Name:
Satire Socratic Seminar
(February 23, 2015)
EQ: “What is the difference between what satirists say and what they mean?”
Directions: (1) Read the assigned texts: “A Modest Proposal” and the excerpt “One Giant Leap Toward Solving the Budget
Crisis”
(2) Annotate the excerpt “One Giant Leap Toward Solving the Budget Crisis” (located at the bottom of this
document) using the “5 Pillars of Annotation” notes from earlier in the year.
(3) Write 1 Question for each of the following levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Questions should be directly related to
“A Modest Proposal” and/or the excerpt. The best questions will fuse the subject matter of “A Modest
Proposal” and the excerpt together. Refer to the link “Bloom’s Sentence Stems” to self-assess your questions.
(4) Develop 3 questions about the text(s) by filling in the chart below focusing on level 3-6 of Bloom’s Qs.
(4) Prepare an answer for any 2 of your questions from below. Each answer should be written/typed on a
separate page, 1 paragraph in length, and INCLUDE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE.
Level 3: Applying
Level 4: Analyzing
Level 5: Evaluating
Level 6: Creating
World Connection ?
1.
Write a question connecting the
text(s) to the real world (self,
movie, book, current event,
etc…)
Self-assess: What level of Bloom’s ?s ______
Example: If you had to pack up at a moment’s notice and leave your things behind, what would you bring?
Universal Theme or
Core ?
Write a question dealing with a
theme(s) of the text that will
encourage group discussion
about the universality of the text.
1.
Self-assess: What level of Blooms ?s ______
Example: What lesson does the author what us to learn here?
Literary Analysis ?
Write a question dealing with
HOW an author chose to
compose a literary piece. How
did the author manipulate point
of view, characterization, poetic
form, archetypal hero patterns,
for example?
1.
Self-assess: What level of Bloom’s ?s ______
Example: Why does the author use flashbacks to tell the story?
Name:
During Seminar: MONDAY, February 23, 2015
Directions: (1) Ask questions. Not only the ones you have prepared, but also ones that will help the
discussion move forward.
(2) Answer questions. When someone asks a question, share your opinion and support it.
(3) Refer to the text. When asking or answering ?s, be sure to refer to specific parts of the text
(page and/or paragraph).
(4) Demonstrate appropriate listening skills, attitude, and overall engagement.
SEE RUBRIC on how you will be evaluated:
No Evidence
Developing
Capable
Proficient
Advanced
Analysis (preseminar)
Questions, answers,
and annotations aren’t
present or incomplete.
Text. evidence is
random/incomplete.
Questions, answers,
and annotations
prepared show little
understanding.
Text. evidence is simple
OR inaccurate.
Questions, answers,
and annotations
prepared show a basic
understanding of text.
Text. evidence is
obvious or general.
Questions, answers,
and annotations
prepared reveal a close
reading of the text.
Text. evidence is clear
and relevant.
Questions, answers,
and annotations reveal
a close, critical reading
of the text. Text.
evidence is the best
and unique.
Discussion
(during
seminar)
Doesn’t participate in
the discussion
(withdraws). Is
distracted or body lang.
shows inattentiveness.
Doesn’t ask/ans. any
?s.
Little participation. Body
lang. suggests
uninterested in
discussion. Responses
or ?s seem illogical or
aren’t connected to
discussion.
Is present in the
discussion. Level of
listening corresponds
with body lang.
Asks/responds to few
?s
Active. Listens, asks
and responds to
questions that support
discussion, respects
participants.
Active & Eager. Actively
listens, responds well to
questions and asks
thoughtful questions.
Supports/includes all
participants
After Seminar:
Directions: (1) Self-assess your Socratic Seminar by filling out the checklist below.
(2) Fill in the table below by giving yourself a score using the rubric above.
(3) Write a sentence explaining why you gave yourself the score you did.
Directions: Score your performance in today’s seminar using the following criteria:
4 = Advanced
3 = Proficient
2 = Capable
1 = Developing
_____ I read the texts closely and critically, annotated the informational text, and was thoroughly prepared.
_____ I came prepared with higher level questions related to the texts.
_____ I contributed several relevant comments.
_____ I cited specific textual evidence from the text to support an idea.
_____ I asked thoughtful, logical, probing questions.
_____ I questioned or asked someone to clarify their comment.
_____ I listened unusually well.
_____ I built on another person’s idea by restating, paraphrasing, or synthesizing.
_____ I encouraged other participants to enter the conversation.
_____ I treated all other participants with dignity and respect
Category: Look
at the rubric above
to help you
Analysis
Discussion
Score (0-4)
Reason: One complete sentence explaining “why”
Name:
“One Giant Leap Toward Solving the Budget Crisis”
Excerpted from Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot by Al Franken
The big movie last summer was the inspiring rescue story of Apollo 13. Yet despite the boost of NASA’s public
image, the agency is still under the budget knife. That’s because the big political story these days is balancing the
budget.
How can we cut all these programs, retain civilization as we know it, and become a better and more
compassionate country, as the Republicans are suggesting? I’ve looked at the budget and it can be done, but we
need creative thinking to make it work. In the spirit of Gingrich and Kasich, I have an idea.
The new budget includes big cuts for both Medicare and NASA. Now here are two seemingly unrelated facts.
Fact one: 30 percent of Medicare expenditures are incurred by people in the last year of their lives.
Fact two: NASA spends billions per year on astronaut safety.
Maybe you see where I’m going. Recent poll data show that our senior citizens are willing to make sacrifices, if
they will help lower the staggering debt on future generations. Most think these sacrifices would take the form of lower
social security benefits. My idea is more radical.
Why not shoot the elderly into space? Stay with me. Because I’m not just thinking about the budget here. I’m
talking about the science. Just think how many more manned space operations NASA could undertake if they don’t
have to worry about getting the astronauts back.
Now, I’m not saying we don’t try to get back. We just don’t make such a big deal about it. That way we don’t
have to use the shuttle every time, which is very expensive. Put an old Mercury capsule on top of a Saturn rocket, fire
it up, and see what happens. And if the “Houston, we’ve got a problem” call comes, Mission Control can simply reply,
“Best of luck. We’re rooting for you.” We could learn so much. What is the effect of weightlessness on arthritis? Let’s
make it our goal to perform the first hip replacement in space before the millennium!
Would aluminum foil make a good space suit for a space walk? Or would you bake like a potato? That would
be fun to know. Would a ’72 Buick Le Sabre make a good space capsule? This whole thing could be a tremendous
boon to what is called “raw science”. That is, knowledge for which there is no real immediate use, but which could
have great long-term benefits. For example, how close to the sun can a person get before he bursts into flame? Would
it make any difference if he’s fat?
If my idea works, we could expand the program to include the terminally ill. Who doesn’t want to go out making
a contribution?
Here’s a related idea. Stunts. How much did Evel Knievel get for jumping the Snake River Canyon? Millions,
right? OK. Every Sunday we put an elderly (or terminally ill) person in a rocket, fire it over the Snake River, and put it
on pay-per view. The revenues go straight to reducing the debt.
Here’s another idea. I am not a military expert, so I’m not sure that this is feasible. But here it is. From what I’ve
read I understand there is nothing more terrifying in battle than seeing enemy hordes charging at you with no regard
for their own lives. Why have we always insisted on asking our young men, and now young women, in the flower of
Name:
their lives, to risk themselves in combat? Why not, in the right situation, use a human wave of our elderly to scare the
enemy?
Think about it. You’re an Iraqi or North Korean or Serbian solider. Suddenly, over the horizon, you see a
battalion of Americans. They won’t attack, you think. America wouldn’t risk the blood of its precious youth when it
could simply employ their sophisticated, expensive weapons. Then you look through your binoculars, and a chill goes
down your spine. Retirees! Thousands and thousands of them! Each one older than the next. Each with a life
expectancy of three or four years at most. You think to yourself,” what do these people really have to lose? The four
worst years of their lives?” You’re terrified. Then they charge. A slow charge, yes, but that makes it even more
frightening
Admittedly, there’re some kinks to work out. Mobilization would be tough. Have you ever organized a group of
seniors for a theater trip? I don’t think training would be that much of a problem. It’d be kind of like, “Go out there and
run.” And this would give our World War II- era Americans a chance to contribute yet again to our country. Just when
they thought they were forgotten.
I guess what I’m saying is let’s not just talk about our problems. Let’s talk about solutions