Today in AVID we had a socratic seminar on the first three chapters of " A Hope in the UNSEEN." Overall the information all three groups gathered was excellent, we were able to draw out on different points of the novel. After discussing the book as a classe I personally was able to get a better understanding on how someone could view the literature different then me. I feel like I participated at an efficent level I possed two questions, and I even put my input on the group discussion as well, I believe I did well alone, but as a group I believe we excelled, I spelled that wrong I think? Even though my question was answered by Churchill, I still would like some more view points on my question because it still boggles my mind so, How come people who are good at what they do recognized less then someone who wasn't as good as them but grew to be almost as good as them? This has been in my mind for awhile because of school for instance a straight A student would get less recognition then a student who had straight C's first quarter and then recieved straight B's next quarter. Now some would say because they were able to improve, but a straight A student cannot improve sooooooooooooooo someone explain this to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment