Standard 3.2.4- Candidate understands media's influence on culture and people's actions and communication, reflecting that knowledge not only in his or her own work, but also in his or her teaching.
Throughout the semester, I engaged my Honors English 10 class in debates. Our first "debate" was more of a discussion: students passed the "speaking ball" to someone with an opposing point of view after each negative/constructive point was made. From then on, they formed debate teams and worked collaboratively (sometimes being assigned to the opposite view, depending on equality of team sizes). The intensity of our weekly debates would adjust according to what I saw that needed to be strengthened. As students progressed to Lincoln-Douglass format debates and began conducting research, I saw a strong trend that led their teams to mutual difficulty in drawing conclusions.
Their "facts" were strongly contradictory. Even in their own speeches, they'd read names of studies and their outcomes and believe that having several websites link "facts" to it made it "proof."'
When I received a flyer with seven "Tips for Healthy Living" that I was supposed to pass out to my students, I was inspired to base an assignment off of it.
One of the tips was to eat a large amount of whole grains daily. The flyer referenced several conventionally credible sources, such as www.usda.gov, www.americanheart.org, www.mayoclinic.com, and more. On the projector, I guided my students through my search to prove that whole grains are healthy (I narrowed my topic to whether whole grains prevent type 2 diabetes). We dug up the sources that the websites used and found that their epidemiological studies were absolutely not "proof" of the conclusions they claimed!
This assignment was not a research/informative speech, it was an investigative research speech that was based on a hypothesis rather than a thesis. They were responsible for criticizing the methods used by the researchers rather than basing their content on what the research concluded. In fact, almost all conventional wisdom centered on health and dietary fitness is based on hasty generalizations and inconclusive data. There is no proof that whole grains (and grains in general) are healthy and necessary for the human body. In fact, in their own studies, table evidence shows the exact opposite (trends that weren't commented on by the researchers, but were apparent to scrutinizing readers).
Below is the PowerPoint presentation that I used to guide the students through my investigation.
In their speeches, my students investigated "Conventional Wisdoms" that they chose for themselves. Some of their questions pertaining to conventional wisdoms were: Does milk do a body good? Is global warming real? Does race really affect athletic capability? Is Creatine bad for you? Is it weight loss really all about calories in versus calories out? Do violent video games really affect the players' behaviors?
Their speeches turned out to be impressive investigations. Most students who had been convinced about a particular side of an argument ended up having much more open minds about the possibilities. A few of the school's teachers sat in for the speeches on the same day that the topics "Is A Glass of Red Wine a Day Really Good for You?" and "Is Global Warming a Proven Phenomenon?" were presented. All three said they were no longer convinced on their affirmative beliefs to those topics after seeing the students' research.
Standard 3.2.4- Candidate understands media's influence on culture and people's actions and communication, reflecting that knowledge not only in his or her own work, but also in his or her teaching.
Throughout the semester, I engaged my Honors English 10 class in debates. Our first "debate" was more of a discussion: students passed the "speaking ball" to someone with an opposing point of view after each negative/constructive point was made. From then on, they formed debate teams and worked collaboratively (sometimes being assigned to the opposite view, depending on equality of team sizes). The intensity of our weekly debates would adjust according to what I saw that needed to be strengthened. As students progressed to Lincoln-Douglass format debates and began conducting research, I saw a strong trend that led their teams to mutual difficulty in drawing conclusions.
Their "facts" were strongly contradictory. Even in their own speeches, they'd read names of studies and their outcomes and believe that having several websites link "facts" to it made it "proof."'
When I received a flyer with seven "Tips for Healthy Living" that I was supposed to pass out to my students, I was inspired to base an assignment off of it.
One of the tips was to eat a large amount of whole grains daily. The flyer referenced several conventionally credible sources, such as www.usda.gov, www.americanheart.org, www.mayoclinic.com, and more. On the projector, I guided my students through my search to prove that whole grains are healthy (I narrowed my topic to whether whole grains prevent type 2 diabetes). We dug up the sources that the websites used and found that their epidemiological studies were absolutely not "proof" of the conclusions they claimed!
This assignment was not a research/informative speech, it was an investigative research speech that was based on a hypothesis rather than a thesis. They were responsible for criticizing the methods used by the researchers rather than basing their content on what the research concluded. In fact, almost all conventional wisdom centered on health and dietary fitness is based on hasty generalizations and inconclusive data. There is no proof that whole grains (and grains in general) are healthy and necessary for the human body. In fact, in their own studies, table evidence shows the exact opposite (trends that weren't commented on by the researchers, but were apparent to scrutinizing readers).
Below is the PowerPoint presentation that I used to guide the students through my investigation.
In their speeches, my students investigated "Conventional Wisdoms" that they chose for themselves. Some of their questions pertaining to conventional wisdoms were:
Does milk do a body good? Is global warming real? Does race really affect athletic capability? Is Creatine bad for you? Is it weight loss really all about calories in versus calories out? Do violent video games really affect the players' behaviors?
Their speeches turned out to be impressive investigations. Most students who had been convinced about a particular side of an argument ended up having much more open minds about the possibilities. A few of the school's teachers sat in for the speeches on the same day that the topics "Is A Glass of Red Wine a Day Really Good for You?" and "Is Global Warming a Proven Phenomenon?" were presented. All three said they were no longer convinced on their affirmative beliefs to those topics after seeing the students' research.