Daily Reflection and Writing on “The Big Questions”

One of the things that I love best about writing curriculum is that I get to think about what I would have loved to have when I was in the classroom. I’m also fortunate enough to see things through the eyes of the kids I tutor: which skills and areas often need reinforcement? What motivates and interests them? What academic skills will they need as they move through middle and high school into higher education?

An issue that consistently comes up for many of the kids I work with is writing. Being a sticky skill, it’s one that takes time to improve. It also generally takes a multiple-pronged approach, with improvements in vocabulary and word use, grammar, mechanics, transitions, and logical sequencing of ideas. While “more writing” may help with fluency, it doesn’t do much to address the other issues that contribute to weak writing skills.

My goal was to create a daily writing resource that is targeted at improving the component skills of writing. I also wanted to incorporate deep reflection and analytical thinking about “the big questions” to spark intellectual curiosity and broaden horizons.

How to Use Daily Quote Analysis: Short Writing Prompts

I think the best use of this resource is as a daily class starter, since the benefit of reflection and deep thinking will carry through class. Alternatively, it could be given as daily homework. The writing prompts and vocabulary/grammar tasks should take about 10 minutes to complete individually. I included ideas for optional collaborative work as well.

Each quote includes biographical and historical information to provide context, and vocabulary/grammar notes to call attention to specific vocabulary and grammar topics. One or two short vocabulary or grammar tasks are given as well. Next, the writing portion is divided into two sections. Under “Analysis,” students will analyze and explain the meaning of the quote. Under “My Thoughts,” students will state whether they agree, disagree, or partially agree/disagree with the quote and explain why using at least one concrete example that proves or disproves the validity of the quote.

While this resource is truly no prep, I would recommend (before students begin to work with it) taking some time to go over the example response provided. This will help students understand the difference between the two writing tasks: analyzing and explaining the meaning of the quote and then giving their opinion and backing it up with examples.

The resource includes different options for grading and a rubric for formal grading if teachers elect that option.

Check out a preview of the resource and purchase it here and as always I love to hear your feedback!

Teaching Kids to Think Like Lawyers: A Process for More Objective/Logical Thinking and Writing

Education is not the learning of facts but the training of the mind to think. —Albert Einstein

Backstory

My first few weeks of law school were pretty terrible. I’d always done well in school and had gotten good grades on my written work, but suddenly I had to learn to think in a whole new way, a way that at first felt constrained and forced. I wanted to think and write freely and law school was trying to put me in a box. I didn’t want to be a box person!

My intellectual rebellion didn’t last long. What I realized was that, while I may have been reasonably analytical, I’d never learned to approach an issue/topic/question with a consistent and effective process or structure. My thinking (and therefore my writing) was haphazard. I could hit the mark and veer sharply from it without even noticing. And the reason was that there was no structure to guide me. I was basically throwing intellectual noodles at a wall and seeing which ones would stick.

Once my thinking was cleaned up and organized around a repeatable process, I realized that I could approach any problem or question with the process and reach a pretty solid conclusion. My writing followed suit. Instead of being a dreaded box person, I was someone who could confidently approach any given topic and produce a coherent analysis and conclusion.

And instead of being someone who formulated an opinion and then tried to defend it, I was becoming someone who followed a process that allowed me to make conclusions only after all of the relevant facts, rules, principles, etc. had been considered.

Why Teach This Approach to Our Students?

In theory, a lawyer-esque approach to resolving a question or problem is more balanced and less prone to personal biases. It’s the type of thinking that judges use to resolve legal matters without being swayed by their own beliefs (we hope). It’s thinking that is focused on reaching the most rational conclusion rather than defending an already decided upon position.

How easy is it to get hung up defending an argument or perspective that we may not have reached through much analysis at all? The confirmation bias and its close and perhaps more accurately termed cousin, the desirability bias, make it difficult enough for us to see beyond our own preexisting beliefs (or what we wish to be true).

Being able to defend a position persuasively is a great skill, and we should be able to do it effectively. But we get a lot more mileage out of being able to examine a problem thoroughly using a process most likely to produce a reasoned analysis and conclusion.

I believe this is what we desperately need more of in society—thinkers who are more interested in exploring problems and using analytical reasoning to arrive at solid conclusions than in defending their own beliefs. I think we can and should teach this approach to our students, as early as possible.

“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”

—Joseph Joubert, French essayist

The Process: I.R.A.C. (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion)

I = Issue

Step one: define the issue. It sounds deceptively easy, but it’s the most crucial step. We need some specificity, since broad, open ended questions don’t lend themselves to sharp analysis. Here are some examples of well and poorly defined issues.

• The question is to what extent the Cold War arms race hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Good)

• What was the overall impact of the Cold War arms race? (Too broad/open ended)

• To what extent was Napoleon’s (Animal Farm) use of revisionist history effective in establishing his complete control over the other animals? (Good)

• How did Napoleon in Animal Farm use revisionist history? (Too broad/open ended)

• Should the government ever be able to seize people’s land? (Too broad/open ended)

• Is it fair for the government to seize a portion of unused land in order to widen a state highway, assuming the landowner is paid a fair price? (Good)

R=Rule

Once we’ve defined the issue with a more specific lens, we need to figure out what rules, framework, principles, laws, definitions, precedents, or guidelines impact our analysis. In other words, we have to discuss the standards that are relevant to our analysis.

In the Cold War example, we’d want to clarify what is meant by the arms race (including specifics on spending by each country), define any key economic terms or indicators, and lay out the timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the Animal Farm example, we’d want to define and clarify exactly what we mean by revisionist history and identify the methods of revisionist history used by Napoleon. In the land seizure example above, we would want to research the laws and Supreme Court cases that apply to land seizure by the government.

The key is that we’re setting the stage for our analysis by uncovering all of the relevant rules, framework, standards, and definitions that our analysis will be based on.

A=Analysis

Here’s where we get into the meat of things. This is where we apply the rules, definitions, principles, standards and guidelines to the facts of our particular situation.

In the Cold War example, we’d want to discuss the specific impact of the arms race in terms of arms expenditures by each country and the economic and other impacts of such spending by the Soviet Union in particular.

In the Animal Farm example, we’d want to discuss the impact of the revisionist history techniques used by Napoleon on the other animals-did they believe them or go along with them?

In the land seizure example, we’d want to discuss if or why it matters under the law that the land is not being used (as opposed to if it were currently being used for a shopping mall, for example). We’d also want to discuss whether it matters what the government intends to use the land for.

C=Conclusion

Only after we’ve done all of the intellectual heavy lifting may we finally reach a conclusion. Note that this is basically the opposite of what we teach in persuasive writing.

The conclusion should flow naturally from the analysis that we’ve completed. It may be a more limited, or qualified conclusion, but something definitive must be concluded.

In the Cold War example, we may conclude that the arms race spending accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union, or that the demise was inevitable due to other factors. In the Animal Farm example, we may conclude that Napoleon’s use of revisionist history helped him consolidate and increase his power over the other animals (or not). In the land seizure example, we may conclude that it is fair that the government seize unused private land only for an important public purpose and with fair compensation (or not).

The key is that the conclusion flows from our analysis and not vice versa.

Ideas for Teaching The Process

This is a great process to use for “opinion papers,” research papers, and persuasive essays. I’ve found it effective to use examples, such as the ones above, to illustrate the process. The examples can of course be modified to suit different grade levels and subject areas. Here are a few ideas for applications across different subject areas:

1. For Biology, have students use the process to do a research paper or opinion essay on the ethics of cloning.

2. For U.S. History, students can use the process to write an essay on the use of atomic weapons by the U.S. military in World War II.

3. For English, students can use the process to write an essay analyzing the author’s use of a certain technique, symbol, or literary device and its impact.