Carlos and the Cornfield Day 2
Lesson 12 of 18
Objective: SWBAT participate in collaborative conversations by linking comments to others' remarks, elaborating on topics, and clarifying text under discussion.
I begin this lesson with a review of the Shared Inquiry Flipchart from the previous lesson, "Carlos and the Cornfield Day 1 " We discussed the process we have completed thus far: first and second readings, note taking, creating interpretive questions from our notes, and finally deciding on one interpretive question to guide our shared inquiry discussion: "Why did Carlos want to fix his mistakes even when Carlos' father did not do anything to punish him?"
We begin to focus on the section of the flip chart that lists the rules of Shared Inquiry. I also present the Shared Inquiry Discussion Rubricthat will rate our performance during our shared inquiry discussion. Students are asked to say in their own words what each rule meant as well as how each score on the rubric is exemplified by their actions. We modeled and role-played examples and non-examples to clarify any misconceptions. This is a good time to provide guidelines and communicate expectations.
Shared Inquiry Discussion
Students sit in a circle on the floor with their books on their laps. The interpretive question is introduced. I assign a student to lead the discussion by asking the interpretive question: "Why does Carlos want to fix his mistakes even though Carlos' father did not do anything to punish him?" I assist with the facilitation process as needed by monitoring students' adherence to the rubric. During the Shared Inquiry Session , students begin to answer this question with supports from the text. Most students like to refer to the page number this supportive text was located, while others like to recount the events that support their claim. Students are aware of the performance expectations described on the Shared Inquiry Rubric since we reviewed it prior to this activity. They are also aware that they will be held accountable via a self-assessment process following this discussion. As a result of these carefully thought out guidelines and pre-planning, our friendly debate goes smoothly with students respecting others' perspectives.
Students complete the Shared Inquiry rubric and discuss how they rate themselves as participants (see sample). They highlight the areas on the rubric that describe their performance. Students volunteered to share their perspectives on their performance and elaborate why they gave themselves the ratings. It is important to self-evaluate and be true to one's own strengths and weakness. By doing so, students can scaffold to the next proficiency level based on their strengths and ask for supports for modeling or mentoring in their deficient areas.