The Grapes of Wrath Socratic Seminar Reflection

    This socratic seminar influenced my way of thinking, not just about the book but on a lot of issues
in life. I thought that because many people asked great level three questions, we were able to connect
themes in the text to the real world, which altered my perspective on a variety of things. One thing that someone asked that made me think more in depth was about why John Steinbeck has added many parts about animals getting run over or killed. I had not really noticed this before, but when I thought about it more, I realized that the book did have many instances where animals were killed, so I thought that there must be some symbolic meaning relating to the killing of the animals.

      One of my peers made a statement about how even the best of people can let a little bit of power get to the best of them. This person had mentioned reading about an experiment conducted, where ordinary college-aged kids were put into a situation where some would be policemen, while others would be prisoners. Within days, the ones who were, acting as policemen had let the power get to their heads and began torturing the "prisoners". I agreed with what my classmate had said because I had also watched a documentary about this same experiment and basically what the documentary had said, was that anyone has the ability to be evil if they are granted the power to do so. It is in human nature to want to see ourselves superior to others. The statement that I least agreed with was when someone said Ruthie matured the most throughout the book. Although I thought Ruthie matured to some extent throughout the story, I certainly did not think she was the one who grew the most. The characters I thought grew the most were Tom, Ma, and arguably Rose of Sharon. I thought that Tom grew a lot because he had started off as someone who just got out of prison, and in the end, he had managed to lead his family to California, helped provide for his family, and he discovered what he thought was the meaning of life. Ma grew because she went from being in the supportive "housewife" role, to being the leader of the family, and the only one keeping the family together. Rose of Sharon is a more arguable case, but I thought that she grew from being the naive, girl who complained throughout the journey, to stepping into a motherly and responsible role, when she cared for the starving man in the barn. If I had the opportunity to respond to anything during the seminar, I would have responded to the person who said that the function of man throughout the book was more than just working. They said it was providing for your family and trying to give them a better life. I would have said that "providing for your family and trying to give them a better life" goes hand and hand with work. "Giving your family a better life" results from work. Of course the men are working to give their families better lives. So in broader terms, and in general, the function of man throughout the book was to work.

      I thought that us making our own questions for the seminar worked really well. Since we made our own questions, I think it forced many of us to think into more depth about the themes of the book and I thought we had a more thought- provoking discussion than we usually do. Also, making our own questions made the conversation have more variety, since people were original in their questions and did not really ask the same thing.

     Something that needs improvement for the next seminar is maybe not requiring everyone to ask one question because I felt like a lot of people were rushing to get their questions out so that they could get their points in that area. I think the conversation would flow better if we could just talk about a few thought-provoking questions. Maybe the seminar could be graded, by how many times a person participated because I think it is hard for some people to come up with questions and it makes the flow of the conversation choppy and awkward.




   

IV. Chapters 23-27: Family Discussion Reflection

Part II: Research 

Topic: I chose to read an article about the Weedpatch camp that the Joads had stayed at in chapters 24-26 of The Grapes of Wrath.

Summary: This article was about the history of the Weedpatch camp that many migrant workers settled at, during the Dust Bowl Migration. It talked about the quality of life for the migrant workers at the camp, and the camp's historical significance. 

Evaluation: This text connects to the assigned reading because chapters 24-26 in The Grapes of Wrath chronicled life for the Joads, in the Weedpatch camp, that this article is talking about. This article also mentioned The Grapes of Wrath and how the author John Steinbeck, had visited the Weedpatch Camp to learn more about the lives of migrants.

MLA Citation: 
Lutz, Margaret. "History of Weedpatch Campa." Weedpatchcamp.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 
     12 Jan. 2014. <http://www.weedpatchcamp.com/History/history.htm>. 

Part III: Philosophical Questioning

1. Who do you think is to blame for the discrimination and disparity that the Dust Bowl migrants faced?

2. Do you think that during the Dust Bowl era, the U.S. government was trying to cover up what was 

happening to the Dust Bowl migrants?

3. In the article that I read it said that the Weedpatch camp now houses migrant workers from April to 

September? Do you think that this is somewhat wrong or a little primitive?

Part IV: Discussion

Part V: Reflection

The most memorable moment of my discussion that I had with my dad was when he answered question number one. When I asked him who was to blame for the discrimination and suffering that the Dust Bowl migrants faced, he said that the people who were most likely to blame were the locals, who did not accept them. I suppose I agreed with this answer but I was surprised that he did not blame anything on the government. I had thought it was somewhat of the government's responsibility to accommodate the migrant workers because they are Americans, living under the United States' government. The government's job is to protect the people and these migrant workers certainly were not protected. Then again, I suppose it is hard for the federal government to enforce laws protecting migrants in a place as far as California. In my opinion, the local government and communities are more to blame for the suffering and discrimination that the Dust Bowl migrants faced. I was satisfied that my dad was able to make me open my eyes to who was most at fault for the suffering of the migrant workers. I'm glad that I was exposed to that different perspective. I think that I could improve my questions by making them more general and not so specific. My dad found it somewhat hard to answer the questions I asked because answering them required some prior knowledge to the Dust Bowl migration, that my dad did not have.

PIA Socratic Seminar Reflection

The socratic seminar we had on PIA 2 influenced my way of thinking significantly. I learned a variety of ways as to how my classmates were able to answer the multiple choice questions on the PIA and I think it will help me on the future PIAs to come. One thing that made me think into a lot of depth was learning how to identify the "distractor" answer choice in a question. Before, identifying the "distractor" answer choice, was quite difficult for me. Now, after listening to my peers discuss how they identify the distractor answer, I think it has become easier for me to learn how to do the same. 

One statement that I agreed with the most by one of my classmates, was her answer to the question about the theme from the Jane Eyre passage. She said that the theme of the passage was "Life is unfair". I thought that this was the obvious answer to the question and I was glad that she did as well. I disagreed with the people that thought the correct answer choice to question 6 of the PIA was "C" because I thought the clear answer to the question was choice "B" because both FDR and George Washington seemed to convey in their speeches that they thought the government was a vehicle to provide for the people. I do not have anything else that I think should have been said in the socratic seminar because I think our discussion pretty much covered everything, and I learned a lot from it. 

I thought that it was good that during this seminar, we did not have a "half time". Although "half times" can be helpful, especially when people receive constructive criticism from their observer, I do think "half times" take away from the time we have for our discussion. Not having the "half time" I feel, allowed more people to engage in the seminar. 

One thing that I think needs improvement for the seminar, is making sure that the same person is not always talking. I feel like their were some very dominant people in the discussion and it made it harder for other people to engage in the discussion. Overall, though, I thought that the socratic seminar went very well.