|
Project Description
|
I wanted a quick essay that could be written without a lot of background research, so I thought of the following project. I copied an article about a military soldier who upon the start of the Gulf War realized that his morals would not allow him to participate in killing. He had applied for exemption status under conscientious objectors status, but obviously, he joined the military voluntarily so that added to the arguments. But I followed up with some critical thinking questions to stimulate discussion; then, I opened the debate with a personal anecdote about my military career and the Gulf War. We continued to debate in a parliamentary/student congress style. Students volunteered pro/con on the topic. The resolve was that any United States citizen whose morals or values are endangered by serving in a war time military are excused from military service; thus, they are able to claim conscientious objectors status.
After we debated for one class period, the students were to write a critical response essay which could be further developed through interviews with veterans or others and which should include a counter for each opposing argument. I also introduced the theory of defining terms, such as conscientious objector. Who would be defined as one and how would they be declared eligible for status?
|
|
Project Includes
|
| Links | |
| Standards | NL-ENG.K-12.3: Evaluation Strategies
NL-ENG.K-12.4: Communication Skills
NL-ENG.K-12.6: Applying Knowledge
NL-ENG.K-12.7: Evaluating Data
NL-ENG.K-12.12: Applying Language Skills
|
| Teacher Tips | The students were reluctant to debate because they hate to do public speaking, but once they got started and someone (read: poor sacrificial teacher-me!) introduced some extreme controversial arguments (like: Could the American flag be considered propaganda? And that history has proven that governments can't be trusted with power? Or that the guiding principles which defeated segregation was the right for civil disobedience?) Once the controversy aroused their ire, I had more con speeches than necessary. I also was disappointed that they didn't understand the need for structure during the exchanges. They just wanted to blurt out whatever and whenever.
I think I'd give the students more time to prep, but I don't want to devote a lot of class to the research or to group work.
|
