Voices of Conviction: The Stand vs. The Outcome

Created byWhitney Whitaker

29 views1 downloads

Voices of Conviction: The Stand vs. The Outcome

Grade 8English3 days

In this intensive three-day English Language Arts project, eighth-grade students explore the ethical dilemma of whether the true value of taking a stand lies in the results achieved or the courage to speak out. Students analyze powerful voices like Chief Joseph and Aleeza Kazmi to identify persuasive techniques and "Golden Quote" evidence to anchor their arguments. After drafting concise scripts that incorporate rhetorical devices like ethos and pathos, students culminate the experience in a high-energy "speed-dating" oral presentation. This rapid-fire format challenges students to refine their delivery, adapt to their audience, and reflect on the impact of conviction in the face of adversity.

PersuasionRhetoricActivismOral CommunicationTextual EvidenceEthical InquiryPublic Speaking

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.How can we use persuasive techniques and evidence from powerful voices to convince our peers whether the true value of taking a stand lies in the results achieved or the courage to speak up?

Essential Questions

Supporting questions that break down major concepts.

How do Chief Joseph, Molly, and Aleeza Kazmi use their voices to challenge authority or injustice?
Which persuasive techniques—repetition, ethos, pathos, or logos—most effectively move an audience to action?
How does citing specific text evidence strengthen the credibility (ethos) of a speaker's argument?
If a person takes a stand but fails to achieve their goal, was the effort still successful?
How can we concisely communicate a powerful message in a short, high-energy setting like a speed-dating presentation?

Standards & Learning Goals

Learning Goals

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

Construct a persuasive argument that evaluates the significance of taking a stand versus the resulting outcome, supported by a clear claim.
Integrate specific textual evidence from "Words Do Not Pay," "Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence," or Aleeza Kazmi’s video to validate and strengthen an argumentative stance.
Incorporate at least one specific rhetorical device (repetition, appeal to emotion, appeal to reason, or appeal to authority) to influence an audience’s perspective.
Deliver a concise and engaging oral presentation in a speed-dating format, demonstrating effective pacing and clarity.
Analyze how authors or speakers in mentor texts use their voices to challenge authority, applying those observations to one's own speech.

Tennessee Academic Standards for English Language Arts

8.W.TTP.1

Primary

Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.Reason: The core of this project is developing a persuasive stance on a complex ethical question and supporting it with evidence.

8.SL.PKI.4

Primary

Present claims and findings, emphasizing salient points in a focused, coherent manner with relevant evidence, sound valid reasoning, and well-chosen details; use appropriate eye contact, adequate volume, and clear pronunciation.Reason: The project culminates in a speed-dating style presentation where students must communicate their message concisely and effectively to peers.

8.RI.KID.1

Secondary

Cite the textual evidence that most strongly supports an analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.Reason: Students are required to use specific evidence from the provided mentor texts to anchor their arguments.

8.RI.CS.8

Secondary

Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced.Reason: To create their own arguments, students must first analyze the persuasive techniques and evidence used in the mentor texts provided (Chief Joseph, Kazmi, etc.).

8.SL.PKI.6

Supporting

Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks, demonstrating command of formal English when indicated or appropriate.Reason: The speed-dating format requires students to adapt their delivery for a fast-paced, repetitive, and interpersonal context.

Entry Events

Events that will be used to introduce the project to students

The Viral Sacrifice Simulation

Students analyze a curated social media 'cancel culture' feed of a fictional influencer who spoke out against a popular trend and lost half their followers as a result. By analyzing the 'comments' and the 'video' (modeled after Kazmi’s style), students must argue if the influencer 'won' because they kept their voice or 'lost' because they lost their platform.

📚

Portfolio Activities

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

Activity 1

The Evidence Excavator

Before students can write their own speeches, they must act as 'investigators' of the mentor texts. In this activity, students will analyze the specific stand taken by characters or speakers in 'Words Do Not Pay,' 'Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence,' or the Aleeza Kazmi video. They will determine if the character's success came from the 'outcome' (winning the battle/reaching the goal) or the 'stand' (the act of speaking up regardless of the result). Students will then choose their own side of the project’s driving question and select the strongest piece of evidence to support it.

Steps

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

1. Re-examine the three mentor texts/videos and identify the 'stand' each person took and the 'outcome' they achieved.

2. Choose a side on the driving question: Does the outcome matter more, or the stand itself?

3. Select one 'Golden Quote' from your chosen text that supports your position. For example, if you believe the 'stand' matters most, find a quote from Chief Joseph that emphasizes the dignity of his words despite the surrender.

4. Draft a 2-3 sentence 'Connection Statement' explaining why this evidence is the strongest support for your claim.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityAn Evidence Blueprint: A graphic organizer containing the student's primary claim (Outcome vs. Stand), one selected quote from a mentor text, and a brief explanation of how that quote proves their point.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity aligns with standard 8.RI.KID.1, as students must cite textual evidence that most strongly supports their analysis. It also covers 8.RI.CS.8 by requiring students to evaluate the arguments of mentor texts (Chief Joseph, Molly, or Aleeza Kazmi) to determine how they took a stand and what the result was.

Activity 2

The Rhetorical Blueprint

In this activity, students transform their Evidence Blueprint into a persuasive speech script. They must choose at least one specific rhetorical 'power tool'—repetition, appeal to emotions (pathos), appeal to reason (logos), or appeal to authority (ethos)—to weave into their argument. This stage focuses on the 'how' of persuasion, ensuring the speech isn't just a list of facts, but a moving piece of oratory designed to convince their peers during the speed-dating event.

Steps

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

1. Write a 'hook' that introduces your stance on whether the outcome or the stand is more important.

2. Integrate your 'Golden Quote' from Activity 1 into the body of the speech, ensuring you provide context for the evidence.

3. Select your 'Power Tool' (persuasive technique). If using repetition, identify a key phrase to repeat. If using pathos, add descriptive language that evokes a specific emotion.

4. Read the script aloud to a partner to check the flow and timing; the speech should be between 60 and 90 seconds.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityThe Power Script: A written speech (approximately 150-200 words) that includes a clear claim, integrated text evidence, and at least one highlighted persuasive technique.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity aligns with 8.W.TTP.1, where students write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence. By intentionally using persuasive techniques, they are meeting the project requirement for rhetorical devices, which supports the 'well-chosen details' and 'valid reasoning' aspects of 8.SL.PKI.4.

Activity 3

The Rapid-Fire Orator

This is the final performance phase. Using a 'speed-dating' format, students will rotate through the classroom, delivering their speech to a new peer every two minutes. This repetition allows students to refine their delivery, experiment with vocal emphasis, and see which parts of their argument resonate most with an audience. After several rounds, students will reflect on which techniques were most effective in the moment.

Steps

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

1. Set up the room in two circles (inner and outer) or rows facing each other to facilitate the speed-dating rotation.

2. Deliver your speech to your first 'date.' Focus on eye contact and using a volume that is audible but respectful of the other speakers in the room.

3. Listen to your partner's speech and provide one specific piece of feedback: Did the evidence convince you? Did the persuasive technique work?

4. Rotate to the next partner when the timer sounds, attempting to make your delivery even more confident with each 'round.'

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityLive Speech Performance & Feedback Log: Students deliver their speech multiple times and collect 'influence points' or short feedback notes from their peers regarding the clarity of their claim and the impact of their persuasive technique.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsThis activity aligns with 8.SL.PKI.4, focusing on presenting claims and findings in a focused, coherent manner with eye contact and volume. It also meets 8.SL.PKI.6, as students must adapt their speech to the fast-paced 'speed-dating' context, demonstrating a command of formal English while remaining engaging.

🏆

Rubric & Reflection

Portfolio Rubric

Grading criteria for assessing the overall project portfolio

The Power of the Stand: Persuasive Speech Rubric

Category 1

Content and Argumentation

Focuses on the structural integrity of the argument and the quality of the supporting evidence from mentor texts.

Criterion 1

Claim and Argument Development (8.W.TTP.1)

The student develops a clear, compelling claim that addresses whether the outcome or the stand itself is more important, supported by logical reasoning.

Exemplary

4 Points

Develops a sophisticated and nuanced claim that deeply explores the tension between outcome and action. Reasoning is exceptionally clear, logical, and compelling, demonstrating a high level of critical thinking.

Proficient

3 Points

Develops a clear and focused claim that directly answers the driving question. Reasons are logical and support the argument effectively throughout the speech.

Developing

2 Points

Develops a claim that is identifiable but may be simple or inconsistent. Reasoning provides basic support but may lack depth or clarity in some areas.

Beginning

1 Points

The claim is unclear, missing, or does not address the driving question. Reasoning is insufficient or unrelated to the topic.

Criterion 2

Textual Evidence & Analysis (8.RI.KID.1)

The student effectively integrates 'Golden Quotes' from mentor texts (Words Do Not Pay, Rabbit-Proof Fence, or Aleeza Kazmi) to anchor their argument.

Exemplary

4 Points

Seamlessly integrates highly relevant evidence with insightful analysis that explains the deeper connection between the text and the student's own stance. Analysis goes beyond the surface.

Proficient

3 Points

Cites relevant textual evidence that supports the claim. The connection statement clearly explains how the evidence proves the student's point.

Developing

2 Points

Includes evidence from a mentor text, but the connection to the claim is weak, literal, or requires more explanation to be effective.

Beginning

1 Points

Evidence is missing, inaccurate, or quoted without any explanation or connection to the argument.

Category 2

Persuasion and Presentation

Evaluates the student's ability to use language and delivery to move an audience and adapt to the social context of the presentation.

Criterion 1

Rhetorical Devices (8.RI.CS.8)

The student intentionally uses at least one rhetorical device (repetition, ethos, pathos, or logos) to influence the audience.

Exemplary

4 Points

Masterfully employs one or more persuasive techniques that significantly enhance the emotional or logical impact of the speech. The technique feels natural and powerful.

Proficient

3 Points

Correctly and effectively incorporates at least one specific persuasive technique (e.g., repetition, appeal to emotion) to strengthen the argument.

Developing

2 Points

Attempts to use a persuasive technique, but the application is inconsistent, forced, or does not clearly support the intended impact.

Beginning

1 Points

No identifiable persuasive technique is used, or the technique used is inappropriate for the purpose of the speech.

Criterion 2

Oral Delivery & Adaptation (8.SL.PKI.4 / 8.SL.PKI.6)

The student delivers the speech with appropriate volume, eye contact, and pacing, specifically adapted for the speed-dating format.

Exemplary

4 Points

Delivery is exceptionally engaging and professional. The student adapts perfectly to the fast-paced format, showing leadership in the rotation and maintaining high energy throughout all rounds.

Proficient

3 Points

Presents findings in a focused, coherent manner. Maintains consistent eye contact, adequate volume, and clear pronunciation. Stays within the 60-90 second timeframe.

Developing

2 Points

Delivery is audible but may lack eye contact or vocal variety. The student may struggle with the timing (too short or too long) or show inconsistency across rotations.

Beginning

1 Points

Speech is difficult to hear or understand. The student relies heavily on reading the script and does not engage with the audience or the speed-dating format.

Reflection Prompts

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

Question 1

After hearing your peers' speeches during the speed-dating rounds, has your perspective on 'the outcome vs. the stand' shifted? Why or why not?

Text

Required

Question 2

Which persuasive technique did you feel was your 'power tool'—the one that most clearly moved or convinced your audience during your presentations?

Multiple choice

Required

Options

Repetition (building rhythm/emphasis)

Appeal to Emotion (Pathos)

Appeal to Reason (Logos)

Appeal to Authority (Ethos)

Question 3

How much did the 'speed-dating' format (repeating your speech multiple times) improve your confidence and delivery from the first round to the last?

Scale

Required

Question 4

Reflecting on the mentor texts (Chief Joseph, Molly, or Aleeza Kazmi), which author's style of 'taking a stand' most heavily influenced the way you wrote your own speech?

Text

Optional

Question 5

What was the most challenging aspect of taking this project from launch to presentation in only three days?

Multiple choice

Optional

Options

Finding the right 'Golden Quote' for evidence

Integrating a persuasive technique naturally

Managing the fast-paced speed-dating rotations

Developing a clear claim in such a short time