Eric Castro, WH 2, 1/13/16, 5th period

10:45 - Eric greets students (Good morning, good to see you!). Reviews what students did on
their own last class (first blended class of semester), reading and writing assignments
related to Victorian era and todays class. Students will serve either as lawyers (proponents or
opponents) or as jury members as they argue and weigh in on the question, Women should
have the right to vote."
Eric comments upon the paragraph that students submitted via Canvas in response to the
question about whether they would have preferred to have lived in the Victorian era or now
(all chose wisely!). He notes that topic sentences looked goo and that arguments were
generally solid. Adds that stylistically students should avoid 1st person (already know its
your paper) and contractions.
Todays debate: Kind of silly! This question has already been answered. Focus here instead is
on HOW we do debate issues. Future topics will increase in complexity/debatability as we
move forward this semester. Those in the opponency camp will just be playing a role, as if
you were people living in 1860-70.
Students have been assigned to 3 general groups: Lawyers (proponents and opponents) and
jury. Eric ask lawyers divide into their groups (proponency and opponency) and choose/asign
their roles (on board). One lawyer gives opening speech (1-5 reasons why), one gives closing,
and remaining lawyers will ask/answer questions of the opposing side. Eric tells the jury to
"just relax, that their time will come. The two lawyer teams have 10 minutes to prepare in the
two front corners of the room, choosing roles and putting together their arguments and
questions. The jury (7 students) is seated in the back.

11:03 Eric calls students back to their seats and tells them that they will need only their
notebooks during this argument and cross-examination phase. He explains that he will
periodically switch between Canvas, Notability, and notebooks. The reason behind this is to

"keep you focused on the task of taking notes (no iPads). Eric explains how to take notes for
proponents on one side, opponents on the other. Groups will move through opening/crossexam/closing process as outlined on the board, approximately 2 minutes per step. Groups
will receive an extra few minutes to feed closing arguments to the closing lawyer. Eric
reminds students that this is fun, silly relax!"
Eric stands in the back of the room taking notes as the debate proceeds with opening
arguments. Young lady representing the opponency makes several arguments about why
womens surage is unnecessary (mans vote is representative enough of entire home) and
potentially destructive (home work doesnt get done, potential for discord, domestic
abuse). Young man representing the proponency gets up and primarily uses questions to
make his opening case (i.e., only half of your voices/contributions matter?) Crossexamination follows (more of the same). Eric needs to step in occasionally when lawyers
argue instead of question Closing arguments.
11:20 Eric moves to front of room for some "closing remarks. He begins by asking Is
voting a right? as a modern 15-16 year old? One girl says that its more of privilege and
that a person needs to be educated to some extent. Another girl notes that "you need to be
18. Eric says, Id trust you to vote only one in five voted in the last SF mayoral election,
that very few people seem to be exercising their voting rights. Eric asks, Can I lose my right
to vote? A student notes that you can if you go to jail. Eric elaborates this and notes that
for felony convictions you lose your right to vote for life (disenfranchisement). He asks if
anyone has done community service at the Pomeroy Center, and then asks, Can mentally
disabled vote? Even people with really low mental ages/IQ Answer is yes! Last extension
piece think of other democratic countries as he lists several middle eastern countries,
such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, countries where women are denied the right to vote. What
are the practical eects of denying women the right to vote? Girl: women are oppressed.
Eric: "exactly, and no way to get out of it, no voice in changing this policy. This is a core
American thing, and well keep returning to this issue."
Wrap up: For Lawyers: In Canvas, Day 2, discussion board, list the 3 best arguments for your
side. For the Jury: Write a paragraph, with a good topic sentence and examples explaining
which side made the best arguments. For Everyone: Respond to the political cartoon by
picking one question and answering in a paragraph, due today at midnight. For Fridays
class, bring headphones for listening activity. Remainder of class (7 mins) take care of you!
11:37
Commendations:
Debate format provides an authentic way for students to demonstrate and use their
historical knowledge of this time period.
The activitys focus on procedure with this first debate allows students to attend to the
process and skills of identifying and articulating eective arguments in a quasi-legal
format (i.e., question of women's surage is no longer debatable).
Fun and risk-inviting: fast-paced, timed format invites a spirit of play and risk-taking
(no time to sweat details)

Student choice: many ways for students to choose roles, arguments, questions, etc.
Also, flexibility in choosing how/when to complete work
Questions:
How did it go? Anything youd do dierently next time? > Class unfolded pretty
much as he expected. First time doing this with this group, so he still doesn't know the
kids very well. Consequently, for example, some kids tended to dominate their groups,
and hell note that next time he groups. The focus this first time around is on learning
the debate process, and the kids seemed to do fairly well for a first eort.
How is blending this class working? How are you able to weave the WH2 curriculum
into this structure? > Since its a semester course, its Eric's second time through
with this format. He incorporated five of these blended classes last semester, and
they seemed to work well. RE the curriculum: The WH2 curriculum needs work, and
Eric has never taught it. Starting from scratch and unworried about jettisoning tried
and true lessons and units, the opportunity existed to experiment with this format, a
format that incorporates many of the key principles that should guide modern
curriculum/instruction design (e.g., flexibility, authenticity, choice, etc.).
What was the jury doing when you told them to relax while lawyers were prepping? >
Just that. They can work on anything they want to during that 10-minute stretch. They
will have more to do after the debate (paragraph assignment tonight), just as the lawyer
group had more to do prior to the debate. Eric tries to respect their time and multiple
responsibilities by building in this kind of flexibility. They are accountable for
completing tasks by a certain time, but they have the flexibility and choice to complete
those tasks when it works best for them. This is how the real world works. With
Monday's blended session (no class meeting), students had work to do and were free
to complete it by midnight that day. They could work together, use the library (or not),
to complete their work. Interestingly, all students completed their work on time,
somewhat surprising this first time around. This wasnt the case the first time around
with last semesters sophomores.