Problem Based Inquiry Plan
The unit I created was based off of the text, Julius Caesar. Below is the plan, followed by a rubric that students will be evaluated on in their final debate. All of the lesson plans that are listed incorporate specific strategies which will help students reach this goal.
Scenario Description: Students will have completely read and analyzed the play Julius Caesar. After you have a full understanding you will be asked to take on the role of a persuasive speaker on a debate team—now it’s your time to shine! You will be split up into groups depending on your point of view. Your argument: Did Julius Caesar deserve to die? Half of the class will argue yes and the other half will argue no (pros and cons). You will work collaboratively with your group to come up with key points to your arguments and possible rebuttals to the other team’s argument. You must demonstrate your knowledge of the play and have supporting evidence, while maintaining your professionalism at the same time. Think outside the box and have fun! Good luck!
Debate Rubric: (Adapted from Rubistar by Mrs. Shifnadel) http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php?screen=ShowRubric&rubric_id=863210&
Category
4 (YES!)
3 (Yes, but…)
2 (No, but…)
1 (Not yet)
Understanding of Topic:
4= The team clearly understood the topic in-depth and presented their information forcefully and convincingly.
3= The team clearly understood the topic in-depth and presented their information with ease.
2= The team seemed to understand the main points of the topic and presented those with ease.
1= The team did not show an adequate understanding of the topic.
Information:
4= All information presented in the debate was clear, accurate and thorough.
3= Most information presented in the debate was clear, accurate and thorough.
2= Most information presented in the debate was clear and accurate, but was not usually thorough.
1= Information had several inaccuracies OR was usually not clear.
Organization:
4= All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion.
3= Most arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion.
2= All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise), but the organization was sometimes not clear or logical.
1= Arguments were not clearly tied to an idea (premise).
Presentation Style:
4= Team consistently used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience.
3= Team usually used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience.
2= Team sometimes used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience.
1= One or more members of the team had a presentation style that did not keep the attention of the audience.
Use of Facts/Statistics
4= Every major point was well supported with several relevant facts, statistics and/or examples.
3= Every major point was adequately supported with relevant facts, statistics and/or examples.
2= Every major point was supported with facts, statistics and/or examples, but the relevance of some was questionable.
1= Every point was not supported.
Rebuttals:
4= All counter-arguments were accurate, relevant and strong.
3= Most counter-arguments were accurate, relevant, and strong.
2= Most counter-arguments were accurate and relevant, but several were weak.
1= Counter-arguments were not accurate and/or relevant