 |
|
 |
|||||||||
| by Joe Poletti | |||||||||||
|
|
 |
 Deep Dive 2: A Purr-fect Response My previous entry focused on the method AP Bio teacher Jim Butler used to pose an open-ended question in his blog. In this Deep Dive, I will look at a well-presented student response. The first thing that caught my eye about Shawn C's response was the title. Instead of the usual "My Opinion about Cat Dissections," Shawn C titled his entry "Meow." I'm there! His argument for cat dissections is succinct and clear. Sure, some minor problems with mechanics exist. However, they pale in contrast to the voice of this young writer. Check out how he captures his reader with his first sentence: "It may be curiosity, it may be fear, it may be a sick mind, but for some reason or another everyone anticipates having to dissect an animal in biology." He waxes philosophical by denying the ability of computer-simulated dissections to match the learning experience of the real thing. And he counters the "inhumanity" argument by stating that the inhumane thing was already done when the animals were put to sleep. He takes a pragmatic stance by avowing the cadavers' usage for scientific gain. It doesn't end there. Shawn C's sharp writing elicits an equally sharp reply. Kat Man Do(KMD) weighs in with a passionate and logical comment. KMD uses the computer simulation as a point of departure. KMD questions the value of extreme computer-simulations that promote violence. KMD argues that if one becomes a "sadistic psychotic mal-adapt" (a Jeffrey Dahmer reference)it is more deeply rooted than in classroom dissections. Great insight! Kudos to you, Shawn C and Kat Man Do. Check out their writing  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License. |
|
||||||||
