, and referred to text She said, ”He makes it seem like them signing the bill are like criminals.”-she had the George Wallace speech. I agreed with them both, and I really like their ideas they had. The whole class was active, conversations were on topic, everyone participated, there were moments though, when people were not paying attention or was on their phones. Overall, the socratic seminar was really nice and I learned a lot from it.
I agree that the 4th of July topic was very interesting and ironic. It seems that it almost worked for George Wallace in the opposite way. He meant for the date to show that it is bad what the government did, which I believe was a great point made by Jake, but it ended up showing an irony.
DeleteI agree that the topic of the 4th of July was very interesting and ironic. Back then it may have been a good tactic to use but looking back at it the reader can see the irony in it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe that the topic of Fourth of July was ironic and it was not something I thought of until it was brought up
DeleteI also agree that Sarah did say some interesting points such as how George Wallace made it seem as though signing the bill was a crime.
DeleteI think that we could have gone on for longer, speculating why he could have chose 4th of July to complain about how Americans now have, in his eyes, "too many freedoms", and how the government was acting very tyrannical for granting us these. His ideas were obviously completely unreasonable and ignorant. Also, I appreciate the nice comment btw :)
DeleteI also agree that the 4th of July topic was sort of ironic seeing how George Wallace was talking about freedom and independence but he was not giving that to the black people.
DeleteI think that the Socratic seminar was also very informative and you could learn a lot from it.
DeleteSarah Hobin
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
18 March 2016
George Wallace; Further Into His Ideas
Throughout the socratic seminar, there were so many interesting ideas stated and connections made. Sarah Sylvia made such an interesting connection. Since the group Sarah and I were in discussed how George Wallace did not want equality for all but he mentions God. She says that it is ironic that he mentions God since people in the South tend to be very religious. I added onto this idea and said that he goes against the Pledge of Allegiance when they say “one nation, under God, indivisible,with liberty and justice for all” but yet still mentions God. One of my favorite parts of the seminar was when Sarah started off with this idea and pulled information out of the text then I was able to come up with more to add to her train of thoughts.
The topic that was not talked about too much but it was touched upon lightly and still remains a question in my head is about Wallace’s superiority. Why would Wallace need to act superior to his crowd if he is speaking to all whites? This is a question that I ponder because Robert Kennedy was able to be closer to the crowd and be integrated but George Wallace was not even able to come together with his own race. This is another topic that I feel should be discussed more and that I still think about.
On the rubric, I gave myself a four in speaking and listening. I feel that I was able to fill the requirements that the category asked for. I made eye contact, was involved in the conversation, made connections, and listened to what others had to say. I also gave myself a four in the using textual evidence category. I pulled out many statements to back up my argument from the text. For example I used the section about God from Wallace’s speech as background for my point. For the category of preparation, I gave myself a three. I had all of my papers prepared but my annotations were average, not above average. In leadership I gave myself a four. I moved the conversation along and helped the conversation not get side tracked into different or irrelevant topics. Overall, I would gave myself three fours and one three and I feel that this is the appropriate rating for me.
My partner for the socratic seminar was Edwin Van Renselaar. He participated in the conversation many times without dominating it. He also made good eye contact when speaking during the seminar. He encouraged others to speak and referenced the text five times with new arguments. Edwin mentioned that he did not think that being a pastor made Martin Luther King Jr. more credible. This was the most interesting and debatable point that Edwin made during the seminar and was one of my favorite topics within the whole session.
The socratic seminar was a great way to deepen the understanding of the three speeches that made a special mark in history.
I believe that George Wallace was somewhat taking advantage of Southerners being very religious. He could persuade them better by mentioning something they all could relate to which was religion and belief in God. He uses this to somewhat say God would despise of the civil rights movement
DeleteI also liked how you and Sarah built your ideas off each other, I thought that happened several time with all of us throughout our discussion.
DeleteI agree with Melissa. the two of you really listened to each other and effectively moved the conversation along without being repetitive.
DeleteHannah DiLullo
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
3/14/16
Throughout the socratic seminar there were some very interesting comments that my group had made. I don’t remember exactly who had mentioned this but someone had said that the speaker was letting the people know that he was also suffering through this tough time and that they were not alone. Another thing that I found interesting was when someone in my group had said that he was carrying on Martin Luther King’s legacy by telling the people that they shouldn’t react to white people because of this incident but they should move forward in peace. I felt that I had contributed a few good ideas to the seminar such as mentioning that Robert Kennedy was letting the people know that he was there for them through this difficult time, and that he was trying to make himself seem equal to them. That’s why I scored myself a 4 in the speaking and listening section. As for the using textual evidence section I scored myself a 2 because I felt that I didn't use as much textual evidence as I could have. In the preparation section I scored myself a 4 because i felt like I came to the discussion fully prepared and had a complete understanding of the speech. Finally in the leadership section I scored myself a 3 because although I started off the conversation by asking the focus questions and added some good ideas that kept the conversation along, i didn’t score myself a 4 because I felt like I could have helped carried the discussion along a little better. Overall I thought my group did very well in the seminar. We all listened when a person was speaking and were respectful, and all of us were pretty prepared. The person that I had followed was Edwin and I thought that he listened to everyone's ideas and added some great points to the discussion.
I was in the same group as you, and I also agreed that Kennedy was carrying on with the legacy of MLK. Kennedy states how even if Dr. King was killed by a white man, they can keep peace and carry on with his points.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteLeah Ragosta
Mrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
18 March 2016
Reflecting Upon Influential Speakers
After speaking about George Wallace and listening to others speak about Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy I have a greater understanding of the different aspects of speeches and what it takes to have a powerful and persuasive speech that inspires and motivates the audience.
One thing I found interesting during my socratic seminar was when Jake mentioned that George Wallace used Logos by taking away credibility from the people he was running against. I never thought about Logos in this way but once it was mentioned, it seemed to make sense. Making other people look bad puts you in a better position which is what many political candidates do as you see today since the election is going on.
A question I still have which is somewhat objective is whether Wallace’s use of “I” in the majority of the speech and then switching to we at the end had a positive or negative effect on the audience. Many seemed to feel that the use of “I” isolated Wallace from his audience making him seem superior. I thought this as well at first but then at the end he switched to “we” and talked about how everyone needs to help take action. Then I had the idea that he did this to build up the anger of the crowd and someone put them in his position and feel the way he feels. Then at the very end open up to everyone as a whole.
I scored myself a 4 in listening in speaking. I believed that I thoroughly listened to everyone’s comments and questions and tried to fully understand where their thoughts are coming from. I followed up and responded to others while being respectful but also having an appropriate loud, clear voice. In textual evidence I scored myself a 4 as well. My goal for this seminar was to use direct evidence and not to just be giving my opinion. I directly quoted the speech to respond to others. In preparation I scored myself a 4 because I carefully read over and annotated the speech. Anything I did not fully understood, I used to ask a question. Lastly for leadership I scored myself a 3. I moved the conversation along by responding to others and asking different questions but at times I became a little quiet.
Overall I believe the participation in my group was great. Both of the people I followed were respectful and encouraged conversation. same few people where others couldn’t really get the chance to speak. Other than those few moments, I believe my group did a nice job of pulling out and understanding George Wallace’s speech. The speech itself was very difficult but the group did a good job of interpreting it.
I as well never thought of this speech pertaining to any logos and thought is was interesting when you said that you realize what it takes to make a speech powerful enough to sway the audience.
DeleteI thought that when Jake talked about George Wallace and how he undermined other politicians he was adding credibility to his own speech. By alluding other candidates well known by others and then de-valuing them in his own speech it adds some credibility to himself.
DeleteI enjoyed reading your opinion of George Wallace chooses to use "I" and then change to "we." Most people thought this was ineffective in delivering his speech, but I thought that you offered a new perspective that could explain why this could help him to reinforce his ideas.
DeleteI also agree that you deserve fours for a grade.
Rachel Blustein
ReplyDeleteEnglish 9 Honors
Mrs. Colando
17 March 2016
In my opinion, all three of the socratic seminars were interesting in different ways. There were interesting topics brought up in each and in some way, they all got tied together. I am still stuck on one question; How was Robert F. Kennedy just as influential as Martin Luther King, even though he had a much quieter voice and was not going through the same thing as the people he was supporting? I believe the answer lies in the question. Kennedy won over the support of the African Americans by backing them. He was not going through the same thing, but he was still there to support and help them just as much as MLK.
In each of the seminars, there were a few things that stuck out. In the third Socratic Seminar, Sarah Hobin said that George C. Wallace’s speech, “The Civil Rights Movement: Fraud, Sham, and Hoax,” was solely based off of his opinion, and I tend to agree. I believe that George Wallace was struggling to back up his evidence, which is why he leaned towards opinion and why I believe his speeches were not as effective. In the first Socratic Seminar, Hannah Torres said something that I’m not sure I agree with and it left me thinking. She said, “People were able to have a better connection with MLK then Robert Kennedy because of his skin color.” In one way I get it, but on the other hand Robert Kennedy had nothing to win and everything to lose but he still went out there and fought for the African Americans.
I graded myself a four in Listening and Speaking because I felt like I was able to contribute to the conversation and not dominate it. I was also attentive while other people were speaking. I gave myself a four in Using Textual Evidence because almost everything, if not everything I said was backed by some sort of evidence from the text. I gave myself a four in Preparation because I had the entire paper filled out and asked more questions than I had written down. Finally, I gave myself a three in Leadership because I felt as though I could’ve invited more people into the conversation.
Overall, I thought that the seminars were run smoothly and everyone was respectful. At times there were side conversations, but not very often. Hannah was able to draw people into the conversation by asking interesting questions and trying to get them engaged. Sarah H used her interesting ideas to keep the conversation moving and kept you from knowing where the conversation would go next. Overall, each of the Socratic Seminars kept me wanting to listen and everyone was respectful and quiet.
In all three socratic seminars about Martin Luther King Jr.’s, Robert F Kennedy’s, and George Wallace's speeches regarding the topic of the Civil Rights Act, there were interesting ideas shared. For example, in the socratic seminar about Martin Luther King’s speech “I Have a Dream”, the question was brought up about what persuasive techniques are present throughout the speech. Mourad responded that he felt in a way “I Had a Dream” as a whole is logos. I found that to be a very interesting point, and in some way true. Although Martin Luther uses ethos, repetition, and appeals to the crowds emotions, the whole speech is about what he feels is the logical thing to do. He is using ethos and pathos to prove his logos claim. An interesting point discussed about Robert F. Kennedy's speech, “On the Death of Martin Luther King” was the question Aaron, my partner asked, “What makes this speech so powerful?”. Obviously it is clear the speech was very powerful, and made a big impact on the crowd. But after going into deep evaluation of the speech, there are no big flashy words, and Kennedy talked in a rather soft voice. Very different from these two speeches, was George Wallace’s “The Civil Rights Movement: Fraud, Sham, and Hoax”. During the socratic seminar, I was very impressed at Jake’s evaluation of how Wallace gets his claim across, by putting down other members of the government that created the Civil Rights Act, and attempting to make the people feel they can not trust the people creating this bill. There was one overall question that I would want to ask in each seminar, and that is, after looking at all the speeches, if you were living during this time and got to hear these speakers, would they have persuaded you to support their claim? I would have found it interesting to hear everyone’s response. The rubric given for self evaluation has four categories, in each one is to receive a rating 1-4. The first category, speaking a listening, I would give myself a 3+. Several times I contributed into the discussion, I made eye contact with everyone, moved the conversation along, etc. However, I could spoke more clearly. Next I scored myself a 4 in using textual evidence. Every time I made a point in the discussion, I referred to a direct quote from the speech. I even mentioned the page where I found the quote so that everyone in the group can refer to it. Following textual evidence is preparation. In this category, I gave myself a 3. I felt I had a very good understanding of the speech, however, I think on the speech itself, I could have annotated and taken more notes. Lastly in leadership, I rated myself a 4. I asked several question, encouraged people to join the conversation, connected and summarized ideas, etc. Overall, all the socratic seminars did a great job of evaluating the text and brought up very good points that I did not notice the first time I read the speeches. Most of the time, everyone was listening and making eye contact with the speaker, however, at times I did notice there were a few individuals that were goofing off and looking around the room. I noticed this more in the Martin Luther King seminar rather than the Robert F. Kennedy. In addition, especially the Robert F. Kennedy seminar, the groups did a good job working through the small silent patches that can get a little awkward, but I felt the groups did not let it get to that point. Both my partners were engaged in the discussion, and added their opinions/ annotations into the conversation. On the other hand, Mourad could have improved in asking less questions, and adding more of his interpretation of the speech. Aaron, I felt needed to talk a bit more in the discussion, improving in this leadership. These famous speeches are more than just words on a page, they have greater meaning and these socratic
ReplyDeleteI also found Mourad's point on the whole speech being logos interesting. I agreed with it after hearing his supporting reasons that ethos and pathos support the overall logos claim
DeleteAnahid Donoyan
ReplyDeleteEnglish 9 honors
Mrs. Colando
18 March 2016
Reflection:
I was in the first group for the Socratic seminar, with the topic being Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. There were many things that we talked about during our Socratic seminar, most of which I found interesting. We discussed how the use of repetition added to the speech. It made the audience listen in more and keep the thoughts in their minds. The repetition makes the points that King is trying to get across more affective and adds to the worth of his speech. I also found it interesting when we discussed how King establishes ethos and pathos by adding his own family into the speech. This shows how he really feels about the topic of segregation and is bet passionate about it. He is going through the same things as the audience, so he has a greater connection with them.
I still question the argument that Martin Luther King does not get credibility because he is a priest. I believe that being a priest helps him to speak the way he does and people listen to him more because of his background. If he wasn't a priest, he may not have been as known and may not have had the support he did. Being a priest may have added got he amount of people who followed him. Therefore I believe being a priest established credibility for Martin Luther King.
I scored myself on the rubric truthfully. For the speaking and listening category I gave myself a four, but I did circle a three for "asks three questions". I kept a strong voice through the seminar and moved it along with the questions I asked. For the "uses textual evidence" category I scored myself a four. I supported my claim with evidence from the speech. The evidence helped support and back up the claims I put forward. I also gave myself a four for the preparation category. I came to class with the speech ready and annotated. I also took time the night before to prepare questions that I presented to the group. Lastly I gave myself a four in the leadership category, I linked ideas presented by my classmates and also invited others into the discussion.
Generally throughout all three seminars the topics were well discussed and elaborated on. For the second Socratic seminar about Robert Kennedy's speech I followed Renne. He kept the conversation going by asking well thought questions such as "why does Kennedy chose to repeat for those of you who are black". This question generated a great conversation. Renne also did a great job elaborating on what was said by others. For the third Socratic seminar I followed Katie. She talked about how in his speech George Wallace adds emphasis to his speech by repeating important views that he has. She talked about when he does this people will remember what he says because they think it is important if he repeats it so many times. Both of my partners and the class overall did a great job discussing and elaborating on topics that were brought to the seminars.
Katie Blake
ReplyDeleteMrs.Colando
English 9
18 March 2016
Socratic Seminars
During the Socratic Seminars many interesting points were made. One that I found especially interesting was when Sarah Sylvia said that it is ironic that George Wallace mentions God since many people in the South tend to be extremely religious. I believe that this method would be particularly effective since it was though Wallace tried to make it seem like God disapproved so everyone else should too or God will disapprove of them too. I agree with this statement that it was a useful tool to mention God. I do not really have any unanswered questions about any of the Seminars or speeches because I believe that the Seminars that took place in class answered all of the questions I may have had. I rated myself with 3 fours and 1 three. This is because I feel as though I spoke a lot more in this discussion and therefore gave myself a four on speaking and adding to the discussion. Also, I rated myself a four on backing my comments up with textual evidence because I referred to the text a few times, more than I usually had. Another grade I gave myself was a four for reading the speeches and taking notes. This is because for all the speeches I underlined and wrote notes on the side based on what I underlined. As a whole, I believe that class did very well with the Socratic Seminars because everyone participated well and I believe more of the silent students spoke more this time than usual. Also, it seemed as if everyone had a general understanding of the topic and seemed to be able to answer almost every question presented. Also, if someone could not answer the question everyone went back into the text to find the correct answer. Everyone was able to speak their opinion without fear of disagreement.
I agree that Wallace thought he was superior enough to even how God will punish them if thinks it will happen.
DeleteDuring the socratic seminar J.F.K’s speech about the death of Martin Luther King Jr. an idea that I found interesting was when Holly brought up J.F.K’s repetitiveness in saying “For those of you who are black”. Before Holly had said this the only repetitiveness that I had really noticed in the speech was when J.F.K continuously said “What we need in the United states is not…”. I believe that J.F.K’s reason for repeating “For those of you who are black” was to show that the citizens of that ghetto were who this message was for and they were the group he was trying to win over, and convince to remain peaceful. I feel as though all of the questions I had were answered in the socratic seminar. For speaking and listening I gave myself a 3 because while I did try to participate more in the discussion there is still a lot of room for improvement. In using textual evidence I feel that I backed up my ideas well with textual evidence, so I gave myself a 4 in textual evidence. In preparation I gave myself a 3 because I was well prepared for the seminar and had all of the materials completed, however there were some aspects that I couldn’t find in the speech, so I gave myself a 3. In leadership I gave myself a 2 because I didn’t really take control of the seminar, or move it in one way or another. For the first seminar I watched Dominic, and from what I can tell, he put a lot more effort into this seminar than he has in the past, and he was able to speak a lot more and get his ideas across.
ReplyDeleteDominic Rainone
ReplyDeleteEnglish 9 Honors
Mrs. Colando
3/14/16
Something i found interesting in the socratic seminar was when steven said that Martin Luther King Jr. being a pastor did not increase the credibility of his speech. I disagree with this because to be a pastor, you must be experienced in public speaking and be ready to talk to large groups of people. This also shows that he is passionate about the cause and has been fighting segregation for years. Melissa then said that it could lessen his credibility to his audience of a different religion. This could be true but it seems that the majority of his following is already a part of his religion.
Some unanswered questions that i still have are why he used metaphors and other literary devices to describe segregation, and why he used them so commonly. I am confused on this because the use of literary devices were definitely a large part of the speech, and almost every time slavery or segregation was mentioned in the speech, a literary device was used to describe it.
I rated myself the way that i did on my rubric because i asked 3 questions, made eye contact with the other speakers, and i spoke clearly. I also based all of my arguments off of the other speakers arguments, or the text itself. Finally, i came to the seminar completely prepared, with a fully annotated speech, and i listened to the other speakers and reflected their ideas as well as my own.
For the most part, the seminar kept moving throughout the whole 25 minute period, apart from some momentary lapses. Most of the speakers gave ideas throughout the whole conversation, and we did not lose track of the prompt question.
I agree that for the most part we did not lose track of the prompt and held onto the conversation for most of the time.
DeleteAaron Ly
ReplyDeleteEnglish 9
Mrs. Colando
17 March 2016
Socratic Seminar Reflection
During the Socratic Seminars there were many good points that were made during them. One point that was made during the Robert Kennedy speech on the death of Martin Luther King is that many people in the group agreed that he is using pathos and ethos to by stating “I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.” As mostly everyone agreed to this quote and its importance to pathos is that he is trying to relate to this and try to be one with the people and that he is trying to say that he has been through similar pain to this and that they should persevere through it and carry on MLK beliefs, as I agree to this and as RFK is making it ethos, it is saying that he is a Kennedy as his brother was a former U.S president which is a big name. I do not believe that I may have any questions that I am still pondering as all the questions that I have had may have all been answered. On grading myself a 1-4 in listening and speaking I would grade myself a 3 in it as I have spoken more than I have before but I could’ve added more to the discussion. I would grade myself a 3 in textual evidence as I did not use evidence to back up my thoughts all the time, but added to my peers ideas. As in preparation I would give myself a 3 as I could’ve annotated the speeches more in-depth. In leadership, I would score myself a 3 because in times there were awkward silences I would either ask a question or add to another peer’s idea or opinion. My partner for the socratic seminar was Virak and he did well making some well thought provoking statements as he explained when the group said it was ironic and he said “ He (Gerald Wallace) made the speech on Independence Day because the people would get a feeling of nationalism as they would be a “true American” and believe in everything he says. This was one of the most thought provoking statement he made throughout the socratic seminar. Overall, all three socratic seminars went well and it was a good to deepen the meaning of the speeches, although there were some side conversations, I think it went well.
DeleteI agree that Kennedy is trying to use pathos by showing the people his brother was killed as well and be one with the people
I also agree that Kennedy was using pathos because it was his way of reaching out and saying I know the pain of losing someone.
DeleteI also agree that Kennedy was trying to use pathos to connect with the audience. He said he had lost his brother so he could say he felt their pain.
DeleteKennedy had more pathos then any other person in the packet. he connected with the audience through emotion.
DeleteAlicia Francis
ReplyDeleteEnglish 9 Honors
18 March, 2016
Socratic Seminar
I took participation in the socratic seminar for Martin Luther King Jr's “I Have A Dream” speech, and have listened to the other socratic seminars as well. I found that what Virak said to be quite interesting for the speech, “Fraud, Sham, and Hoax” by George Wallace. This was a speech conducted on the Fourth of July and Virak pointed out that the Fourth of July is a national holiday for one’s pride in our country. That George Wallace wanted to go back to the old days of patriotism and nationalism, to when blacks were slaves. I thought this was a much inferred statement because the Fourth of July is a holiday which bears one’s feelings of nationalism and was the day the Declaration of Independence was signed and opened up the pathway to freedom. But in this speech George Wallace points out that the African Americans will begin to impose on their freedoms with the Civil Rights Movement. Trying to bring an upheaval within his supporters and trying to support nationalism and even conform to patriotism. To start towards African Americans with violence.
I wanted to comment on George Wallace’s speech that his speech was only being supported on his hatred and was constantly referring to another’s words and phrases. Having no real supporting evidence and when there was, there was no way to really know if the numbers and facts were real. But since his hatred was so strong and he was so well known that his supporters gave into his lies like a mouse to a trap. Never realizing that what he said could be invalid, never questioned, never doubted. His speech reminds me to that of Hitler’s where the people believed the words and were in a state of hypnotism by the speaker’s words.
I gave myself a two in listening in speaking because I rarely spoke throughout the seminar and if I did it was more of just one sentence rather than real participation.I gave myself a one in using textual evidence because I had not made reference of alluded to any of the text. Nor did I use appropriate evidence to support whatever claims I had made. I have circled a two in preparation because I had annotated and placed comments on my papers but didn’t ask questions. I gave myself a two in leadership because like I said I rarely contributed to the socratic seminar. I thought my peers had greatly contributed to their socratic seminars by asking thought provoking questions and piling on top of each other’s ideas. Some lead the conversation with ease while also making sure people got to say what they had wanted. Many also made sure to use textual evidence to support themselves always referring back to the speeches.
I agree, I believe that George Wallace's speech revolved around his own opinion and that he did not actually have any evidence to back it up, but I did not think to compare it to Hitler's own speeches. Now that you mention it I can see the resemblance.
DeleteVirak Pond-Tor
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
18 March 2016
I believe that the socratic seminars we held in our class were very successful and covered the main topics about persuasion. Lots of good points were brought up that I had not thought about before when I was reading the three speeches. For example, Edwin stated how Martin Luther King Jr.’s title could be undermined or could add more credibility to his speech depending on how you look at it. This was a controversial point in the socratic seminar and even lots of people from the outer circle put out their opinions on this statement. In the discussion about Robert Kennedy I would have liked to add how in his speech he gave his audience options, which in itself can be a persuasive technique, since people do not like to be forced into things. One thing that I am still wondering about is why George Wallace did not emphasize the title of his speech as much. His title was “The Civil Rights Movement: Fraud, Sham, and Hoax”, yet he only alluded to it once in the entire speech. This is one of the things that I wish I brought up in our socratic seminar, however I am rather happy with my overall contribution to this discussion compared to the other socratic seminars. For speaking and listening I gave myself a 3 because I do not believe that I used appropriate language. When talking about George Wallace’s speech I said that it was “ridiculous”, which I do not believe to be appropriate language. In using textual evidence I gave myself a 4 because I believed that everything I said was backed up by some sort of textual evidence, for instance I stated that George Wallace thought the government was enacting tyranny and backed it up with his allusion to the British monarchy. For preparation I scored myself a 4 because I was very prepared and had lots of annotations within the speech. Finally, for leadership I also gave myself a 4 because I think that I did move the conversation forward in some way. My goal was to bring up a controversial question. I asked why George Wallace switches from saying “I” to “We” towards the end of the speech and this led to more responses from my other classmates in the socratic seminar. Overall, I did not see any uncourteous socratic seminar manners from any other people, such as cutting each other off, or engaging in side conversation. These discussions went even further into all of the speeches and analyzed each one in depth.
I feel as though Wallace did not emphasize his title as much because it would not have helped to get his point across as much he probably felt that if he had repeated the same phrase over and over again, people would not listen. If he spent his speech backing up his opinion however, his point would get across much better.
DeleteI feel as though Wallace did not emphasize his title as much because it would not have helped to get his point across as much he probably felt that if he had repeated the same phrase over and over again, people would not listen. If he spent his speech backing up his opinion however, his point would get across much better.
DeleteI agree that Wallace didn't really directly state his title as much As he did with the repetition of the word "I".
ReplyDeleteEdwin van Renselaar
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors
18 March 2016
Socratic Seminar Reflection
Over the last few days the class was divided into three groups for three different speeches on the Civil Rights movement. The three speeches were “I Have a Dream” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “On the Death of Martin Luther King” by Robert Kennedy, and “The Civil Rights Movement; Fraud, Sham and Hoax” by George Wallace.
All three seminars had very interesting points that were brought up and some very specific ones stood out to me. I found that Sarah S. talked about the irony and symbolism of the date George Wallace gave his speech. His speech was given on July 4th, 1964. Since this speech was also during the Civil Rights movement, Sarah talked about how July 4th symbolizes American freedom and rights but also how it is ironic to us, the readers, that George Wallace is talking about how the Civil Rights Movement is bad because blacks should not get rights, on the day that was dedicated to our day of rights and freedom. Rachel also talked about this irony and the rest of the group seemed to elaborate. Another thing that was talked about was how Robert Kennedy spoke to the black people while delivering the news. He was very quiet and during his speech he was also very sympathetic. His speech was seemed to be a memorial to Martin Luther King and the position of Kennedy was talked about a lot throughout the seminar and how it meant that it showed that he was with them and he wanted them to get better and not resort to violence.
As well as having specific points that stuck out to me, there were also a few questions and concerns that had come to me. One thing I question is from the same group and socratic seminar. Virak and Sarah H said something about how George Wallace used a fact that could amy have not been true just to show a point to his race of people so that he could get his people to agree with him. I question why they think that and I disagree but also don not have any theories or proof to back him up.
Over all of the rubric requirements I scored myself a 14 out of 16. For the Speaking and Listening section I graded myself a 3. During my seminar and discussion I had listened to everyone and I also added upon people’s thoughts. However, during the second seminar I did not pay attention and then for the last seminar I payed close detail to the speakers while I was on the outer circle. For the Using Textual Evidence I graded myself a 4 because for every signle argument that I brought up and even when I added to other people ideas and arguments I had provided vivid, textual evidence so that everyone could follow. For Preparation I also graded myself a 4 because for my seminar I came in completed prepared with a completed speech annotated and answered the questions and worksheets that were provided. I finished everything that was needed to be done. For the last section, Leadership, I graded myself a 3 because I did ask people to participate and I generated new ideas for the group to discuss but I was not the leader and I did not move the group talk that effectively.
Overall, the class participation was great. The people on the outer circle were always listening and taking notes while the inner circle discussed their questions and ideas. For example, during the seminars, the inner circle was constantly including people who have not talked that much to give their input and thought on the issue that was discussed. Then, the people on the outside were able to talk out at the end of the discussion with different ideas on what happened in the inner circle.
Stretching the truth to get people to agree with you is a thing that is done by politicians in general, George Wallace not being an exception. This may be why he uses facts that may not be entirely true. While the message may change, the strategy stays the same.
DeleteStretching the truth to get people to agree with you is a thing that is done by politicians in general, George Wallace not being an exception. This may be why he uses facts that may not be entirely true. While the message may change, the strategy stays the same.
DeleteMedha Reddy
ReplyDeleteMrs. Colando
English 9 Honors/ Period 4
18 March 2016
Seminar #2
All three socratic seminars went very well. In the first socratic seminar which was about Martin Luther King, I found it interesting how Sarah Hobin said that him being black himself might have made him more connected to the blacks. I also agree with this because since he was one of them he going through the same exact thing. He had the same pain as they did so, he related more to them. I don't’ have any unanswered questions because I asked all of mine throughout the seminar in my group.For the self assessment I would give myself a three overall. For the first category speaking and listening I scored myself as three because I was a little quiet in the beginning asked all of my three questions and I made eye contact with others in my group.For the next category, “using textual evidence” I scored myself as a three again because I used evidence from the speeches most of the time but not every time. I gave myself a four for preparation because I had all my materials that I needed for the seminar and I was ready to go. For the last category leadership I scored myself as a three because like I said before I was quiet in the beginning of the seminar however, I encouraged others to join and keoty the conversation moving by answering other people's questions, adding on, or asking new questions.The socratic seminar was a great way to analyze the speeches carefully and share our thoughts.I was in the second seminar and it was a short speech compared to the other two but, in my opinion my group did a good job keeping the conversation going. After the seminar I had different perspectives on the speeches.
Socratic Seminar Reflection
ReplyDeleteIn the last 3 socratic seminar's, I heard many things that made me think more about each of the speeches. One thing that I found interesting, was said by Leah in seminar number 3. She stated how that there might be a significance of George Wallace’s speech being told on Independence Day. This is interesting because George Wallace’s main point is to not let blacks have civil rights in the United States. This is the complete opposite of independence and freedom of African-Americans. I completely agree that there was a significance of giving the speech on this day. I believe Wallace was trying to get his point across stronger by giving his speech on the fourth of July.
However, there is still one question I have from the speech that was not answered in the Socratic seminar. One question I had was how many people supported Wallace after the speech. I want to know how many citizens agreed with his points and not the points to allow rights to African-Americans. Was Wallace’s speech strong enough? I still have this question because, I feel Wallace's speech was a good enough speech to get a point across, but I feel so many people were on the other side of his speech that no one followed his point.
I scored myself on the class created rubric the way I did because of many reasons. First, I scored myself a 4 in Speaking and Listening because, I felt I spoke clear and loud enough in the group. I also kept good eye contact within the group and helped keep the conversation going with multiple questions. Second, I scored myself a 3 in Using Textual Evidence because I used good textual evidence, but I felt I could have supported my points with more. I made direct references from the Kennedy speech and used those to add to the conversation. Next, I scored myself a 4 in Preparation because, I made notes on the speech and filled out the preparation sheet to know exactly what I would bring up in the Socratic Seminar. I had all of my points ready to use in the conversation. Also, I believe I showed a full understanding of the Robert Kennedy Speech. Finally, I scored myself a 4 in Leadership because, I kept the conversation moving when needed by adding points and asking questions. I believed I listened closely to my classmates’ points and agreed or disagreed with what they had to say. I scored myself the way I did, because of these points.
Overall, I believe the class did an amazing job discussing all three speeches. What I noticed the most was that people who did not speak much in the past Socratic Seminars spoke much more in these three Seminars. I also noticed that the conversations had a much better flow to them because of the questions and points said. While watching the Socratic Seminars, I had to follow Mourad and Leah and they both did a nice job. Both of them spoke many times in the conversation, kept good eye contact, asked good questions, and added to statements said by others. To conclude, these Socratic Seminars were performed the best so far in my opinion, and I feel that they will get even better in the future.
Socratic Seminar Reflection
ReplyDeleteIn our most recent Socratic Seminar, we discussed three very prominent figures in American history, and how their speeches cemented their place in time. We used the guiding questions: “What is the main theme of the speech? What persuasive techniques does the speaker use? What is the effect of these appeals on the audience?” These three major people in history all made very impactful speeches during the time of the Civil Rights movement, although not all of them shared similar views. The first Socratic Seminar discussed Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous speech “I Have A Dream.” This group analyzed this speech, in addition to identifying the persuasive techniques Martin Luther King uses to help to motivate and inspire his audience. Many group members made note of his use of repetition, particularly in his use of the phrase “I Have a Dream”, which later the speech became known for. The group discussed how the use of this repetition ultimately reinforced the underlying theme of the need for equality among all Americans, and also motivated and inspired his people. In addition to agreeing on several topics, their opinions became divided during other segments of the discussion. Some argued that his status as a priest established credibility. However, others disagreed and claimed that his emotional connection to the audience established Ethos, rather than the place he was at spiritually in his life. I would say that although it can be admirable to be in a good place spiritually, I do not think that this established Ethos, and that his emotional appeal to his audience made his speech so legendary. The next group discussed Robert Kennedy’s speech that shared the news of Martin Luther King’s death. In this discussion, many thought that the way Robert Kennedy related his own personal experience to the tragic event helped him to establish Pathos. After the discussion, Zari also stated that the fact that he was a Kennedy helped him to establish Ethos. Group members also compared Kennedy’s speech to Martin Luther King’s speech. In my group, we discussed George Wallace’s speech which was given the day following the signing of the Civil Rights Act. For the most part, we discussed how Wallace fails to establish Pathos, Ethos, or Logos. Many of his statistics are completely false, and the logical thinking following these statistics is very unreasonable. His abrupt and aggressive behavior does not establish an emotionally vulnerable or human-like connection with the audience at all. Overall, we thought that his speech presented poor, completely unreasonable ideas, and was also delivered ineffectively.
In the first discussion, my partner was Alicia, and in the second, my partner was Medha. I think that both group members did well in building off the ideas I previously discussed. They also seemed to gradually participate more as the discussion went on. In the first box, “Speaking and Listening,”I would give myself a three because although I did enjoy listening to the other group members’ ideas (Leah, Zari, and Melissa to name a few), I felt that I could have personally participated more in the discussion. I would give myself a four in “Using Textual Evidence” because although my participation needed improvement, all of my points could have been proven in the text. I would also give myself a four in the “Preparation” category because I filled out all of the boxes on the preparation sheet with a quote and analysis. In the “Leadership” category I would give myself a 3 because although I added to other people’s ideas, I do not think I was a leader in the discussion.
ReplyDeleteOne idea that I found particularly interesting is the idea that was mentioned throughout the seminar (I believe that it was Sarah S. who brought it up in the first place), was the irony in the timing of George Wallace’s speech. The speech took place during independence day, and it was found to be ironic because George Wallace wanted to limit the rights of African Americans on a day where Americans gained their rights in the first place.. I found this to be interesting because it seemed to be a point that Wallace was missing, as he tried to compare the British to the United States government in the fact that they were oppressive. It seemed as though the irony brought up in the discussion never crossed Wallace’s mind. Another topic that was interesting was the crowd’s thinking towards the speech. It was pointed out in the group that there was no cheering in neither the speech in the seminar nor the speech that was shown to us. What I found interesting was the multiple interpretations throughout the discussion. Some members of the group interpreted it that the crowd disliked Wallace, while it was also pointed out that the speech was more solemn and serious than the other speeches in other discussions. I found it interesting that there were so many interpretations. The final interesting topic that I would like to bring up is the fact that Wallace seperated himself from the crowd. Some members of the group mentioned that it was a form of segregation in its own (Mrs. Colondo mentioned this). Personally, while it does show a form of segregation, it adds a more formal and higher up feel to the speech. These are the ideas that I found particularly interesting.
ReplyDeleteEven though the group thoroughly examined George Wallace’s speech, there are still some questions that I have. One such question would be what the public’s actual opinion of him was at the time. All that we have received on the topic is that there was no applause during either of his speeches. The reason why I am curious is that he got elected as governor. If he was hated so much that there was no applause at his speeches, how did he get elected? Obviously, there are some people that liked him, but they certainly did not seem to be vocal about it. Another question that I had regarding this topic was what happened after the speech and the events of the civil rights movement? Did Wallace continue his promise and reject the civil rights laws from the state of Alabama? Or was he sent out of office or forced to accept the civil rights laws? These are questions that I have about George Wallace and his speech.
I would personally rate myself a “3” in speaking and listening, because I feel as though I spoke well, and made eye contact, I did not get a chance to ask as many questions as I would have liked to. I would like to rate myself a “3” in using textual evidence, because I used textual evidence to back up most of my arguments, but not all of them. I would rate myself a “4” in preparation because I wrote down all of my comments and questions, and I had written notes next to the text and highlighted areas that I found were important. I would rate myself a “4” in leadership, because I started the conversation, and I feel as though I contributed to the conversation and reflected on what others have said.
I believe that we as a class are becoming better at socratic seminars. I see a large amount of participation from almost everyone, while a select few talked dominantly in the other socratic seminars. One such example would be one of the people whom I was a partner with, Dominic Rainone. He talked minimally in the other socratic seminars, but he talked a total of 7 times in this discussion. I can also see that the class is becoming more comfortable with the socratic seminars. I noticed that more people were making eye contact as they were talking, and I feel as though the group is having a much more fluent discussion. Dominic, while he talked often never dominated the discussion, or acted extremely rudely, which is an obviously positive thing.These are my thoughts on our group as a whole
ReplyDelete