METAPHOR STRATEGY
The Metaphor strategy can be used to deepen students’ insights and to challenge students to speculate, apply their intuition, and perceive things in new and
different ways. Think of an area in your curriculum that lends itself well to the Metaphor strategy. Design a lesson that incorporates one of the three types of
Metaphor strategies (direct analogy, personal analogy, or compressed conflict) described by Silver. In your descriiption of the lesson, be certain to include the
following:
Indicate the area of your curriculum being taught.
Identify the Learning Objective(s).
Following the guidelines from the Metaphor Strategy media segment, explain how you would implement the type of Metaphor strategy you selected for this
lesson.
Identify the cultural implications that could impact the outcome of your lesson using this strategy.
Integrate instructional technology into this lesson for a more enhanced learning experience.
Briefly explain how this strategy relates to brain-based research on how to best facilitate student learning
Sample Solution
Area of Curriculum: Science, specifically the Water Cycle Learning Objective: Understand the components and processes of the water cycle through direct analogy, personal analogy, and compressed conflict metaphors. Using Direct Analogy: To begin the lesson, I would have students generate a list of possible analogies they may already know related to the water cycle. Once we have discussed these ideas as a class, I will introduce a simplified version of what is happening in each part of the water cycle process. For example, evaporation can be compared to taking out laundry from a machine - when you open up the door steam is released indicating that it is hot inside and has been 'evaporating' due to an increase in temperature. This way students can take something they are familiar with and make connections between their lives and its application within an academic setting such as science.
irst, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’