Then there were two.
In this current effort, this blog has been, in real time, reporting on the
development of a unit of study. The unit
is for an American government course. It
is the last unit of the course and designed to be presented over two weeks of
instruction. The topic of the unit is
foreign trade and how that trade has affected the availability of jobs in the
US. This posting will present the plans
for the ninth lesson. This is the
penultimate lesson of the unit.
To this point
students have been preparing to engage in one of two debates. In this day’s lesson, students conduct the
first of the two debates. The debates
are over whether the students’ state government should engage in one of two activities
that are meant to lure manufacturing jobs to the state’s economy. The first activity (in the form of a
proposal), and the one this lesson will debate, is:
The government of this state should rely on a “right-to-work”
status the state either currently has or should begin the process to attain
(changing its laws to acquire the status) to lure manufacturing activity to the
state.
The exact
wording of the proposal might vary from this initial expression in that it would
be subject to a negotiated point of stasis.[1]
Before getting to the lesson plan, the
developer wants to focus on the role of the interrogators. The reader is reminded that there are three
participating roles in a debate:
affirmative debaters, negative debaters, and interrogators. The roles of affirmative debaters and
negative debaters is straight forward:
one side argues for the proposal and other argues against the proposal. The interrogators, on the other hand, fill
several functions.
They ask questions of the debaters, they judge the debate to
determine the winner, they provide a rationale for their decision, and, in the
case of this debate, they are to write a letter to a chosen public figure to
advocate the winning position of the debate.
The developer suggests that that figure be the governor of the state. This will constitute the action component in
this unit.[2]
LESSON ON
DEBATING QUESTION ONE: SHOULD A STATE
UTILIZE A RIGHT-TO-WORK STATUS?
Objective: Given the instructional content of this unit
of study, the student will viably fulfill his/her role in a debate. This activity is to be evaluated by the
ability of the student to synthesize and logically apply the information the
unit presented to the proposal under debate.
Lesson steps:
Pre-lesson. The teacher arranges the seats of the
classroom in a suitable configuration. The
arrangement should allow the two debate teams to be in the front of the class
in the form of a panel arrangement with a gap between the two teams. A third panel arrangement, facing the
debaters, is set up for the interrogators.
The rest of the class take up the rest of the class space, behind the
interrogators.
(Same day)
1.
Teacher
reminds students that the class period is to have the first of two
debates. He/she points out why the seats
are as they are and asks the students to take the appropriate seats given their
role in the debate. As this is taking
place, the teacher takes role and handles other administrative items. (five minutes)
2.
The
teacher states, for the benefit of the class, the final version of the debate
proposal. Also, the teacher points out
that the debate is not really an opportunity for back and forth arguments –
previous class discussions gave students ample opportunity for that. Time is “short” and students’ presentations
need to be to the point and that is all.
(moments)
3.
The
affirmative makes its initial argument.
(eight minutes)
4.
The
negative makes its initial argument.
(eight minutes)
5.
The
interrogators meet to decide what questions they will ask of which side and in
what order. (three minutes)
6.
Interrogators
ask their questions and affirmative or negative debaters either answer the
question or take it for further consideration.
(seven minutes)
7.
Both
debate side members meet within their group and decide final rebuttal
statements. (five minutes)
8.
Negative
side make their final statement by one or two of their members. (five minutes)
9.
Affirmative
make their final statement by one or two of their members. (five minutes)
10.
Interrogators
meet and decide which side wins and formulate a rationale for their decision. (five minutes)
11.
Simultaneous
to #10, members of both debating sides meet within their group to organize the
contents of a letter to a public figure.
12.
Interrogators
announce the winning side and the reasons for their decision. (three minutes)
13.
Teacher
tells students, the participants of the day’s debate, that as their assignment
for the next period is to finish their letters.
The interrogators are to convert the content of their rationale into
letter form and address it to the public figure identified earlier. (one minute)
Post-script: As
indicated by the time allotments, time is tight and the activity needs to be
conscious of this fact. In that vein,
experience might indicate that this activity needs to be over two days. If so, the teacher can eliminate one of the
previous lessons or limit the plan to only one debate (choose which proposal
he/she wants to “do”) to be done over two class periods.
Assignment:
Students, who participated in the day’s debate, within their
groups, finish the letter that advocates the position of their group.
Then, there is
one…
[1] Point of stasis is a negotiated statement that both
sides agree to debate. This usually is a
more nuanced statement then is initially provided by the sponsor of the debate
and allows the debate to avoid debating upon what is already agreed.
[2] Admittedly, this action is not very extensive given
the other alternatives this blog has identified as possible actions students
could take. Logistically, given that this
is the last unit of the course, with either final or mid-year exams in the
offing, a more limited action component was deemed to be prudent.
No comments:
Post a Comment