Tag Archives: CCSS

English 9 Enriched: “The Lady of Shalott”

This is the same exercise we did with Keats’ “La Belle Dame Sans Merci” using “The Lady of Shalott” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

These were the painting choices:

William Maw Egley

William Maw Egley (1858)

Arthur Hughes

Arthur Hughes (1873)

Atkinson Grimshaw

Atkinson Grimshaw (1878)

John W Waterhouse

John William Waterhouse (1894)

John William Waterhouse

John William Waterhouse (1916)

JW Waterhouse

John William Waterhouse (1888)

William Holman Hunt

William Holman Hunt (1886-1905)

We repeated the Visible Thinking routine:

Visible Thinking Shalott

And as they were writing, I played this video/song by Loreena McKennitt:

Leave a comment

Filed under Domain 2: Classroom Environment, Domain 3: Instruction, English 9 Enriched, Visible Thinking

English 9 Enriched: “La Belle Dame Sans Merci”

The students read and analyzed John Keats’ poem, “La Belle Dame Sans Merci” and we then did a Visible Thinking exercise using artwork that was inspired by Keats’ poem.

They had their choice from the following paintings:

Walter Crane

Walter Crane (1865)

Arthur Hughes

Arthur Hughes (1861-63)

Frank Cadogan Cowper

Frank Cadogan Cowper (1926)

Henry Maynell Rheam

Henry Meynell Rheam (1901)

JW Waterhouse

John William Waterhouse (1893)

Robert Anning Bell

Robert Anning Bell

Sir Frank Dicksee

Sir Frank Dicksee (1902)

Once the class voted on the painting they wished to work with, we did a See/Think/Wonder exercise in which they had to focus on how the painting reflected specific imagery in Keats’ poem.  We share their responses using Post-Its and then wrote a three-chunk paragraph analyzing the painting using textual support from the poem.

Visible Thinking Belle Dame

While the students were writing, we listened to the following musical interpretation of “La Belle Dame Sans Merci” as performed by Jesse Ferguson.

Leave a comment

Filed under Domain 2: Classroom Environment, Domain 3: Instruction, English 9 Enriched, Visible Thinking

English 9 Regents: Analyzing Atmosphere in Film

I had my regents kids prepare for a Visible Thinking exercise in their journals with the heading “Creating Atmosphere in Film”.  My students then watched the following video, “Lovefield” by Mathieu Ratthe, and as they were doing so, I asked them to write down ten things they noticed in the film that created a specific atmosphere (they had to use “tone” words with the descriptions).

After the film, they shared what they noticed with a partner in the room.  They then had to return to their seats and write three things they thought about the film and three things they wondered.   We then shared ideas using the routine I’d set up during the year: a different colored Post-It note for See/Think/Wonder.

Lovefield STW

Their writing task was to explain in a three-chunk paragraph how director Mathieu Ratthe effectively created a misleading atmosphere which led to situational irony at the end of the piece.

Leave a comment

Filed under Domain 2: Classroom Environment, Domain 3: Instruction, English 9 Regents, Visible Thinking

English 9 Enriched: Frankenstein and Paradise Lost

Paradise LostStudents read a synopsis of each chapter of John Milton’s Paradise Lost and RHA’d it for content relating to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.  The class was then divided into three groups for this assignment.

Three groups: God, Satan, and Adam

SEE:

Each group has to find five pairs of quotations that correlate between the chosen character from Paradise Lost (God, Satan, or Adam) and either Victor or the Creature from Frankenstein.

THINK:

Groups each choose the strongest pair of quotations that act as a correlation and state what they think about that correlation.

WONDER:

For the same pair of lines, state what they wonder about the correlation.

Students each get one Post-It Note.  One color for each: See, Think, or Wonder.  Students then share Post-It Notes.

Milton

WRITING:

Students will write a three chunk paragraph correlating God, Satan, or Adam to either Victor or the Creature.   They must use their pairs of lines as textual support for their claims.

Leave a comment

Filed under Domain 1: Planning and Preparation, Domain 2: Classroom Environment, Domain 3: Instruction, English 9 Enriched

English 9 Enriched: Frankenstein and the Sublime in Art

This Visible Thinking activity is done with a twist.  Instead of merely sharing something simple that they see, think, or wonder, students must stretch to use adjective/noun combinations for what they see, similes for what they think, and metaphors for what they wonder… all relating to the sublime.

I let the classes select one of the following paintings:

800px-Cole_Thomas_The_Course_of_Empire_The_Arcadian_or_Pastoral_State_1836

The Arcadian or Pastoral State by Thomas Cole

800px-Cole_Thomas_The_Course_of_Empire_The_Savage_State_1836

The Savage State by Thomas Cole

il-penseroso-1845_jpg!Blog

Il Penseroso by Thomas Cole (inspired by “L’Allegro,” a poem by John Milton)

Peace%20at%20Sunset%20Thomas%20Cole

Peace at Sunset by Thomas Cole

Kindred Spirits

Kindred Spirits by Asher Brown Durand (depicting painter Thomas Cole and poet William Cullen Bryant)

 

SEE:

Students list ten very specific details they see in the painting, and then share their list with a partner.  Any details that they have in common are marked with a checkmark (so that less obvious details stand out to them for later).

THINK:

Students put three things they think about the painting represents the sublime.

WONDER:

Students put three things they wonder about the painting represents the sublime.

Students each get one Post-It Note.  One color for each: See, Think, or Wonder. 

For those with the color for SEE, they have to use an adjective/adjective/noun combination to describe something they see that represents the sublime.

For those with the color for THINK, they have to create a simile about how they think something in the painting represents the sublime.

For those with the color for WONDER, they have to create a metaphor for what they wonder about how the artist created the sublime on canvas.

Students then share Post-It Notes on the front board.

2013-05-10 09.13.17

WRITING:

Students will write a three chunk paragraph about how the painting is a representation of the sublime, much like Victor’s escape to nature after the deaths of William and Justine.  Be sure to define and explain “sublime” as it relates to both the painting and the novel.

Leave a comment

Filed under Domain 1: Planning and Preparation, Domain 2: Classroom Environment, Domain 3: Instruction, English 9 Enriched, Visible Thinking

English 9 Enriched: Parody- Young Frankenstein

How could I ignore Mel Brooks’ classic parody?

Similar to what we did with the creation scenes from the 1931 Universal film and the 1994 Kenneth Branagh version, we watched two video clips, did a SEE/THINK/WONDER for each one, discussed comparisons/contrasts, and then had a short writing assignment.

These are the two clips from Young Frankenstein (1974).

The first depicts Gene Wilder (as Victor Frankenstein) and Peter Boyle (as the Creature) doing a tap dance to “Puttin’ on the Ritz.”  What I want the students to see is the parody of how people become afraid of the creature and also how the creature comes to loathe people who treat him badly.

The second clip is when the Creature (Peter Boyle) comes upon the house of a blind priest (Gene Hackman), and the priest unsuccessfully tries to offer his guest some hospitality.   I want students to make the connection to the blind man in the hovel where the creature has been spying on and learning from the family that lives there.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Domain 1: Planning and Preparation, Domain 2: Classroom Environment, Domain 3: Instruction, English 9 Enriched, Visible Thinking

English 9 Enriched: Visible Thinking- Frankenstein’s Creation

Students will be evaluating film techniques as well as comparing and contrasting film to text.  for the Visible Thinking part of the exercise, we will watch two different film interpretations of the creation scene in Frankenstein.    They will be looking for a total of ten things they notice (See) in each clip; however, they have to find two in each of the following categories: Characterization, Lighting, Set Design, Sound/Music, Costumes/Make-Up.

The first is from the Universal Films 1931 production starring Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein (notice the name change) and Boris Karloff as the creature (on a side note, Boris Karloff’s– whose real name was William Henry  Pratt– great grand-nephew lives here in Rochester).

NOTE: the YouTube link is to one person’s channel, and the videos all play when going to this link.  The one I used in class is the four minute piece at clip 3.  I am saving Gene Wilder for when we do parody!

The second is from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) directed by Kenneth Branagh, who also stars as Victor Frankenstein, with Robert De Niro as the Creature.

After watching both clips, students shared what they saw in each of the five categories with a partner.  They then went on to write three things they THINK about how the clips reflect events in the novel, followed by three things they WONDER about how the clips reflect the events in the novel.  They must keep in mind as they write what they think and wonder that they are going to be asked to write a comparison/contrast piece for the film clips and the novel.

Students were then given two different colored Post-Its for SEE/THINK/WONDER; one color that related to the Universal film, and another for the Branagh version.   We then shared aloud and posted them in the front of the room on a large poster paper.  Once all students had the opportunity to share, we discussed the major similarities and differences between Hollywood and Shelley’s work.  They then went on to work on their writing pieces.

Alive

Leave a comment

Filed under Domain 1: Planning and Preparation, Domain 2: Classroom Environment, Domain 3: Instruction, English 9 Enriched, Visible Thinking

English 9 Enriched: Defending Evidence Based Claims and Elevating Diction

My enriched kids are taking the Evidence Based Claims worksheets further than what we are currently doing in 9 Regents.  In this exercise, I put the following on the overhead:

Forming Evidence Based Claims for Frankenstein, Chapters 1-3

Each pair of rows will have one of the three chapters.  For each chapter, there will be students forming Evidence Based Claims about TWO of the following aspects of the narrative (one from column 1 and one from column 2):

Column 1: Characters                          Column 2:  other aspects

Victor’s character (Ch 1-3)                                 The setting in Geneva  (Ch 2)

Victor’s mother’s character (Ch 1-2)              Victor’s family life (Ch 1-2)

Victor’s father’s character  (Ch 1-2)               Victor’s early education (Ch 1-2)

Elizabeth’s character (Ch 2-3)                          Victor’s parents’ visit to the Lake of Como (Ch 1)

Henry Clerval’s character (Ch 2-3)                The effect of the lightning storm on Victor (Ch 2)

Mr. Krempe’s character (Ch 3)                         Victor’s mother’s death (Ch 3)

Mr. Waldman’s character (Ch 3)                      Victor’s ambitions  (Ch 1-3)

Victor’s university education (Ch3)                                                                                                                                                                           The university at Ingolstadt  (Ch 3)

 

First, I assigned a chapter to each pair of rows.  I gave each pair of students two Forming Evidence Based Claims worksheets, and then I drew class cards so that each student could choose a topic that related to their assigned chapter.  One partner chose from Column 1 for a character in their assigned chapter, and the other chose from Column 2 for some other aspect relating to their chapter.

Once the pairs had their two topics, I set them to work finding textual evidence for the top boxes of their Forming EBC worksheets first.  I told them that claims about characters would involve character traits, and the other claims would be about the significance of the aspect to the novel (either so far or as an element of foreshadowing).  They were to remember the overall setting of the novel: Victor is, throughout the entire book, telling his tale to Robert Walton aboard his ship that is stuck in the ice.  All these are details that Victor has chosen to relate to the captain; WHY are they significant enough for him to mention?

One stipulation, though, was that all claims had to be made using elevated vocabulary.  Since the book we are using contains a huge glossary in the back, and the packet I gave them also includes a vast glossary, they must find stronger, more precise words than “loving”, “caring” (a personal abhorrence), and “nice” (a word the belongs on the Dead List of character traits).  This is a skill we are still working on improving, and I am trying to get them to become more precise in their diction.

Student examples:

Matina Fr 1-3 Victor's Character

Matina attempted to use “vehement” to characterize Victor Frankenstein in Chapter 2.  The class talked about the word choice and thought about whether or not that was a word that really fit Victor’s personality.  We examined her choice of details as well as the claim she was making, and she finally came to choose the word “obsessive” in relation to this work.  I agreed with her choice because that word carried the negative connotation that would go along with the violent outbursts she describes.

__________________________________________________________

James Fr 1-3 Victor's ambition

In order to make a claim about Victor’s ambitions in chapter 2, James used a character trait (“his curiosity”) to formulate his point.  He embedded a quotation from the text as support right in his claim, and his final statement sums up his position well.  What was missing, though, was use of elevated vocabulary.  While I do see that he was getting right to the point of his claim, I would like to have James practice using higher diction that reflects Shelley’s word choices.

________________________________________________________

Leave a comment

Filed under Domain 3: Instruction, English 9 Enriched

English 9 Regents: Part II- Making Evidence Based Claims

After having the kids repeat the steps for paragraphs 3-6 of Plato’s “Apology” that they’d done for the first two paragraphs (RHA, paraphrase, answer questions, form EBC), we moved on to the next step in the process: MAKING Evidence Based Claims.

At first I struggled with how this was different from the FORMING Evidence Based Claims worksheet.  It seemed as if the whole thing was redundant, but it’s actually not.

In the first worksheet, students must come to a conclusion AFTER examining the text closely (“I see this; therefore, I am able to claim that.”)  The second worksheet asks the students to make two claims about what they have read first, and THEN go back to look for evidence to support the claims (“I claim this, and this supports what I think.”)   It’s a different type of thinking.

Here are two student examples:

Alyssa Making EBC Paragraph 3-6

Before Alyssa could fill in the claim section of the sheet, she had to think about what she had read.  Since we had done a Forming EBC sheet, she already had one claim in mind to work with.  However, by the time we got to this sheet, she had changed her claims.  These two claims are stronger than her original on her Forming EBC sheet (“Socrates trusts the Gods but finds himself questioning him in terms of him being the wisest or how his devotion to him limits him in life.  He is not most in repute but those who are happen to be way to full of themselves.”)  Her original claim was too wordy, and it was full of confusing pronoun usage.  I asked her to be more concise and precise in making her claims.  As you can see, she did make changes, and the claims are easier to support.

____________________________________________________________

Ethan Making EBC Paragraph 3-6

Before Ethan filled out this sheet, he had not made a claim on his Forming EBC worksheet; the sheet was blank.  Therefore, it gave him no starting point when attempting to make an EBC.  As a result, it is evident that he did not clearly understand what he’d read in those four paragraphs because Ethan claims that “Socrates is the wisest man.”  When pressed to support this claim, Ethan cites the Oracle’s response to the question of whether or not Socrates is the wisest man: “There is no man wiser” (Plato, line 43).  This is where both Ethan AND Socrates got confused.

______________________________________________________________

Socrates

I drew the little picture on the board (no artist am I), and then I asked the students, “Which of these do you suppose the Oracle really meant?”  and I let them argue a bit about it.  Then I told them what I thought it meant.  By interpreting the Oracle’s words to mean that since “there is no man wiser” (Plato, line 43), then Socrates must be the wisest man on earth, that is jumping to conclusions.  What both Socrates and Ethan need to learn is to really pay attention to the words that the Oracle used.   What Socrates later learned after going around and questioning different people and testing their wisdom against his and coming to the conclusion that these so-called wise people were no wiser than he was, and he did not consider himself at all wise, then there IS no man wiser than Socrates or any other man for that matter.   This kind of “taking things literally” and jumping to conclusions is actually the kind of thinking that this whole “Evidence Based Claims” unit is all about addressing.  I may not have been very pleased when I first saw the choice for this unit because I really thought that it was going to be too far above the heads of 9th graders.  After beginning to work with it, I am very happy to report that I do think this is an appropriate piece, and I will use it again in the future.

_________________________________________________________________

After the students finished their Making Evidence Based Claims worksheets, the next class I gave each student two Post-It notes using two colors (one for “Claim” and one for “Evidence”).  I asked them to look over the Making EBC worksheet, and choose the stronger of the two claims they had made and write that claim on their pink Post-It.   Then they had to examine the three pieces of evidence they had found to support that claim, and choose the strongest piece of evidence they had and write that on the yellow Post-It.  Once they had both Post-Its filled out, we were ready to start.

I started by pulling one students name from the deck of 3×5 cards that I used throughout the year (These cards have their names, contact info, textbook numbers, and I keep track of who worked in what group and also what topics they had for research, what Shakespearean speech they memorized, etc).  This is an effective way for me to call on kids so that nobody zones out.  It’s also how I call on “volunteers” when no one raises a hand to answer a question.  Anyhow, after I called on the first student, he/she read the claim on their pink Post-It and stuck it under “Claim” on the front board.  I then asked, “OK, who has the same claim as ___?”  Those with the same claim came forward and put their Post-Its next to the one already on the board.  I then pulled another card, that claim was stuck below the last one.  I once again asked who had the same claim, and the entire process was repeated until everyone had a claim on the board.

Then it was time to deal with the evidence.  I read out loud Claim #1 and asked all those who’d made that claim to come forward with their evidence to support the claim (for the first one, five people made that claim, so I had there ended up being five pieces of evidence brought forward).  I had the students read their evidence to the class and post it on the board.  Once we heard all five pieces of evidence (two of them were repeats, so it actually boiled down to three different quotations), I asked the students to decide which of the evidence provided BEST supported the claim.  All those who believed that quote 1 was the best were sent to one corner of the room, those who voted for #2 went to another corner, and the same for quote 3.   I then began with group 1 and asked them to support WHY they thought that particular quotation was stronger than the other two.  Once I had two responses, I turned to the other groups and said, “Ok, go ahead and tell those folks why YOUR choice of quotation is stronger than theirs.”

For several of the claims, I noticed that we had huge crowds in the corners that had selected the most obvious statements as the strongest support.  For example, five students claimed that “Socrates believes he is not the wisest man.”   Of the evidence, one of the quotations was, “I know that I have no wisdom,” and most students voted that as the strongest piece of textual evidence.  When I asked them how they would expand on the quote to explain how it supports the claim, the best they could come up with was that Socrates came right out and said it.  When I told them that it does not leave much room for analysis to go with the obvious, it led to a pretty good argument… and it ended up being between students, not between me and students.   As we shared evidence, we also drew lines to connect particular quotes that could support one or more of the given claims.  By the time we finished, the board looked like this:

Making EBC Par 3-6

Ultimately what I am trying to do is to get kids to think before they choose quotes to add to their writing as support.  I have been telling them since September about the differences between grades of ground beef.  You can buy 70/30, 80/20, or 95/5.   All can be used to make meatloaf; however, when all is said and done, which pan of meatloaf is really going to end up more of a soggy mess from all the fat?  Everyone agreed that using 70/30 ground beef was going to produce more grease and a smaller meatloaf dinner for the family.   It’s still meatloaf, it’s still edible, but it just isn’t going to be the same, or as healthy, as the 95/5 variety.   That’s how I feel about how they go about choosing supporting evidence for their writing.  I have been saying all year, “Give me the meat, not the fat!”

Leave a comment

Filed under Domain 2: Classroom Environment, Domain 3: Instruction, English 9 Regents, Visible Thinking

English 9 Enriched: Frankenstein- Forming Evidence-Based Claims

Because of how the Forming EBC worksheets seemed to be helping my Regents kids better organize their ideas (as opposed to how we had been doing the same activity earlier in the year in a journal…they must prefer worksheets), I decided to see the sheets might work with my Enriched kids and Frankenstein.

I had the kids read the four letter from Robert Walton at the beginning of the novel.  I then listed on the overhead several ideas surrounding Walton:  his dream, his willingness to sacrifice for others, his doubts, his education, his relationship with his sister, his relationship with others (besides his sister), his financial background, his resolve, and his loneliness.   These were from Prestwick House’s Activity Pack for Frankenstein.

I then instructed the kids to “go head to head” with their partner…or in one case, a group of three because we had an odd number (meaning that they had to turn their desks to face the person across the row from them so that they could talk face to face).   Once they were in place, I drew names for them to choose which of the ideas about Walton each pair wanted to work with.   The catch was that once a topic was chosen, it was off limits for the next pair.  In one class, we started at the beginning once all eight had been selected by the first groups.  That gave the kids in that particular class who were drawn last an opportunity to have some choice instead of being “stuck” like most last groups are.

Alpha 1 Forming EBC

Using a Forming Evidence-Based Claims worksheet (like those in the Regents classes with Plato’s “Apology”), the partners had to argue and agree on what three pieces of textual evidence they were going to use to best support the idea they’d chosen.  Once they had their textual support, they had to explain why that detail was important to the topic.  Finally, they had to make a claim about Robert Walton’s character based on the evidence.

Delta 1 Forming EBC

These are some examples of student work:

 

Katie Fr Letters 1-4 EBC

In this, Katie is making the claim that Robert Walton is curious.  She also extends her claim with several points (signposts).  This is a very strong response.

________________________________________________________________

Brittany Fr Letters 1-4 EBC

Brittany is making the claim that Robert Walton is wealthy.  This is situational for the character, not a character trait (which is what was assigned).   She and her partner will have to go head-to-head once more to come up with a trait that is specific to Walton’s character based on the fact that he was a wealthy man.  She does state that “wealth wasn’t an important thing in his life,” so I will ask her and her partner to dig more into that idea.

_____________________________________________________________

Melissa Fr Letters 1-4 EBC

Melissa claims that Robert Walton is compassionate and a loyal friend when she and her partner examined Robert Walton’s relationships with others.   She sites Robert Walton’s interactions with the stranger that has boarded his ship in the middle of the tundra.  She also offers points (signposts) to explain her claim.

__________________________________________________________

Next class, the students will use the information from these worksheets to write a paragraph characterizing one aspect of Robert Walton.  The “Claim” sentences will serve as the topic sentences for the paragraphs, the quotations will be the concrete details (CDs), and the “Connecting the Details” responses will serve as part of their commentary (CMs).

Leave a comment

Filed under Domain 1: Planning and Preparation, Domain 2: Classroom Environment, Domain 3: Instruction, English 9 Enriched, Visible Thinking