PoD: Exposition REQUIRED Readings: Classic: from Silent Spring – Carson (LC, 798) from The Report of the Massachusetts Board of Education - Mann (LC, 150) from Nature – Emerson (LC, 807) Essay: Professions for Women – Woolf (LC, 356) Short Story: The Lottery – Jackson (PCW, 292) Poetry: Suicide Note – Mirikitani (PCW, 357) Sadie and Maud - Brooks (PCW, 426) Five Ways to Kill a Man – Brock (PCW, 487) Visual texts: The Great GAPsby Society – Parker (LC, 233) TV Turnoff Week – DeVivo (LC, 782) The Kiss - Rodin & LOVE - Indiana (PCW, 384) from Reading at Risk (LC, 147) cause & effect, process, comparison/contrast, classification/division p. 805, question 2 p. 153, question 5 p. 815, question 4 p. 361, question 3 OR 6 OR 10 p. 299, question 2 p. 359, question 3 p. 427, question 1 p. 234, question 2 OR 4 p. 782, question 1 OR 2 p. 385, question 2 p. 147, question 5 Supplemental Texts (Choose ONE): A Peaceful Women Explains Why She Carries a Gun – Hasselstrom (PCW, 345) Drugs, Sports, Body Image and G.I. Joe – Angier (LC, 486) Popular Culture in the Aftermath of September 11 – Wiltz (LC, 751) Television: The Plug-In Drug – Winn (PCW, 325) The “Black Table” Is Still There – Graham (PCW, 340) The Empire Fights Back – Achebe (LC, 985) The Future of Happiness – Csikszentmihalyi (LC, 623) The Traveling Bra Salesman’s Lesson – O’Keefe (LC, 205) Transsexual Frogs – Royte (LC, 655) Who Killed Benny Paret? – Cousins (PCW, 321) Why Boys Don’t Play with Dolls – Pollitt (PCW, 335) DNA as Destiny – (LC, 683) My First Conk – Malcolm X (PCW, 260) How to Escape from a Bad Date – Piven, Borgenicht, and Worick (PCW, 272) On Fire – Brown (PCW, 280) The Embalming of Mr. Jones – Mitford (PCW, 285) Always Living in Spanish - Agosín (LC, 556) Dearly Disconnected – Frazier (PCW, 391) Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts – Catton (PCW, 386) How the Lawyers Stole Winter – Daly (PCW, 402) In Which the Ancient History I Learn Is Not My Own - Boland (LC, 989) Kill ‘Em Crush ‘Em! Eat ‘Em Raw! - McMurtry (LC, 453) Mind over Muscle - Brooks (LC, 410) On Seeing England for the First Time - Kincaid (LC, 904) Sex, Lies, and Conversation – Tannen (PCW, 407) Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid - Woolf (LC, 935) Two Ways to Belong in America – Mukherjee (PCW, 397) Child of the Americas – Morales (LC, 313) College Pressures – Zinsser (PCW, 447) The Men We Carry in Our Minds – Sanders (PCW, 456) Mother Tongue – Tan (PCW, 462 OR LC, 542 – indicate which on your homework sheet) The Ways We Lie – Ericsson (PCW, 470) Women’s Brains – Gould (LC, 349) There Is No Unmarked Woman – Tannen (LC, 388) After reading, write ½ page about ONE rhetorical strategy that stood out to you: diction, syntax (sentence structure), choice of detail (both what’s included and what’s not), or point of view. Use the rubric below to guide your writing. Homework Setup: o Please type your homework, or write it in ink. o If you have typed the homework, do NOT send it to me in an email or post it on Edmodo or otherwise send it electronically. You may bring in a flashdrive and print your homework if needed, however. o Clearly label each answers: I should know which essay and which question each answer pertains to (and it should be in the order shown above). Your ½ page response to one of the supplemental works should also be clearly labeled. Deadlines: o The Socratic Seminar discussions will be held on Sept. 29 [A-day] and Sept. 30 [B-day]. o Answers to questions and the ½ page analyses are due Oct. 1 [A-day] and Oct. 2[B-day]. Rubrics: The rubrics for the homework are below. The rubric for the Socratic Seminar discussion (Socratic Seminar Formal Rubric) is on the wiki under the AP English Language tab. For book questions All parts of questions answered (1 pts. 1/½ /0) Textual references (directly quoted or paraphrased) (3 pts. 3/2/1) Support/explanation/ connection (6 pts. 6/5/4) Excellent All parts of the question answered. Textual references are used in every place that they are needed to support the answer. They are an obvious fit as evidence to support that point. Explanation of and connection between the student answer and the textual evidence is complete as well as thoughtful Standard One part missing (or more than one part was too skimpy) One reference missing OR one is not the most obvious fit to support that point (and the support/explanation piece does not resolve the confusion) OR evidence is skimpy overall. Some parts of the explanation/connection are weak, incomplete, confusing, etc. Unacceptable More than one part missing or overall skimpy responses More than one reference missing AND/OR several obviously do not fit. [No text references=0 pts.] Support/explanation does not at all connect the student answers with the textual evidence OR is extremely lacking [No explanations= 0 pts.] For all ½ page analyses Comparisons/ connections/ patterns 20/18/16/14/12 Textual evidence 20/18/16/14/12 Depth of discussion/ explanation 20/18/16/14/12 Overall coherence 20/18/16/14/12 Three different examples of the rhetorical strategy are compared/contrast ed within the response. Textual evidence is complete and correctly supports the analysis. Two different comparisons of rhetorical strategy are made. Only one example of the rhetorical strategy is used. The rhetorical strategy is discussed with only vague references to the text. Evidence is complete but may not be the best fit for the answer. Full and coherent explanation that goes beyond the surface and is multi-faceted The entire analysis makes sense and flows together. Coherent explanation that goes beyond the surface Evidence is slightly lacking or doesn’t completely support the analysis. Coherent explanation that could have gone deeper Evidence is slightly lacking and doesn’t completely support the analysis. Coherent explanation that may have “holes” or be inconsistent The response is more unclear/vague than anything else. One small area is unclear. Two small areas or one larger area is unclear. The response summarizes or talks about the topic of the text and only mentions the strategy. Evidence is lacking or is present but doesn’t support the analysis. Mostly incoherent explanation (regardless of length) The response is almost impossible to understand.