Mon. 11/13 - "Tracking Caesar" handout due. Finish reading Julius Caesar; be ready for a reading quiz
Thurs. 11/17 - Julius Caesar choice board assignment due. If presenting extra credit work in class, plan to present on Thursday or Friday (11/17 & 11/18)
Sun. 11/20—Membean practice due--No additional Membean requirement over the break.
Monday, November 14
LG: Understand plot, character development, and dramatic irony in Julius Caesar. ELAGSE9-10RL3: Analyze how complex characters (e.g., those with multiple or conflicting motivations) develop over the course of a text, interact with other characters, and advance the plot or develop the theme Opener--
- Opener: IAN ponder and respond: Toward the end of the play, do you think Cassius would still say to Brutus, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, / But in ourselves, that we are underlings”?
- Student-Led Work Session--
- Reading quiz on Acts IV & V
- View film version of Acts IV and V of Julius Caesar
- Small group discussion questions
- Work time on Caesar choice board projects
- Closer-in your opinion, who is the real hero of Julius Caesar?
Tuesday, November 15
LG: Consider the rhetorical strategies speakers employ and evaluate their effectiveness on intended audience. ELAGSE9-10RI4: Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze the cumulative impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone (e.g., how the language of a court opinion differs from that of a newspaper). ELAGSE9-10W1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
- Lab time to complete Caesar choice board projects
- Membean practice in the lab if projects are complete
Wednesday, November 16
LG: Consider the rhetorical strategies speakers employ and evaluate their effectiveness on intended audience. ELAGSE9-10RI4: Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze the cumulative impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone (e.g., how the language of a court opinion differs from that of a newspaper). ELAGSE9-10W1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
- Lab time to complete Caesar choice board projects
- Membean practice in the lab if projects are complete
Thursday, Nov. 17
LG: Consider the rhetorical strategies speakers employ and evaluate their effectiveness on intended audience.
ELAGSE9-10W1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
a. Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
b. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level and concerns.
c. Use words, phrases, and clauses to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims.
d. Establish and maintain an appropriate style and objective tone. e. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.
- Opener—Review the rubric for AP Lang FRQs
- Student work session: students will compose an in-class essay response to an AP Lang FRQ focused on rhetorical analysis.
- Closer—students will peer assess the essential elements of a successful FRQ
LG: Review methods of characterization and analyze character in Julius Caesar. ELAGSE9-10RL3: Analyze how complex characters (e.g., those with multiple or conflicting motivations) develop over the course of a text, interact with other characters, and advance the plot or develop the theme. ELAGSE9-10RL9: Analyze how an author draws on and transforms source material in a specific work (e.g., how Shakespeare treats a theme or topic from Ovid or the Bible or how a later author draws on a play by Shakespeare).
- Opener—return to the rubric for AP essays; view concrete language and descriptors of the specific score qualifications
- Student work session:
- In Roman empires, round robin read the College Board released anchor papers.
- Score each student essay using the rubric to justify the numerical values assigned to each paper. Be able to note how the writer was successful and convincing versus how the writer was merely adequate or perhaps entirely unsuccessful.
- Compete a class calibration chart on the projector or white board
- Students will then score their own essay and one peer essay using the AP rubric to justify their scores.