Today, you engaged in a class "dialogue" a la Socrates. In your reflection (response to this blog), please comment on three areas.
1. Comment on something someone else said and the impact it had on you. Did you learn something new? Did it change your mind? Do you disagree?
2. What new connections did you make about the text, as a result of this dialogue?
3. Do you have any suggestions for our next round of "seminars"? What did you like? What would you change?
Thank you, in advance, for your participation. I hope that we can make "dialogue" a tradition in our classroom (and on this blog).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[RAHUL SHAH]
ReplyDeleteUhhg, I guess I'll be the guinea pig again, since no one is posting.
1. When this question came up: "Should knowledge be limited?" or something along those lines, a comment that stood out to me was Matt's. He replied "None of it." I like how he blatantly answered the question. I also wholeheartedly agree with him. I believe that an individual has the natural right to learn and discover the world that we live in.
Of course, when I say that knowledge should not be limited, I mean that the government should not decide that books should not be read to influencing our opinions, or eliminating them altogether, as was apparent in Fahrenheit 451. Our society is a relatively open one where one could learn/experiment about anything they wanted, as long as it did not interfere with the physical well-being of another individual. As long as this criterion is adhered to, the government doesn’t care what you do. Obviously, schools have the right to deny teaching us anything that they label as "obscene" because we go to THEIR property to learn. We have the choice to be home schooled or drop-out after a certain grade.
2. One connection I made with the text is comparing the characters to the archetypes of the Hero Quest. I had not pondered the thought before the question was brought up in the discussion. I also learned that characters can be characterized as several different archetypes in a non-conventional Hero Quest Story.
EX: Clarisse being labeled as a mentor, herald, shape shifter etc. in our discussion.
3. One suggestion I have for the future is to possibly let Mrs. Hahn make "better" questions for us, or at least let her approve them. My reasoning for this is because some questions were horrific! There were upwards of maybe five of the same question, for some categories. You could easily see that a significant portion of the class did not complete the questions, or at least try to place some decent thought into them.
If Mrs. Hahn doesn't want to complete the arduous task of approving every single question, maybe she can give a grade depending on the overall quality of our questions: at a quick glance before they are cut up. I believe that this would eliminate the horrendous questions that plagued our discussion today and allow for a higher-caliber discussion.
[RAHUL SHAH]
Nicholas Carrasco
ReplyDeleteDarn, I didn't finish typing to be first lol.
1. When the quiestion, " Are Montag and his wife Mildred truly in love?" Angela replied, " As seen in the book, Mildred was blinded by socitey." I like the way she stated her opinion, and i have to say, I agree with her 100%. Mildred's television, friends, and everything around her kept her attention away from Montag. The time where Montag was curious in the books he had found, Mildred wasn't at his side to support him. She didn't pay much to him as her husband to realize the books were the truth, not the lies the government used to keep the people of society ignorant and naive.
2. One connection I made with the text is comparing the importance of the bible in Fahrenheit 451, to the real world. It had not really crossed my mind before the discussion in class about how society in our world is similar to the one in the book. The bible is a sacred book that contains knowledge and wisdom. It's used as a book of worship, but also a book of history (bible studies taught by Coach Allen)It was important in the book because Montag had the only copy known in that world. He became that book, and can use that knowledge to pass down to future generations.
3. One thing that I would suggest is that people are more willing to speak out and support what they are saying. I liked how everybody had a different perspective on the same topics, and how there wasn't any major disagreements. One thing that I would change is the quietness that causes the next question to be pulled out. Mrs. Hahn should call on the people that didn't speak that much because they could have really good ideas that would make the conversation more interesting.
1. During the discussion, the topic of technology came up many times. Many people thought that the Fahrenheit 451 properly portrays the role of “bad” technology in the future. Rahul brought up the point that not all technology is bad. He used the example of medical technology. I agree with Rahul because the book does not necessarily predict the good technology that will be in the future, but it does predict the bad technology we have.
ReplyDelete2. It has been a while since I read this book, so the discussion helped me remember all the details. It also helped me understand the different role each character played.
3. I suggest that the “outer circle” is more included in the discussion. We could possibly allow the outer circle to add in a few comments after the mediator decides to end the discussion of a certain question.
Marisa McKnight
1. Rahul comment to one of the questions regarding technology corrupting people's ability to be more a part of society really stuck out to me. He said something along the lines of "Technology is a way to be more efficient, and not just a way for people to become lazy. That there is in fact a difference." I agree with him to a certain extent. for example; Microsoft word on the computer helps people write more efficiently than writing with a pencil on paper. However, it can also make people become lazy in the way that they do not want to use their brain any more, because of spell check. Spell check corrects our grammar mistakes so were not practicing our "brain power" to learn from our mistakes.
ReplyDelete2. Something new that I learned was pointed out by someone, I'm not sure who though, but they said Mildred was depressed almost because she had no life. That that is why she had tried to over dose because she could not, or didn't want to, face reality. I just thought Mildred was brainwashed, that's why she did not communicate effectively with Montag. She was not used human to human social contact. She was so used to her "family" on the wall.
3. I really enjoyed the "dialogue" today. I loved how we could control when we got in and out of the inner circle. I also loved how people had so many different ideas and answers the the questions. I enjoyed viewing the book from other people's perspectives on how they described them. I was however disappointed that towards the end of class the inner circle was quieter. I would have like the more shy people to be mixed in with the less shy people so that maybe they can get encouraged and speak up more.
Loran Murton
Porchia Davis
ReplyDelete1. I agree with Rahul's point about how technology is not essentially used for laziness but its used for efficiency. I never really thought about it that way because people are constantly bad mouthing technology but they contradict themselves by using technology all the time. Also you have to think about when didn't have technology, people spent all their life trying to invent technology so the world will be more efficient,so if we didn't have technology now the rise and fall of technology would come back again.
2. In the Socratic seminar my fellow classmates helped me better understand why the society in Ender's Game did not read books, the different roles of technology and the summary of the book in depth.
3. One thing we could change in the Socratic seminar is, instead of tapping people to switch out we have half of the students in the Socratic circle for half the class period and then switch out for the other half ,this way enables all students to get an equal amount of time and not feel overwhelmed.
Porchia Davis
1. Today someone in class made a comment on how in the book Fahrenheit 451 how techonology isn't always a bad thing. I never really thought about that while reading the book. While reading the book all my thought revolved around was technology is bad, but after thinking about it now, I realize without of a lot of the technology we have now, a lot of things wouldn't be possible. For example, with medical operations, discoveries of medicine, and medical research wouldn't be possible without some of the technology we have today. I agree with the statement that all technology isn't bad.
ReplyDelete2.A connoction I mad with the text today is that Clarisse and Mildred are exact opposites. Clarisse sees life through a world of thought and freedom, whereas Mildred is confined to a world of t.v. and government control. Also, Clarisse isn't afraid to be differnt, whereas Mildred wanted to fit in with her friends whenever they came over; she didn't even try and support Montag when he showed her the books he had. Clarisse cared more about Montag than Mildred did, even though Mildred was his wife.
3.I really liked the openess in the round table. I liked everyone being able to voice there own opinions without everyone yelling and screaming and it turning into a debate. For the next round table, it would be really nice if some of the questions weren't so repeitive. I would also like to change the fact that not everyone really spoke up. I want to hear everyone's opinion. I know I had a lot to say but that doesn't mean I don't want to hear other peoples' thoughts!
1. Well, when we talked about if our society is close to becoming anything like the society in Fahrenheit 451, Mary Catherine said "I believe our society is far from becoming like this one. It would take alot for it to become like the one in Fahrenheit 451. And our generation will help prevent this from happening." I agree with what she said. It is very true in my opinion that it would take a temendous amount of censorship and stupidity to form our society like the one in the book. I learned that there had been a war going on in the book. I guess I forgot that it happened because I read the book early in June or maybe my brain got caught up in the detail of the story and missed it.
ReplyDelete2. I made connections of the mechanical hound, the salamander, the parlor TV rooms, etc. were all symbols of something. For example the TV parlors were symbols of how much time we waist on technology and that we could miss amazing opportunities if we aren't careful.
3. I thought some people were too quiet or shy. I can understand not being able to get a word in with people that voice their opinions alot, but it really makes it boring if people don't speak up. I enjoyed that people really seemed to remember information and that the questions made you really think.
Miranda Albert
ReplyDelete1. During our discussion, There was a question "Would you consider Guy Montang a Hero?" If I heard correctly just about everyone said "no". I was quite puzzled by this. Guy Montang is in no sense a perfect hero, but that doesn't mean he is not a hero. If anything he is more a realistic hero that would occur in the "real" world. He realizes that the world is corrupted and actually does something about it. Although i admit his methods are quite rash. For example when he sets Beatty on fire, and is a wanted man. He properly could have handled that better but oh well.
2. Well at some point, a question asked if people trust the government to much. My classmates said that they do. Now I realize that is true, you could say practically anything and people wouldn't question it a bit. oh and that the people didn't even know that a war was going on. I don't think i would not have made that connection, without them telling me. I am not all that smart with hidden meanings and such. I will admit that i really did not make the connection that Mildred had tried to commit suicide till the end of the book.
3. What would I change in the seminar? Well it would be nice if us "shy" folk don't get bad grades because we find it hard to jump in the conversations. To be honest I rather listen, then to state my own opinion. Not cause i don't care but because people say what i want to say and i am pretty passive so i pretty much go with what people say. trust me if i disagree i will say so. Does that make sense? its not cause i am lazy but merely.....quiet?
anyway, another thing to improve, would be some way perhaps to indicate "hey I have something to say!" A lot of my opportunities were lost because i failed to jump in the conversation. so what i had to say just never got out there. Last thing i promise. I feel that the outgoing people overpower the quiet ones. So maybe not to many loud people with quiet people.
Miranda Albert
Allexis Platt (:
ReplyDelete1. Uhm, When the question "What were some symbols in Fahrenheit 451?" came up, the inner circle said that the mechanical hound was a symbol and William(I think?) made the comment that it was reprensenting the government and I completely agree. The mechanical hound showed how robotic thegovernment became and how destructive it was. Another thing I sort of realized was that people thought Mildred and Guy were in love. I really never saw that in the book. I mean, she tried to kill herself and he admitted later he couldn't remember how they met. I just didn't feel any love.
Another thing I learned was the whole Salamanders living in fire thing that Miranda brought up, coolio.
2. Some new connections I made was that the mechanical could represent something in our world now, and how unimportant books are now with the whole dictionary publication. I never really thought about how important things like that were.
3. I liked the circle today. I felt shy and awkward at first but nobody was rude and pushy so it was easy to figure out what to say. I thought maybe some people were too quiet but only towards the end so that was good.
1. Aww man... everyone is talking about Rahul's technology comment! But it really was a good point, Rahul. Technology doesn't have to be a bad thing at all. It can actually be helpful in many ways like for medical purposes like JJ said. I also noticed facebook came up a lot in our conversations. We're addicted. (:
ReplyDelete2. Well, we talked about how the book would have been written differently if it was written more recently than in the 50's. In the 50's the new thing was TV, now we have computers, videogames, cellphones, and a lot more! I think this was a super good point, and the story would have been different if someone from our generation tried to write it.
3. I agree with Marisa about having the outer circle being involved. Maybe after a question was finished by the inner circle the moderator could ask if there were anymore comments from the peanut gallery. That'd be cool.
But overall I thought it was really fun and a great way to discuss the book. It got a little debatey-ish at some points, and we just got to remember it's a discussion.
~Catherine Kenyon
1) When the question of technology came up, everyone was talking about how it was controling us and making us lazy. Rahul, however, pointed out that a lot of technology is a good thing. For some reason I had never thought of that and changed my perspective on technology.
ReplyDelete2) Even though it is not a hero story I could relate it to a hero quest which I didn't do before.
3) Agree with Marisa and Catherine that there should be more outer circle participation.
*Side Note* when the question of who the shadow was, everyone said beatty pretty much immeadiately. I disagree. I think that the government itself was the shadow not Beatty he was simply just another semi-brainwashed citizen. I say semi because I think he kind of felt the same as Guy (by the way great creativity mom and dad) he just didn't have the guts to do anything.
-Brittany Hartman <3
1. Today Jessica commented that television degrades a society by taking away individaul's opinions. People in Farenheit 451 sat in front of televisions all day just absorbing what they watched/heard never thinking to question it. That is all they knew to be true; therefore, eliminating the ability to form one's own opinion. I agree with this thought and we always hear about how television "brainwashes" society, but this makes a valid point supporting that.
ReplyDelete2. A connection I made was all of the symbolic items in the book that i didn't realize at first. For example, the hound is representing the government,the salamander is an official symbol of the firemen and also a name they give to their firetrucks, and the hearth is a fireplace which represents the home. The "dialogue" also helped me connect the similarities of the book and today and what how our world could become like farenheit 451 in some ways, which once again emphasizes the importance of the role that books play in society.
3. I really enjoyed the "dialogue" today. It was a fun and interesting way to look into farenheit 451 with more depth by listening to my peers. It would help if we followed up more on our answers and referred to other situations to sper conversation. There were also times when i was in the outer circle and wanted to make a comment so maybe after the inner circle is done before we move to a new question we could give the outer circle the chance to make any comments at that time.
-Laurel Thomas
Aubrey Slaughter
ReplyDelete1. During our seminar, Angela stated that Mildred was "blind" about society. I agree! She didn't want to go against the society she was living in. Mildred made society her heart and very thought. She wanted nothing more but to fit in. I learned that the bombs that were dropped on the city at the end of the book were actually a product of the war going on that nobody was paying attention to. The society was censored beyond belief.
2.I made the connection of the characters in the story being labeled as archetypes. William blurted out that Clarisse can be seen as a mentor. The statement made me make a connection to the Hero Quest. Fahrenheit 451 doesn't follow the Hero Quest model; however, the characters can be similar.
3. I agree with Catherine, Marisa, and Brittany that the outer circle should be able to take part in the discussion by adding a few comments.
2.
1. Ah yes, Rahul and many of the others points on technology stuck out to me. Rahul bringing up our over reliance on technology at times when he talked about us forgetting how to do some basic math over using the calculator showed me that one day we may have computers and such that know more than us. We may dumb ourselves down like the people in Fahrenheit 451 and use technology to do our thinking for us.
ReplyDelete2. The senimar showed me two new things, that Mildred actually intended to kill herself, perhaps because Guy trying to get her to open her eyes made her think about how miserable her life was. The other thing was that Mildred and Clarisse are exact opposites, with Clarisse enjoying life and living with actual thought, and mildred just sitting around allowing herself to think just whatevers on t.v.
3. The outer circle being more involved wouldn't be a bad idea, Mr. Allen let us give our thoughts (written on a piece of paper) to someone in the circle to say. The questions weren't always the best, perhaps if they become repetitive and no one has any they can ask, Mrs. Hahn could give us one?
-Dustin Craig (Yeah, I know its late, but better late than never! I'd forget otherwise)
William Snider
ReplyDelete1. When I was in the inner circle, a question was brought up asking if Guy Montag could be considered a hero. Much to my surprise, the majority response was “No, Montag was not a hero” or “Calling Montag a hero would be a stretch.” I totally disagree. Not only could Montag’s journey through Fahrenheit 451 be applied to the Hero Quest chart, but Montag standing up for what he believes proves he is truly a hero. What is a hero other than one who stands up against a much more powerful force?
2. A connection I made as a result of this dialogue is that technology will (probably) never take over our lives as it did to the people in Fahrenheit 451. Sure, technology is going to have an increasingly more involved role in our lives as technology advances. But it will never turn us into oblivious vegetables. If anything advancements in technology are increasing our knowledge (compare the wisdom of people in the 19th Century to people today; it is obvious that technology is moving us forward, not back).
3. Questions read by the moderator that are particularly intriguing or exceptionally unique (in a good way) should deserve extra credit. It seems that many of the questions were repeated because they were the easy choices. If there is an incentive for making better questions, the quality of the questions is surely to improve.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. ON what Rahul said in class about how many people are ignorant about how people use technology. Not everyone that uses technology is fat, obese, and lazy. Technology is good for many things. For example typing is more efficient than actually writing things down. Technology has also brought things to the table that can help people. These inventions can even save lives such as medical equipment.
ReplyDelete2. The connections I made with the text is where the characters were being related to archetypes. Even though this book didn't really have a hero quest feel to it, but the characters were able to be connected with the different archetypes. Such as Clairese being the mentor but in another aspect she is the shape shifter.
3. I think Mrs. Hahn should play a greater role in the discussion. Maybe having a prompting inquiry about something said that can get us going further into the topic. And most questions be weeded out because most were repetitive and meaningless to start a very good discussion. (overall i didn't like this way of learning)
~Savanna Gladue
I didn't number them...
ReplyDelete1.JJ’s medicine statement in class minimally changed my perspective on technology. I was primarily focused the book portraying how technology can ruin a society that I did not look at the positive attributes of technology. Even though the book describes how some technology have a negative impact, technology can be good in terms of efficienct innovations.
2.One idea I would like to point out during the discussion was the use of the Hero Quest on the book. Whoever brought it up made it a worthwhile discussion because some characters in the book may represent different archetypes.
3. Verifying some questions would help make the discussion better because some of the questions were repetitive. Honestly, I did not like the discussion mainly because I was ill prepared and my input to the discussion was horrendously vague. Meh, blah, whatever…
1. In our discussion, we had a question about the effects of tv on society. When Rahul said that there is a difference between being lazy, and being more efficient, he was completely right. I didn't really think about it, but there are some technologies that just help efficiencies, such as typing instead of writing. Although, there are always those technologies that just make people lazy by doing the work for them.
ReplyDelete2. The conversation really refreshed my memory on the book. As Jacob said, the discussion also really helped by applying the hero quest and archetypes to the book, where as while we were reading, we didn't think about that.
3. Our "seminars" are actually very loud at some points. While people are tagging others in and out, they make so much noise getting up that it disrupts the actual conversation. Also, the questions are repetitive, and only require a short stubby answer, not allowing for much discussion..
1. Something that stood out to me during our discussion was what everyone had to say about Mildred's attempt at suicide. Before it came up, I was very confused as to why it was included in the book and what the point of her forgetting about it was. I learned that it further emphasized the negative effect of not having a life with a point greater than what the government intended for her. She realized how terrible life was just watching TV.
ReplyDelete2. Besides the new connection to text about Mildred, I learned that Clairisse could be labeled as more than one archetype. Her character initiated Guy's questioning and was a distraction from his normal life.
3. I think the seminar went well, except for the redundant questions. I think after a question is discussed once, we don't need to touch on it over and over.
1. I agree with what Angela said during the discussion about how Mildred was blind to society. Her life revolved around the television, and her life and marraige suffered from this obsession. She had no personal opinions, preferences, thoughts; everything that went on inside her head was something she had seen on television.
ReplyDelete2. The discussion reminded me of a lot of things I had forgotton about the book. I have short term memory..Also I learned the symbolism of the salamander; I did not realize the salamander could live through fire.
3. I really enjoyed the class seminar. It gave everyone a chance to further understand the meaning of the book, and I think everyone learned a lot. I would agree with William, however, to give extra credit to those who answer more difficult, intriguing questions; rather than trivial ones.
McKenna Carlile
1. Rahul had many good points. One point he made was (not an exact quote)"Not all technology is bad. Some technology helps people through their everyday lives and is used to make a difference." I agree with this. People now a days blame technology for all of peoples' laziness. People chose to let technology "take them over" and consume all of their daily activities. This is not always a bad thing as technology can make life easier and tasks can be completed at a faster rate. But, there is such a thing as bad technology. Television can take up someone's whole day, if they let it. Computers can be an essential part of some one. People use them for almost everything and that's not a bad thing, but it isn't good either.
ReplyDelete2. I realized from this dialogue that it is human nature to have different opinions. Not everyone is going to agree with everything. People are going to have different opinions depending on their religion, values, culture, and how they were raised. All these are factors on how people think and make decisions.
3. I think instead of people preparing questions beforehand, that the outer circle should pass in their questions as the discussion progresses. Like start of with a main question and have the outer circle pass in questions that come to mind.
1.Rahul made alot of good points, but the one that stuck to me the most is when he said the one about effieciency and laziness. we use technology for work becuase of the effiicieny it gives us. The people are just lazy and sit on computers all day.
ReplyDelete2.I realized that everyone is different and we are all gonna have different opinions on different subjects.
3. I think we should give up socratic seminars and try some roundtable discussions like mrs. pagano's class.
I counted 10 "I agree with Rahul comments"
ReplyDeleteYay :)
The subject of technology came up many time, but a specific question and comment stuck out to me. When the question, I technology taking over our minds was asked, Rahul said that his math teacher tells them calculators are rotting our brains and many people forget how to do simple math. Normally I would say technology is great and it helps advance humans, but this made me think differently. This made me think that technology is good, but we overuse it in our everyday lives. When I need to do simple multiplication, I rely on my calculator to do it for me, and many people in my math class have stated that they can't remember how to use long division.
ReplyDeleteIf we keep this up, I think our society may end up like the one in Fahrenheit 451. If people keep putting off little things they can do there selves and let technology do it for them, we will all get lazy, and rely on technology to everything for us.
I liked our seminar, and I hope we do it again in the future.
One comment Brittany (I think) made was that she liked how the adults in Ender's Game were given the opportunity to make a change/do something but she did not think that they should be relied on by themselves. I agree with this, I think that kid's opinions do matter and that they shoudl be considered. I do not think that adults should rely on kids when it comes to situations such as war or things they do not fully understand. I think we could eventually have kids in war but they would have to be extremely qualified and would fight beside adults, not by themselves.
ReplyDeletesomeone said that they like that Ender had a say so in whether or not he wanted to go, and if he wanted to go to Battle School he should make that decision. Matt said that he thinks his parents should have made it for him because Ender did not fully understand everything that he was getting into. I completely agree with that. It does not always come down to age, but in most cases, I do not think a six year old should make his own decisions and if he does he should be guided by his parents.
I liked the seminars and think that we should do them again. It let us all see that everyone has different opinions on a single question. It also made our summer reading more useful and now I feel like we didn't just do the reading and journals for nothing.
-Jelani Burchette-
1.One thing that was said that made me think differently was when Rahul (I think) said that the math teachers had said that calculators are rotting our brains. I agree with this totally. Usually I beleive most technology as good because it causes me to do less work. However, this makes me think that relying to much on technology could be bad.
ReplyDelete2.The dialogue helped me understand some of the parts of the book that were confusing to me. It also helped me understand what part each character played in the book.
3.I personally didn't like the seminars. But if we did do them again I guess I would suggest that the outer circle actually have input in the discussion instead of just sitting there.
1.A comment that stood out to me was the one Allexis made, I can’t quite remember the question but it related to 9/11. She said “If they are creative enough to do it, then they are creative enough to get around it.” This really made me think about the reality of terrorism and its impact on our lives. It also made me think about what they might do next. It’s a scary thought and I hope that nothing as tragic as 9/11 occurs again
ReplyDelete2.These discussions helped me to make connections in both of the books that I wouldn’t have made before. It always seems to help me fully understand a book when I talk to my peers about the meaning and certain literary points, like the theme. I definitely had quite a few ah-ha moments during these discussions.
3.I also agree with Marisa with the idea of including the outer circle. There were some questions that I had good answers for while I was sitting in the outer circle, but I couldn’t answer. Maybe we could receive extra credit for input while in the outer circle :)
Mary Catherine Hydrick
1. The comment that stood out most predominantly in my mind was spoken by none other than Rahul. If I recall correctly, he was discussing the "no child left behind" article, which lowers the proverbial bar in terms of education, theoreticaly allowing all children equal academic oppurtunites and quite possibly provolking underacheivment throughout our nation's classrooms. He mentioned a phrase that went something like "no child can get ahead," and this statment allowed me to contemplate the endeavors undertaken by students of all academic states, whether they are labeled gifted or otherwise. For a while I had no idea what to think about the subject; whether or not others should be limited due to the variety of tempos that learning occurs. I suppose that as long as there are classes like this and cute little tests that inform you whether or not you belong in them, the issue concerning students receiving sufficient learnin' is under control for now.
ReplyDelete2.As far as new connections go, I agree that this discussion really allowed me to consider the archetypes demonstrated in Fahrenheit. Never have I actually watched a movie or read a book and said "oh...thats the threshold guardian for sure," but now I think that this scenario is really...possible now. What a nerd I am :P.
3. Okay. I loved the seminar; I was incredibly nervous in the begining to state my opinions. I thought everyone would just look at me weird and then kinda change the subject or something, but everyone was very polite in inputing their ideas and adding on to the ideas of others. The only thing I would change would perhaps concern the participation of the outter circle. There were some times when I was outside that I desperately wanted to say something but I thought someone would throw a gavel at me :D Maybe we could all be alloted three "speak out" chances so things don't get too chatty, but this is only an opinion of mine...
(Sydney Oliver)
1. In our first Socratic Seminar about Fahrenheit 451, there was a question that came up about how much knowledge we should have about certain things. Sydeny said something along the lines that "knowledge should be limited to what you're willing to understand". I fully agreed with what she pointed out. Some people are not able to comprehend as much as others; therefore, would not be willing to try to understand.
ReplyDelete2. In our discussion, Rahul pointed out that there could be more than one archetype because Fahrenheit 451 was not necessarily a hero quest. Although there was quite some time spent on that question, I agree with Rahul. As we established, there was more than one mentor: Clarisse for showing Guy a new side of the world, and Faber for helping him and guiding him to what he needed to do.
3. I actually enjoyed the Socratic Seminar. I thought it was a great way of sharing our ideas and other thoughts about certain subjects about the book. I liked how some of the questions made us really think and challenged our minds and thinking processes. If I could, I would change some of the questions that were put into the bag. I felt that many of the questions were similar and simple. However, I know I cannot change what everyone thinks.
-Alicia Beam
1) When we were doing the Seminar on Fahrenheit 451, someone said that the question of how true Mildred and Montag's love for each other was, Angela said that Mildred was just blinded by society and by the television walls in the parlor. I agree with her 100%. I feel like of course they probably did love each other at first but she became so distracted by her "family" that their love just died.
ReplyDelete2)The dialogue we all had brought some new ideas about the book to my mind. Like how there was more than one Mentor and that some people thought that this wasn't a Hero Quest story.
3) I really liked the whole Seminar. All of it was really fun and made me think more in depth about the novel.
-Jessica Bradford
Angela Buegel states:
ReplyDelete1.
sydney oliver says,"Knowledge should be limited to what you are willing to understand." I some-what agree to that. one side i cannot reach a point of understanding is how we know a person is ready for such information. it can lead to destruction and/or it can help. it is all about the pros and cons.
2.
the term of a connection is less than what i felt when i read the book fahrenheit 451. i knew above all books are important to the maintenance and establishment of the new era of human existance, but when i looked through the eyes of ray bradbury and the importance of not just books,but freedom, i was in awe with the insight i had never experienced before
3.
if we were given a list of intriging topics every class has discovered, we, instead of asking the same questions, would just discuss what the point is. asking the same questions is a waste of time,and it's annoying.
Although the minor mistakes we made are annoying, i do like the fact that we are all given the oppurtunity to broaden the road for understanding and make it easy to comprehend.
{Angel J}Sooo.... im definitely about to shoot my computer because this is the THIRD TIME ive had to type this blog, so im gonna keep it short and sweet. (:
ReplyDelete1.I agree with everything Rahul said as everyone else has said. the thing that stood out most to me was him saying math teachers say the calculator is rotting our brain becaus e i know mrs dowling has said that alot.
2.The only connection would have to be that i remember the boo more now that weve been talking about it.
3. i like the seminars i just dont like the BLOG PART!! hint hint mrs hahn. (:
1) One particular thought we discussed really sparked initiative ideas in my brain. A World Connection question that was answered by Rahul. He stated that some people take the lazy effect of technology as all technology being bad. It really changed my mindset about that entire thought aspect. Usually people analyze ideas as these in a single-minded point of view. But he went on to stay that they have a positive and a negative affect; which most situations do. I am a firm believer in this ideal and that is why it strongly connected with me.
ReplyDelete2)How the characters could play more than one archetype in the hero quest. Some characters could fill the archetype roles and others left blank because this particular story couldn't support it.
3)I wouldn't mind changing the order in which the people speak. Instead of talking at one time, have a more order in the way we discuss topics. Also, the time frame in which we speak. We can rotate at one time instead of interchangeably. One more suggestion. I believe people on the outer-circle should be able to input occasional opinions to the questions. Because I'm itching out there wanting to answer certain ones.
1. The comment that stuck out to me the most was Rahul saying that his math teacher gave her blatant opinion that calculators are rotting our brains. Technology is very efficient, but we tend to rely on it a little too much.
ReplyDelete2. The main connection I made was the fact that new technology has changed us, and the book would've been written a bit differently if the same technology had existed back then.
3. I think that only major thought-provoking questions need to be discussed in the Socratic seminars. The obvious ones take up too much valuable discussion time.
Someone asked the question "Should knowledge be limited?" and at first I said no because I was thought that that was meant by someone putting restrictions on book knowledge. I had a narrow view on the question. I was just looking at the knowledge we learn in school. Then Porsha (Sorry if I spelled your name wrong) said that young kids should have restrictions because you wouldn't want them knowong about sex at such a young age. So I thought that was a good point because she was looking at it from a different point of view. ALso one group said religion didn"t play a part in the book and I had too strongly disagree because I thought otherwise. I felt like religion played a big part at the end of the book because they deemed it worthy enough to not only save it, know it.
ReplyDelete2.A conection I made was that Faber was a mentor but he could have been other archetypes and the same for Clarrise.
3. I agree with Carley. I think we should focus more on world connection questions and universal theme questions because those questions seem to make the most discussion.
-Brianna Turner- Wale&Khalifa