Remember when we did that Think-Pair-Share activity where we answered those tough moral questions about what we would do in certain sticky situations? Like whether or not we would lie to save our lives or die for our beliefs? Well, today we did another Think-Pair-Share but answered the questions as if we were a character in The Crucible.
To do this, we broke into pairs or groups of three. Then you all chose a character as a group or chose individually. After you settled on a character, you answered the questions on your survey with either "agree", "neutral", or "disagree". Once this section was completed, you chose one answer to elaborate on in front of the class. As part of this activity, you needed to discuss your choices and rationale with your group member(s) and come to a consensus as to which rationale you would share with the whole class.
This activity stirred a lot of discussion. I was happy to see that you al truly demonstrated an understanding of the character you chose and were clearly able to article a rationale as to why you KNOW your character would've agreed, disagreed, or stayed neutral on certain issues.
The "neutral" category turned out to be one of the most insightful in that you who chose it pointed to the duplicity of some of the characters. In particular, Rev. Parris, Abigail, and John Proctor were shown to have contradictions in their purported beliefs versus their actions in the play.
Though this activity took a while to finish, we did manage to read up to page seventy in Act II. If you were absent, please see me about completing the Character Survey and about catching up in the reading.