LETTER TO THE EDITOR-PEER EDITING AND FISHBOWL QUESTION GENERATION

LETTER TO THE EDITOR-PEER EDITING  Read over your partner’s Letter to the Editor once without making any markings, then use the peer-edit form to give a peer constructive criticism to improve their letter.  Pay particular attention to:  Did they have 2 cited quotes that support their position?  Did they misunderstand the author (Rifkin or Braithwaite’s) opinion on the topic?  Did they have enough analysis to show that they had their own ideas about the article?  Did they clearly use ethos, pathos or logos in their letter?

GENERATING QUESTIONS  In your table groups, you are going to be generating 3 good discussion questions for our fishbowl discussion on Wednesday.  On the next slide, we will talk about the qualities of good discussion questions Please write the questions on a piece of paper and put everyone in your groups name on the paper.

GOOD DISCUSSION QUESTIONS  are not answered by "yes" or "no." Instead they lead to higher order thinking (analysis, synthesis, comparison, evaluation) about the work and the issues it raises.  call for more than simply recalling facts or guessing what the teacher already wants to know, but are open-ended, leading to a variety of responses.  recognize that readers will have different perspectives and interpretations and such questions attempt to engage readers in dialogue with each other.  depend on a careful reading of the text. They often cite particular passages and ask people to look at them closely and draw connections between these passages and the rest of the work.  are simply and clearly stated. They do not need to be repeated or reworded to be understood.  are useful to the students. Good questions can help to clarify passages or issues students may find difficult. They help students understand cultural differences that influence their reading. They invite personal responses and connections.