In Defense of Boredom
An original essay arguing that boredom has a job — built so its architecture shows. Students dissect one paragraph down to the role of each sentence (RI.8.5), map the author's viewpoint, and analyze the two paragraphs where the essay does the honest thing: takes the strongest objection seriously and concedes what it must (RI.8.6).
Common Core standards covered
- RI.8.5Analyze in detail the structure of a specific paragraph in a text, including the role of particular sentences in developing and refining a key concept.
- RI.8.6Determine an author's point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how the author acknowledges and responds to conflicting evidence or viewpoints.
© Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
Teacher-facing overview
Big idea: Analyze in detail the structure of a specific paragraph, including the role of particular sentences in developing a key concept; determine the author's point of view and analyze how the author acknowledges and responds to conflicting evidence and viewpoints.
Student target: “I can name the role each sentence plays in a paragraph's development of a key concept, state the author's point of view precisely — including its limits — and analyze how the author acknowledges and answers conflicting viewpoints.”
Success criteria: I can dissect a paragraph into sentence-jobs: claim, definition, refinement, analogy, evidence, image. · I can argue what breaks when a specific sentence is deleted. · I can state the author's viewpoint with its self-imposed limits (¶2, ¶6). · I can analyze a concession: what is given, and what the giving buys.
Essential question
A paragraph is a machine made of sentences, and an argument is strongest where it gives ground. What job is each sentence doing — and why would an author hand the other side a microphone?
Learning target: I can name the role each sentence plays in a paragraph's development of a key concept, state the author's point of view precisely — including its limits — and analyze how the author acknowledges and answers conflicting viewpoints.
Success criteria
- I can dissect a paragraph into sentence-jobs: claim, definition, refinement, analogy, evidence, image.
- I can argue what breaks when a specific sentence is deleted.
- I can state the author's viewpoint with its self-imposed limits (¶2, ¶6).
- I can analyze a concession: what is given, and what the giving buys.
Why this matters
RI.8.5 in Grade 8 zooms all the way in: not the text's structure, a PARAGRAPH's structure — the role of particular sentences. That skill is invisible until someone shows students that paragraphs are machines: this essay's ¶3 runs seven sentences with seven distinct jobs, and the dissection transfers to every paragraph they'll ever write. RI.8.6 pairs naturally: the essay's viewpoint is stated with limits, its strongest objection is voiced at full strength and half-conceded, and its response to conflicting evidence is to shrink the claim — the exact honesty moves students need to read in editorials and perform in their own argument writing, one unit from now.
Students should already be able to
- Claim vs. evidence, informally.
- The concession move (from The Case for Sleeping In, ideally).
- Citing by paragraph number.
Where this shows up outside the classroom
Assessment plan
Formative — for feedback during the lesson
- Warm-up — inward-turn examples collected for ¶1's verification.
- Viewpoint map — fences cited before the dissection begins.
- Grid circulation — deletion proofs present before the concession audit.
Summative — the graded evidence: Exit ticket (anatomy row + fence + concession) plus the completed grid; the weak-¶4 rewrite and transfer dissection rank as extension evidence.
The passage: “In Defense of Boredom”
An original essay written for this lesson (≈640 words). Reproduce freely for your classroom.
¶1 You are in the back seat of a long car ride, phone dead, charger forgotten. For the first ten minutes this is a disaster. Somewhere in the eleventh, something strange happens: you start narrating the towns you pass, or redesigning your bedroom in your head, or replaying an argument until you finally think of the thing you should have said. Nobody taught you to do this. Boredom did.
¶2 This essay will argue something unfashionable: that boredom is not a malfunction to be engineered away but a mental state with a job to do — and that the total elimination of boredom, which our devices have nearly achieved, quietly costs more than it saves. That is not an argument against phones. It is an argument for occasionally being unreachable by anything interesting.
🔒 The full text — 7 numbered paragraphs, plus the photocopy-ready handout — ships in the kit. See plans →
The task students work on
The class dissects ¶3 sentence by sentence — seven sentences, seven jobs — arguing what breaks if each is deleted. Then the viewpoint map: the author's claim WITH its two self-imposed fences (¶2's 'not against phones,' ¶6's 'first kind only'). Finally the concession audit: what ¶4, ¶5, and ¶6 each give the other side, and what each gift buys. Cite by ¶ and sentence number (¶3 s4).
The ¶3 anatomy grid — one row per sentence. What breaks if it's deleted?
| Sentence (¶3 s#) | Its job | What breaks without it |
|---|---|---|
| s1 — 'Consider what boredom actually is…' | ||
| s2–s3 — the definition and 'The discomfort is the point.' | ||
| s4 — 'Like hunger… it is a signal…' | ||
| s5 — 'Hunger sends you to the kitchen. Boredom… sends you inward…' | ||
| s6 — the default mode network | ||
| s7 — 'the mental equivalent of a shop cleaning itself…' |
Anticipated student strategies
Job naming first because dissection needs vocabulary. Deletion testing second — it converts labels into arguments. Microphone tracking last, expanding from one paragraph's anatomy to the essay's handling of opposition.
- Job naming. The student labels each sentence with a role word (frame, define, refine, analogize, apply, evidence, image) before any analysis.
The intended entry — the vocabulary makes the machine visible. Share first.
🔒 2 more anticipated strategies with select-and-sequence guidance are in the full lesson. See plans →
Lesson script
Collect: daydreams, plans, imaginary arguments, songs stuck on loop, counting things. Board them. Name the move: the essay we're reading claims all of this is a system working, not a system failing — and our job today is not to agree or disagree. It's to X-ray HOW the essay argues: one paragraph down to its bones, and the places the author lets the other side talk.
Listen for: Usually no one — the inward turn is near-universal, which is exactly the card the essay plays in ¶1. Students have pre-verified the hook.
The full essay is in the workbook and the handout. Board the viewpoint precisely: boredom (of the exitable kind) has a cognitive job, and eliminating all of it costs more than it saves. Then the fences: ¶2 — 'not an argument against phones'; ¶6 — 'defends the first kind only' (exitable, not trapped). Ask why an author would shrink their own claim: a small claim is defensible; a grand one ('boredom is magic') would die in one counterexample. Precision of viewpoint IS the RI.8.6 skill — most students state authors' positions bigger than the authors do.
- A viewpoint has a size — read the fences, not just the flag.
- Purpose: persuade, but toward a small experiment, not a conversion.
Listen for: 'Phones are bad and boredom is good' — which both fences explicitly forbid. The gap between the lazy version and the fenced version is the day's calibration.
🔒 The remaining 4 steps — fully scripted with teacher-says lines, discourse questions, look-fors, and interventions — are in the full lesson. See plans →
Misconceptions and how to respond
- “The author is against phones.” ¶2 forbids that reading in advance: 'not an argument against phones.' The claim is about scheduling gaps, not abandoning devices — viewpoint has a size, and this one is deliberately small. Read the fences.
- “Conceding weakens an argument.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “Every sentence in a paragraph does the same job: support the topic.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “¶5 is calling the tech industry evil.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
🔒 Every misconception ships with a tested classroom response. See plans →
Scaffolded practice
The workbook follows gradual release rather than a page of blank prompts: 2 fully worked, 2 partially completed, then 4 independent.
- I doLiteral first — the viewpoint with its fences. State the author's claim, then quote both sentences that limit it.
🔒 7 more prompts across all three release tiers are in the full lesson. See plans →
Worked solutions and scaffolds for every prompt are in the downloadable kit, included with membership. See plans and pricing.
Exit ticket
- Pick one sentence from ¶3: its job, and what breaks if it's deleted.
🔒 2 more exit-ticket questions are in the full lesson. See plans →
Worked answers, the completed answer tables, and the scoring rubric are in the downloadable kit, included with membership. See plans and pricing.
Printable handouts in the kit
All handouts are in Printable_Handouts.pdf inside the kit download.
Materials and classroom resources
Student experience
Students enter through a low-floor prompt, build or sketch a model, test a strategy, revise their thinking, collaborate, and present a final solution. The task remains accessible while allowing for sophisticated reasoning.
Detailed facilitation notes
- Step 1: First read: the essay straight through, no marking. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 2: Dissect ¶3 sentence by sentence: name each sentence's job. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 3: Map the author's viewpoint — and the exact sentences that limit it. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 4: Analyze the concessions: what does the essay give away in ¶4–¶6, and why? Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
Differentiation and inclusion
Support: The sentence-role vocabulary (claim, definition, analogy, evidence, refinement) makes ¶3 dissectable by every reader; extend with the who-benefits paragraph (¶5) and the write-the-missing-objection challenge.
Language support: “I started by…”, “My model shows…”, and “I know my answer is reasonable because…”.
Extension: Require a second solution, alter a condition, or have students write a challenge for another group.
Accessibility: Manipulatives, enlarged visuals, oral response choices, partner reading, and reduced-copy student pages.
Assessment plan
Formative checks: Strategy choice, accuracy, representation, collaboration, and explanation.
End evidence: One sentence-anatomy row (sentence, role, ¶) and one concession analysis: what the author gives the other side, and what the giving buys.
Mastery: The student completes the task accurately and explains the strategy with limited prompting.