Created byJennifer Richardson

0 views0 downloads

Mock Trial: Serial Season 1

Grade 10English21 days

★★★★★

4.0 (1 rating)

In this 10th grade English project, students engage in a mock trial based on Season 1 of the Serial podcast. They analyze evidence, develop arguments, and assume roles within the criminal justice system to explore how storytelling influences the interpretation of evidence and witness testimonies. Students maintain evidence logs, construct arguments, and reflect on their experiences, enhancing their understanding of the criminal justice system and the power of persuasive communication.

Mock TrialSerial PodcastEvidence AnalysisArgument ConstructionCriminal Justice SystemStorytellingPersuasive Communication

Want to create your own PBL Recipe?Use our AI-powered tools to design engaging project-based learning experiences for your students.

📝

Inquiry Framework

Question Framework

Driving Question

The overarching question that guides the entire project.In what ways does storytelling influence the interpretation of evidence and witness testimonies in the pursuit of truth and justice within an adversarial legal system?

Essential Questions

Supporting questions that break down major concepts.

How do biases influence our interpretation of evidence and witness testimonies?
What are the key elements of a strong legal argument, and how can they be effectively communicated?
How does the adversarial nature of the legal system impact the pursuit of truth and justice?
What role does storytelling play in shaping public opinion and legal outcomes?

Standards & Learning Goals

Learning Goals

By the end of this project, students will be able to:

Students will be able to analyze and interpret evidence from the Serial podcast to construct a legal case.
Students will be able to develop and deliver effective arguments and counterarguments in a mock trial setting.
Students will be able to evaluate the role of storytelling in influencing perceptions of guilt and innocence.
Students will be able to understand the roles and responsibilities within the criminal justice system.

Entry Events

Events that will be used to introduce the project to students

The Mystery Box

A locked box is delivered to the classroom with evidence related to a fictional crime. Students work in teams to analyze the evidence, formulate initial theories about what might have happened, and develop questions they hope to answer as they investigate the case. This activity introduces them to the process of evidence analysis and theory formulation before they encounter the Serial podcast.

📚

Portfolio Activities

These activities progressively build towards your learning goals, with each submission contributing to the student's final portfolio.

Activity 1

Evidence Log & Source Evaluation

Students compile an evidence log based on the podcast, evaluating the credibility and relevance of each piece of evidence.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.

1. Students create a detailed log of all evidence presented in the Serial podcast.

2. For each piece of evidence, students note the source, relevance, and potential biases.

3. Students evaluate the credibility of each source using a predefined rubric (e.g., considering the source's expertise, potential motives, and corroboration with other sources).

4. Students write a brief analysis of how each piece of evidence could be used to support or refute the defendant's guilt.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA comprehensive evidence log with source evaluations and analyses.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAddresses the learning goal: 'Students will be able to analyze and interpret evidence from the Serial podcast to construct a legal case.'

Activity 2

Character Role Assignment & Analysis

Students are assigned roles within the mock trial (defense attorney, prosecutor, witness, jury member) and begin analyzing their character's perspective based on the podcast.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.

1. Assign each student a specific role within the mock trial (e.g., defense attorney, prosecutor, witness, jury member).

2. Have students create a character profile for their assigned role, detailing their background, motivations, and potential biases.

3. Students listen to specific episodes of the Serial podcast relevant to their character's role.

4. Students write a reflection from their character's perspective on the key events and evidence presented in the podcast.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA detailed character profile and a reflective journal entry from the character's point of view.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAddresses the learning goal: 'Students will be able to understand the roles and responsibilities within the criminal justice system.'

Activity 3

Argument Construction Blueprint

Students develop their arguments and counterarguments, focusing on persuasive language and logical reasoning.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.

1. Based on their assigned role and the evidence log, students brainstorm potential arguments and counterarguments.

2. Students create an outline for their opening statement, direct examination questions, cross-examination questions, and closing argument.

3. Students incorporate persuasive language techniques (e.g., rhetorical questions, appeals to emotion, logical fallacies) into their arguments.

4. Students participate in a peer review session, providing feedback on the clarity, persuasiveness, and logical soundness of each other's arguments.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA detailed argument construction blueprint, including outlines for all key components of their presentation.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAddresses the learning goal: 'Students will be able to develop and deliver effective arguments and counterarguments in a mock trial setting.'

🏆

Rubric & Reflection

Portfolio Rubric

Grading criteria for assessing the overall project portfolio

Mock Trial Portfolio Rubric: Serial Podcast

Category 1

Evidence Analysis & Source Evaluation

This category assesses students' ability to analyze evidence from the Serial podcast, evaluate source credibility, and construct a comprehensive evidence log.

Criterion 1

Evidence Log Completeness

Assesses the extent to which the evidence log includes all relevant evidence from the podcast.

Exemplary

4 Points

The evidence log is exceptionally comprehensive, including all key pieces of evidence with detailed annotations and cross-references.

Proficient

3 Points

The evidence log is thorough and includes most of the key pieces of evidence with clear annotations.

Developing

2 Points

The evidence log is partially complete, including some key pieces of evidence with basic annotations.

Beginning

1 Points

The evidence log is incomplete and lacks key pieces of evidence and sufficient annotations.

Criterion 2

Source Credibility Evaluation

Assesses the depth and accuracy of source credibility evaluations.

Exemplary

4 Points

Source evaluations demonstrate sophisticated analysis, considering expertise, motives, corroboration, and potential biases with insightful justifications.

Proficient

3 Points

Source evaluations are thorough, addressing expertise, motives, corroboration, and potential biases with clear justifications.

Developing

2 Points

Source evaluations are basic, addressing some aspects of expertise, motives, or corroboration with limited justifications.

Beginning

1 Points

Source evaluations are superficial and lack consideration of expertise, motives, or corroboration.

Criterion 3

Evidence Analysis & Relevance

Assesses the quality of analysis explaining how each piece of evidence supports or refutes the defendant's guilt.

Exemplary

4 Points

Analysis is insightful, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative and legal arguments with compelling reasoning.

Proficient

3 Points

Analysis is clear and logical, explaining how each piece of evidence supports or refutes the defendant's guilt with sound reasoning.

Developing

2 Points

Analysis is present but may lack depth or clarity, showing a basic understanding of the evidence's relevance.

Beginning

1 Points

Analysis is minimal or missing, showing little understanding of the evidence's relevance.

Category 2

Character Role & Perspective

This category assesses students' ability to embody their assigned mock trial role, analyze their character's perspective, and reflect on key events from that viewpoint.

Criterion 1

Character Profile Depth

Assesses the depth and detail of the character profile.

Exemplary

4 Points

Character profile is exceptionally detailed, providing rich background, motivations, and potential biases that are convincingly aligned with the podcast content.

Proficient

3 Points

Character profile is thorough, providing clear background, motivations, and potential biases relevant to the podcast content.

Developing

2 Points

Character profile is partially developed, providing some background, motivations, or biases.

Beginning

1 Points

Character profile is minimal and lacks essential details.

Criterion 2

Role-Relevant Podcast Analysis

Assesses the selection of relevant Serial podcast episodes and related events to the assigned character.

Exemplary

4 Points

Character has a masterful understanding of their assigned role that is shown through an explicit connection to multiple, highly relevant, podcast episodes.

Proficient

3 Points

Character demonstrates a solid understanding of their assigned role that is directly extracted from relevant podcast episodes.

Developing

2 Points

Character touches on information contained in the Serial podcast and attempts to demonstrate understanding of the assigned role.

Beginning

1 Points

Character profile appears disconnected from the Serial podcast content.

Criterion 3

Reflective Journal Entry

Assesses the quality and depth of the reflective journal entry from the character's perspective.

Exemplary

4 Points

The reflection is insightful and nuanced, capturing the character's perspective on key events and evidence with a strong sense of authenticity and emotional depth.

Proficient

3 Points

The reflection is clear and thoughtful, accurately portraying the character's perspective on key events and evidence.

Developing

2 Points

The reflection is present but may lack depth or clarity, showing a basic understanding of the character's perspective.

Beginning

1 Points

The reflection is minimal or missing, failing to capture the character's perspective.

Category 3

Argument Construction & Persuasion

This category assesses students' ability to construct arguments, develop persuasive language, and incorporate logical reasoning in their mock trial presentations.

Criterion 1

Argument Clarity & Organization

Assesses the clarity, logical structure, and organization of arguments and counterarguments.

Exemplary

4 Points

Arguments are exceptionally clear, logically structured, and persuasively organized with seamless transitions and compelling evidence.

Proficient

3 Points

Arguments are clear, logically structured, and well-organized with smooth transitions and relevant evidence.

Developing

2 Points

Arguments are somewhat clear but may lack logical structure or organization.

Beginning

1 Points

Arguments are unclear, disorganized, and lack logical structure.

Criterion 2

Persuasive Language Techniques

Assesses the effective use of persuasive language techniques (rhetorical questions, appeals to emotion, logical fallacies).

Exemplary

4 Points

Persuasive language is used masterfully and ethically to enhance the argument's impact with sophisticated and nuanced techniques.

Proficient

3 Points

Persuasive language is used effectively to strengthen the argument's impact with clear and appropriate techniques.

Developing

2 Points

Persuasive language is used inconsistently or inappropriately, with limited impact.

Beginning

1 Points

Persuasive language is absent or misused.

Criterion 3

Logical Soundness & Reasoning

Assesses the logical soundness and validity of the reasoning used in arguments and counterarguments.

Exemplary

4 Points

Reasoning is exceptionally sound, demonstrating critical thinking and a deep understanding of logical principles with compelling evidence and well-supported claims.

Proficient

3 Points

Reasoning is sound and logical, demonstrating clear critical thinking and well-supported claims.

Developing

2 Points

Reasoning contains some flaws or inconsistencies.

Beginning

1 Points

Reasoning is illogical or unsupported.

Reflection Prompts

End-of-project reflection questions to get students to think about their learning

Question 1

How did your initial perceptions of the case change as you listened to the Serial podcast and analyzed the evidence?

Text

Required

Question 2

To what extent did your assigned role in the mock trial influence your interpretation of the evidence and your arguments?

Scale

Required

Question 3

Which aspect of preparing for the mock trial (e.g., evidence analysis, argument construction, role-playing) did you find most challenging, and why?

Text

Required

Question 4

In what ways did the experience of participating in the mock trial enhance your understanding of the criminal justice system?

Text

Required

Question 5

How effectively do you think storytelling influenced the presentation of evidence and witness testimonies in the Serial podcast?

Scale

Required