Questions for Socratic Seminar for GATTACA
“We now have discrimination down to a science.”
What impact (if any) would human genetic engineering have on society?
Jerome suffered from “Burden of perfection”
What does this mean?
Predict the impact human genetic engineering would have on the individual.
“Twelve fingers or one – it’s how you play.” Irene says, “that piece can only be played with twelve.”
How might the genetic engineering of humans affect the definition of talent?
“No one exceeds their potential”
How is it that Vincent was able to exceed his potential?
Is a person’s potential determined by their DNA?
If you had a choice in the future to genetically engineer your child - would you?
What if had become the “natural way”?
Scientists have already identified thousands of gene sequences.
Do you think this will lead to the engineering of humans?
Should it?
GATTACA SOCRATIC SEMINAR GRADING/RUBRIC
Grades 1 – 4 (D – A)
Conduct
Name
Albrant, Caitlyn
Anderson, Katie
Capers, Andrew
Edgar, Lizzy
Elliot, Brett
Fanning, Sean
Harrison, Sarah
Heary, Megan
Hittle, Bryant
Houck, Eric
Jones, Judy
Mathiesen, Randy
McGregor, Morgan
Moran, Jordan
Pisco, Nick
Ross, Christian
Shallman, Kelly
Shelly, Connor
Stiltner, Michelle
Stuenkel, AJ
Taylor, Wess
Torres, Mac
Varughese, Hannah
Vivian, Callie
Wandmacher, Rachel
Wolfe, Nick
Speaking &
Reasoning
Listening
Movie
Analysis
Overall
GRADE
GATTACA SOCRATIC SEMINAR GRADING/RUBRIC
Grades 1 – 4 (D – A)
Conduct
Name
Becker, Daniel
Benton, Nate
Bonnen, David
Chaney, Chris
Craig, Cheryl
Furry, Nick
Graham, Kristine
Harris, Laura
Horton, Olivia
Huebbers, Meghan
Issac, Kristen
Johnson, Kelsey
Johnson, Nathan
Kirsch, Rachel
Klinkenberger, Brooke
Klinkenberger, Jessica
Lang, Ben
Lenard, Alex
Lock, Stephanie
Manley, Shea
Menko, Rob
Rudofski, Nick
Sawgle, Trent
Stefanick, Andrew
Strauss, Catherine
Wainstock, Garrett
Wooster, Ryan
Speaking &
Reasoning
Listening
Movie
Analysis
Overall
GRADE
GATTACA SOCRATIC SEMINAR GRADING/RUBRIC
Grades 1 – 4 (D – A)
Conduct
Name
Atluru, Vamsi
Breaux, Jessica
Brooks, Jacob
Conway, Bob
Corn, Rebecca
Dobreff, Shelby
Eriksen, Reid
Fields, Allison
Garcia, Steven
Gawronski, Kat
Hendricks, Jay
Hollowell, Sean
Johnson, Emily
Lubischer, Tessa
Luo, Kaiyi
Markachev, Matthew
McCann, Brian
Micallef, Jessie
Miller, Amanda
Munerance, Andrew
Pandrangi, Pranay
Pisarczyk, Carrie
Ponti, Gregorio
Stawkey, Danielle
Vaitas, Kyle
Virgin, Lars
Waldo, Anne
Watkins, Nick
White, Spencer
Williams, Evan
Speaking &
Reasoning
Listening
Movie
Analysis
Overall
GRADE
Socratic Seminar Analytic Rubric
Excellent-4
Conduct
-Respects the learning
process
-Has patience with
different opinions and
complexity
-Shows initiative by
asking others for
clarification
-Avoids talking too
much.
-Expresses thoughts in
complete sentences
-Makes connections
Speaking between ideas
&
Reasoning -Considers others’
viewpoints, not only
his/her own
Good-3
-Generally shows
composure but may
displays impatience
with contradictory or
confusing ideas
-May tend to address
only the teacher or get
into debates.
-Responds to questions
voluntarily
-Comments are logical
but not connected to
other speakers
-Ideas interesting enough
that others respond to
them.
Fair-2
-Displays little respect
for the learning process
-May make insightful
comments but is either
too forceful or too shy
and
-Speaks to individuals
rather than ideas
-Does not contribute to
the progress of the
conversation
-Responds to questions
but may have to be called
upon by others
-Comments take details
into account but may not
flow logically in
conversation.
-Avoids bad logic.
Listening
-Responses take into
account all participants
-Demonstrates that
he/she has kept up
-Points out faulty logic
respectfully
Movie
Analysis
-Generally pays attention
and responds
thoughtfully to ideas and
questions of other
participants and the
leader
-Absorption in own
ideas may distract the
participant from the
ideas of others.
-Cites evidence from
movie to support ideas
-Uses the movie only
partially to support ideas
-Pays attention to details
-Misses the more subtle
details of the movie
Unsatisfactory-1
-Participates and
expresses a belief that
his/her ideas are
important
-Appears to find some
ideas unimportant while
responding to others
-Argumentative
-Extremely reluctant to
participate even when
called upon
-Comments illogical and
meaningless
-May express incomplete
ideas
-Little or no account
taken of previous
comments
- Is basically
uninvolved in the
seminar
-May have to have
questions or confusions
repeated due to
inattention
-Comments display
complete
misinterpretation of
questions or comments
of other participants
-Participant relies
entirely on their
opinion rather than the
movie to support ideas
-Seems unprepared as if
movie was watched
inattentively
Neat Article: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=7465
Guidelines for Participants in a Socratic Seminar
1. Use scenes/characters from the movie to back ideas.
2. If there is something you do not understand, ask a classmate for clarification.
3. Stick to the point currently under discussion; make notes about ideas you want to come
back to.
4. Don't raise hands; take turns speaking. AVOID TALKING TOO MUCH!
5. LISTEN carefully and respond to what others are saying.
6. Speak up so that all can hear you.
7. Talk to each other, not just to the leader or teacher.
8. Discuss ideas rather than each other's opinions.
9. Be respectful of others opinions—you CAN disagree just do so politely and
explain why you do.
When I am evaluating your Socratic Seminar participation, I ask the following questions about
participants. Did they….
Speak loudly and clearly?
Cite reasons and evidence for their statements?
Use the movie to find support?
Listen to others respectfully?
Stick with the subject?
Talk to each other, not just to the leader?
Ask for help to clear up confusion?
Support each other?
Avoid hostile exchanges?
Question others in a civil manner?
Seem prepared?
Socratic Seminar: Holistic Participation Rubric
Participation is Outstanding
Participation is very good
Participation is satisfactory
Participation is not
satisfactory
Reconfigured rubric based on Adams@studyguide.org
 Participant offers enough solid analysis, without
prompting, to move the conversation forward
 Participant, through his/her comments, demonstrates a
deep knowledge of the text and the question
 Participant has come to the seminar prepared, with
notes and a marked/annotated text
 Participant, through his/her comments, shows that
he/she is actively listening to other participants
 She/he offers clarification and/or follow-up that
extends the conversation
 Participant's remarks often refer to specific parts of the
text
 Participant offers solid analysis without prompting
 Through his/her comments, participant demonstrates a
good knowledge of the text and the question
 Participant has come to the seminar prepared with
notes and/or a marked/annotated text
 Participant shows that he/she is actively listening to
others. She/he offers clarification and/or follow-up
 Participant offers some analysis, but needs prompting
from the seminar leader and/or others
 Through his/her comments, participant demonstrates a
general knowledge of the text and the question
 Participant is less prepared, with few notes and no
marked/annotated text
 Participant is actively listening to others, but does not
offer clarification and/or follow-up to others' comments
 Participant relies more upon his/her opinion, and less
on the text to drive his/her comments
 Participant offers little commentary
 Participant comes to the seminar ill-prepared with little
understanding of the text and question
 Participant does not listen to others, offers no
commentary to further the discussion