Ellen M. Rigsby’s notes on activities in the pilot class:
Day 1: Allegory of the Cave (which has to be read in class)
1. Introductions/attendance.
2. Go over the syllabus. (10 min)
3. Show them their folders (based on Sue Marston’s system) (which have the course goals
and the participation rubric (based on Jose Feito’s) in them, the writing rubric and an
Eng 4 common syllabus) where their drafts and informal writing will live.
4. Get them to read the shared inquiry goals out loud.
a. Discuss each point. What does it mean to do x? How to do it in the various
ways it can be done?
b. Ask how they participated in high school/in recent academic situations. “congrats
you all survived your first seminar comment.”
5. Give them time to read The Cave and ask them to track the conversation between
Socrates and Glaucon in writing on their pages, i.e. annotate the conversation. (15 min)
6. Open discussion (60).
7. Briefly discussed annotating the text. Used the examples of distraction in their lives to
show how to multitask for reading. Covered the Cornell style of taking notes. (5 min)
Day 2: “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”
Announcements: Co-curriculum Plays, co-curricular activities and Symphony tix
1. 3-minute reflection: Can you summarize the discussion we had yesterday on “The
Allegory of the Cave”? What conclusion do you come to about the topics of Plato’s
dialogue? The point here was to get them thinking early (and often) about how threads
from one discussion can be woven into the next discussion. This refreshed their minds
about what had happened before.
2. Open Discussion: Much of the discussion centered on how Plato and Le guin can be
said to be “doing philosophy” but not in the same way?
Day 3: Read V. Woolf “How to Read a Book”
1. Reflection at the beginning of class: Summarize the discussion on Tuesday about “The
Allegory of the Cave.” Draw a preliminary conclusion about the meaning of the excerpt
from The Republic is.
2. Open discussion. Students were reluctant to engage, so we did a close reading of her
“genre discussion section” then we dove in to characterize her advice more deeply. (I
asked what genre is, and what we need to pay attention to about it, as a quick first pass
at genre.) At the end I gave them the following reflection to free-write on for 5 minutes.
3. Post-discussion Reflection: The tension in Woolf’s “How to Read a Book”: There are at
least two tensions in Woolf’s essay: First, she asks us to think for ourselves with
respect to our reading, then turns around to give us advice on how to read. Secondly,
she eschews critics and criticism of written works, but is writing criticism to let us know
we should be (mostly) ignoring criticism. How do you reconcile or deal with tensions
like this in reading you come across? In this reading?
Day 4: Al Ghazali and Essay 2 by La Salle
1. Open discussion for most of the class: students were turned off by the didactic
nature of the texts, but also displayed some prejudice against Al Ghazali because of his
Arab/Islamic background. Students resented the omission of the need to educate women in Al
Ghazali’s text, while failing to note that La Salle’s text contained the same feature. A student
pointed out this tension in the discussion at the end, but I’m not sure how deep it went in
helping students recognize how they accepted one text while rejecting the other, perhaps
based on preconceptions about Islam.
2. Last 10 minutes: I asked students to compare how they responded to the
didacticism in Woolf’s text to that of either La Salle or Al Ghazali.
3. Also asked students to do a pre-reading exercise on Maus “what do we need to be
aware of when reading a graphic novel?”
Day 5: Spiegelman, Maus
1. Open Discussion: Asked them to notice when students were collaborative in class
discussion, and to make it explicit if they could, when they spoke, i.e. “In response to what
Sharon said…”; fantastic discussion.
2. At end of discussion asked them to make a list of “potentially important things in the text to
return to”
3. Take home: Seminar Reflection: self-evaluation after two weeks
Reflection on SI: On the first day of class I asked you what kind of participator you had been in
high school/in your previous lives as students. Now I’m asking you to go a bit deeper and think
about how you have been participating in our seminar 1 class. In terms of carrying an actual
conversation, you have all been great. At one level, people always have interesting things to
say. What more could I want, right? But you have also gotten your first seminar oral
participation grades, and may have been surprised that all categories were not A’s. So let’s
start thinking about the participation rubric I gave out last Tuesday, so we can see where we
want to work: Please evaluate yourself in the first two weeks of class using the participation
rubric below (if you don’t have your participation rubric handout, ask to borrow mine):
Use of the TEXT:
Focus:
Questioning:
Collaboration:
Day 6: Spiegelman, Maus
Open discussion: again, we worked on being explicit when we were being collaborative, and
had a great open discussion.
Day 7: Spiegelman, Maus
1. Open discussion: Today, we spent half the class discussing “Garden of the Forking Paths”
by Borges, which we had not gotten to on day 2, because the Le guin discussion was too
important to stop. The second half, more Maus. Students started emphasizing the ways the
pictures were not exact repetitions of the text.
2. Discussed how to annotate graphic novels for 5 minutes (where to put them, what to say).
Day 8: Spiegelman, Maus
1. Open discussion
2. Went over paper topic (which did not turn out well). Next time, use Jose’s topic on the
gaellearn page.
3. Went over writing rubric so they could see how I’d grade.
Day 9: Epictetus, The Handbook
1. Went over Trumble chs 1-2: Good Openers
a. Contain a thesis
b. Is direct and contains some clear approach to the topic
2. Had Tereza Kramer from writing center talk about how to use the center.
3. Open discussion
4. At end: took 7 min: Deep analysis exercise based on QUESTIONING the text:
Epictetus: have students work on 3 sections each to answer
a. What advice is given or what is the purpose of the section?
b. What interpretive questions did we have for the text?
c. What evaluative questions did we have about how to apply the text?
Day 10: Terence, The Brothers
Open discussion went nowhere: divided students into pairs and had each do an act analysis;
then came back to open discussion (ten minutes). Many clearly had not read the text all the
way through. Too much to read for one class?
1. Reflection: early midterm eval where I asked 4 questions:
a. What’s working well for the class?
b. What’s working well for you?
c. What’s not working well for the class?
d. What’s not working well for you?
2. Rough drafts on Maus paper due
Day 11: Sherman Alexie, “What you Pawn I Will Redeem”
First Peer Evaluation done this week
1. Began with go-around (everyone says something) on what struck students about the
narrative (lots of judgment about Jackson Jackson’s drinking).
2. Open discussion followed.
3. Spent 5 minutes talking about concerns people had about the class (from midterm eval):
dominating students, silent students, discussion dynamics. Used this data to raise
questions/issues over the next few weeks as they came up.
4. Rough drafts returned; went over Trumble chapter 3 and 4: Middles and conclusions;
spent 7 minutes writing an outline of the rough draft and assigned them to edit using the
discussion on middles and conclusion.
Day 12: MLK “Letter from Birmingham Jail”
Pre-discussion reflection:
1. Topics/themes/relating to other texts (5 min at beginning class)
2. What I’d like to discuss today:
3. Reflections on these (3 min)
Open discussion on the text
Post-discussion exercise:
4. At end (3 minutes): What else should we have considered in discussion?
Final draft due essay 1 (Maus)
Day 13: Declaration of Independence
1. Open discussion
2. Post-discussion Reflection: What were your pre-conceptions upon reading the
document? How did they change after the discussion, or if they did not, what in the
discussion confirmed them?
Mandatory meetings this week/next week with instructor to discuss oral participation so
far, in-class/reflective writing so far, the first paper, and the paragraph re-write of the
first paper. (Talked lots individually about the difference between what students wanted
to discuss in class and what actually got discussed, and how to take responsibility for
getting one’s ideas out there and the dynamics involved in asking to change the topic).
Day 14: Sophocles, Antigone:
Open discussion: need to ask someone to look up who Niobe is (reference in text comparing
Antigone to Niobe)
1. Last five minutes: did a theme reflection where I grouped five texts, asked students
to pick one theme that runs through them, and explain in one sentence how each text
addresses the theme.
Day 15: Thucydides, “Debate at Sparta”
Began with summary done in groups of three of each section of the debate (5 min).
1. Reflections on the summaries (3 min)
2. What I’d like to discuss today (2 min)
Open discussion on the text
3. At end (3 minutes): What else should we have considered in discussion?
4. At end (five min): did Lisa Manter’s pre-reading exercise to look at the structure of a
supreme court opinion to prepare them for the idea of an opinion and concurrences and
dissents.
Day 16: Korematsu v. US
1. Put students in groups for summarizing opinion of the court, the concurrence, and the
three dissents. Once they could see the differences in the dissents, we had a
conversation about the text. The first part took 20 minutes, but they came out able to
see what the document did.
2. Open discussion. ***(Genuine disagreement between students happened here in
discussion, and I used it to point out how it made the discussion better).
Day 17: Dana Johnson, “Melvin in the Sixth Grade”
1. Revisiting Asking interpretive and evaluative questions:
a. Write one interpretive Q about “Melvin”; write one evaluative question about
“Melvin”
Day 18: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics ch. 9
1. (7 min)Pre-discussion reflection based on Elise Miller’s Aristotle reflection on the
gaellearn page, adapted to this Aristotle reading.
2. Open Discussion
3. (5 min) Post-discussion Reflection on the difference between liking a text and having
a good discussion about it.
Day 19: Cervantes, Don Quixote, “The Man Who Was Recklessly Curious”
1. Reflection on one SI outcome for homework: what is it, how does it foster
discussion, one example of when you used it in class.
2. Theme Reflection in class: did a theme reflection where I grouped five texts, asked
students to pick one theme that runs through them, and explain in one sentence how
each text addresses the theme.
Day 20: Ovid, Metamorphosis, selections and Bettleheim, selections from Uses of
Enchantment
1. Open discussion: did not go well. Students not ready to give up the idea of the Disney
Princess for the Freudian analysis. Also, could not see the connections between Ovid
and Bettlehiem
Did second peer evaluation this week
Day 21: Ptolomy, Almagest ch. 1-7
1. Pre-discussion Reflection (10 min): Given that Ptolemy’s Almagest “served as the
basic guide for Islamic and European astronomers until about the beginning of the 17th
century” (Britannica), let’s consider the arguments for their own sakes.
In pairs, deconstruct one supporting argument and then reflect on its logic:
Argument:
Evidence:
Counterargument:
Refutation:
Your reflective analysis of this logic:
2. Open discussion
Day 22: Galileo, The Starry Messenger
1. Repeated the reflection above
2. Open discussion
Day 23: Mozi, “On Universal Love”; “The Sermon on the Mount”
1. Open discussion
2. Essay 2 due: Pick a theme, define it using three texts and provide an example of it using a
close reading of one text.
Day 24: Rachel Carson: Silent Spring chs. 2 and 12
1. Open discussion: disagreement again came up, and we worked with it without any
intervention on my part, beyond asking some text-based questions.
2. Post-discussion Reflection: What were your pre-conceptions about reading the
document? How did they change after the discussion, or if they did not, what in the
discussion confirmed them? (Because I did two longer reflections about the earlier
scientific documents, I told them they’d have to try it on their own. They did ok, but
moved pretty quickly away from the text to current debates about climate change, and I
had to drag them back)
3. Reflection given for homework: theme reflection where I asked them to group any five
texts we’ve read, asked students to pick a theme that runs through those texts, and
explain in one sentence how each text addresses that theme.
4. Assigned personal reflection essay
Day 25: Odyssey books 1-5.
1. Did Lisa Manter’s prereading exercise
2. Open discussion
3. Reflection for homework on one SI outcome: what is it, how does it foster discussion, one
example of when you used it in class.
Did Third Peer Evaluation this week
Day 26: Odyssey books 6-10
1. Open discussion
2. Reflection for homework: on one SI outcome: what is it, how does it foster discussion, one
example of when you used it in class.
Day 27: Odyssey books 11-14
Collect overnight assignment
Discuss one more time how to write the last essay, set up times to meet: suggest conferences
by phone this week and next week Monday 9-3; Tuesday 10-12;
Set up the party for last day
Open discussion
Day 28: Odyssey books 15-19
Do course evals;
Open discussion
Day 29: Odyssey books 20-24
1. Do reading survey (asked by the seminar program)
2. Open discussion
3. Final reflection, designed by Rashaan Meneses: provide a list of readings from the
semester: what great questions/themes did we raise in this class? What are the strategies did
you focus on this semester (think course outcomes) and which ones would you like to work on
next semester?