A Two-Lesson Simile and Metaphor Sequence with Scaffolded Essay Writing
Students move from foundational figurative language notes into two poems of increasing emotional and analytical weight: Langston Hughes' "Dreams" and Gregg Shapiro's "Tattoo." The sequence builds simile and metaphor identification into a full analytical essay, using guided fill-in-blank notes, a template thesis, and a tell me/show me/explain body paragraph structure so students never face a blank page without a scaffold underneath them. A peer editing checklist closes the loop before final submission.
This sequence is built for secondary students, and it is intentionally scaffolded for classes with a wide range of reading and writing readiness, including students who are below grade level in composition and students with 504 accommodations for attention. Creating fill-in-blank notes keeps the cognitive load on the concept, not on transcription, and the essay moves through a fully modeled example ("Dreams") before asking students to apply the same skills independently ("Tattoo").
Content note: "Tattoo" addresses a Holocaust survivor's tattooed identification number and the intergenerational weight of that trauma on his son. This pairs naturally with a Holocaust literature or history unit and should be introduced with the same historical scaffolding used for that content. In a Christian education classroom, a reflection question asking how a Christian's view of purpose differs from Hughes' view of dreams offers a natural point to connect the literary analysis to a faith-integrated classroom without requiring it.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.9-10.4 — Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in the text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the cumulative impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.9-10.2 — Determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze its development over the course of the text.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.9-10.2 — Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.9-10.9 — Draw evidence from literary texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.9-10.5 — Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.1 — Initiate and participate effectively in collaborative discussions, building on others' ideas and expressing their own clearly (peer editing, partner discussion of poems).
The task: Identify examples of imagery in "Tattoo" and explain how they help achieve the author's purpose, in a three-paragraph essay (introduction, body, conclusion) built on a template thesis and a "tell me, show me, explain" evidence structure.
Why this works
The model comes first. Students see a complete, annotated sample essay on "Dreams" before they draft their own on "Tattoo." The move from guided to independent practice happens across the same skill set, not across an unfamiliar one.
The template thesis removes a common stall point.
"The author uses ___ and ___, forms of figurative language, to create imagery to achieve his/her overall point that ___" gives every student, regardless of writing confidence, a sentence they can complete and build from.
Tell me ➔ show me ➔ explain breaks analysis into discrete, checkable steps.
Naming the device, quoting and citing it, and explaining its connection to the thesis are three separate, smaller asks rather than one large one. This is especially useful for students who struggle to sustain a longer analytical move on their own.
The peer editing checklist does double duty. It is a revision tool for students and an at-a-glance formative check for the teacher, covering structure, citation mechanics, and the no-summary requirement in a single pass.
There is an explicit "you don't have to agree with the author's message" statement made to students. This protects the assignment's purpose. Students are asked to explain how the author builds the point, not to defend or refute it, which keeps the task focused on textual analysis rather than personal argument, while still leaving room for opinion where the prompt invites it.
The rhythm is: Teach the vocabulary once, apply it to an easier poem as a class, then hand the same tools to students for a harder poem and a real piece of writing. This structure is fully replicable with any two poems of increasing difficulty. Swap in a different accessible poem for Lesson 10 and a different complex poem for Lesson 11, and the notes pages, template thesis, and peer editing checklist all carry over unchanged.
A real narrative is true story about yourself with a reflection. Students choose a real, personally significant experience and shape it into a structured narrative: an introduction that sets scene and character without giving the story away, a middle that moves the reader through events using strong verbs and clear time-and-place transitions, and a conclusion that reflects on why the moment mattered. Along the way students practice six different ways to open a narrative, punctuate dialogue correctly, cut irrelevant details and stringy sentences, and give and receive peer feedback before submitting a typed final draft.
Standards overview: This unit centers on narrative writing technique: sequencing events, using dialogue and description to develop a real experience, and revising for sentence-level clarity. Peer editing and a structured reflection component tie in speaking/listening and writing-process standards as well.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.3 – Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, relevant descriptive details, and well-structured event sequences.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.3.A – Engage and orient the reader by establishing a context and point of view and introducing a narrator and/or characters; organize an event sequence that unfolds naturally and logically.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.3.B – Use narrative techniques, such as dialogue, pacing, and description, to develop experiences, events, and/or characters.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.3.C – Use a variety of transition words, phrases, and clauses to convey sequence and signal shifts from one time frame or setting to another.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.3.D – Use precise words and phrases, relevant descriptive details, and sensory language to capture the action and convey experiences and events.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.3.E – Provide a conclusion that follows from and reflects on the narrated experiences or events.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.5 – With guidance and support from peers and adults, strengthen writing by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on how well purpose and audience have been addressed.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.7.1 – Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when writing.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.7.2 – Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing (including correct punctuation of dialogue).
Exact standard numbers reflect CCSS ELA and may need to be double-checked against your state's current adopted edition, and against the confirmed grade level above (the parallel 6th and 8th grade W.3 standards follow the same lettered structure if the grade shifts).
Project overview: Students choose one of two RAFT-based prompts, either narrating something they learned over the past year or an impactful experience they had recently, and write a complete real narrative: title, 3–5 sentence introduction (setting, characters, and a "big tease" that hints at the coming problem or event without revealing it), 2–3 body paragraphs of 4–5 sentences each carrying the reader through the event, and a 3–5 sentence conclusion that closes with a reflective statement. The final typed draft is scored against a 50-point rubric.
Giving students a choice between two prompts (something learned vs. an impactful experience) keeps the assignment personal without leaving it so open-ended that students struggle to find a topic.
Building the introduction from a bank of six techniques (character/setting, adding the problem or event, a strong statement, a surprising fact, an engaging question, or dialogue) gives students concrete entry points instead of a blank page, while still requiring them to combine at least two techniques rather than defaulting to the flattest option.
The "big tease" language trains students to hint at conflict rather than announce it outright, which is the real skill distinguishing narrative writing from a simple retelling.
Requiring the reflective statement in the conclusion (what the writer felt, thought, or learned) keeps the assignment from ending as a plain recount and pushes students toward the personal insight that makes a real narrative worth reading.
Peer editing before the final draft, paired with a teacher conference, builds the revision habit named directly in W.7.5, and catches dialogue punctuation and stringy-sentence issues before they're graded.
Unit Rhythm
Generate ideas — RAFT breakdown of the prompt, questionnaire, oral retelling to a partner.
Plan — B-M-E picture planner, story element review (characters, setting, problem, solution).
Draft the introduction — six-ways-to-start worksheet, "the big tease," peer identification of technique used.
Draft the middle — timeline of beginning/middle/end events (minimum three middle events), transition word bank (time-to-time and place-to-place), strong verbs.
Draft the conclusion — reflective statement, examples of meaningful endings (expressing emotion, stating a theme, reflecting on the ending).
Revise — peer edit for capitalization, adjectives, end punctuation, dialogue formatting, and relevance (cutting sentences that drift from the story's focus).
Submit — typed final draft via Google Classroom, scored against the 50-point rubric.
Essential Questions
What relevant details make a personal narrative come alive?
What is chronological order, and how do transitions signal a shift in time or place?
How do I punctuate dialogue correctly?
How does a person's self "shine through" in his or her writing?
Students paired a personalized research paper with the novel I Lived on Butterfly Hill or The Pearl, choosing a topic (for example: Hispanic and Latino culture, military and wars connected to Chile or Mexico) that lets them dig deeper into the world the novel opens up. Rather than writing a generic report, students move through an honest inquiry process: naming what they already know, assume, or imagine, testing those assumptions against real research, and then reflecting on what changed. The result is a short, well-organized paper (2 to 3 pages) that teaches research skills, MLA citation, and reflective writing at the same time.
Age-Appropriateness
This unit is built for grade 7-8 students. The scope is deliberately contained: three focused sections (Introduction and What I Know/Assume/Imagine, The Search, What I Discovered and Conclusion), a 2-3 page length, and a two-source minimum for full credit at the top tier. The topic list stays connected to a single shared text so students are extending a book they already know rather than starting from nothing. The pacing spreads topic selection, research, drafting, and peer editing across roughly four weeks, with in-class research log check-ins and teacher conferences built in so students aren't left to manage a multi-week project without structure. This is the right level of complexity for students who are ready for their first sustained research process but still need scaffolding around source evaluation, citation, and pacing.
Standards Overview
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.7 / W.8.7 — Conduct short research projects to answer a question, drawing on several sources and generating additional related questions for further research. The topic-selection and research-log phase is built around this: students narrow a broad theme into a workable question and keep a running log of sources.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.8 / W.8.8 — Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess credibility, and quote or paraphrase while avoiding plagiarism using a standard citation format. This is the direct target of the MLA formatting lesson, in-text citation practice, and the Works Cited requirement in the rubric.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.9 / W.8.9 — Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research. The link back to I Lived on Butterfly Hill keeps the research tethered to the novel instead of floating free of it.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.4 / W.8.4 — Produce clear and coherent writing in which development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience. The required subheadings (Introduction, What I Know/Assume/Imagine, The Search, What I Discovered, Conclusion) make this organization explicit and gradeable.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.5 / W.8.5 — With guidance from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing through planning, revising, and editing. The built-in peer review day and teacher conference for the introduction and first body paragraph both target this standard directly.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.7.1-3 / L.8.1-3 — Command of grammar, usage, and language conventions appropriate to grade level. Covered by the grammar and mechanics criteria on the rubric and the sentence-variation requirement on the point sheet.
Project Overview: Why This Works
The structure of this project (know/assume/imagine, then search, then discover) does something most research paper assignments skip: it makes students name their assumptions before they can correct them. A student who writes down what they assume about Chilean politics has something concrete to test against, and the gap between assumption and discovery becomes the actual content of the paper's reflection. That's a stronger thinking move than "find five facts and report them," and it gives students a built-in answer to the hardest part of reflective writing: what do I actually say in the conclusion.
Anchoring every topic choice to the same novel also solves the "any topic under the sun" problem. Students aren't paralyzed by unlimited choice, and the teacher isn't grading five completely unrelated papers with no shared vocabulary or shared touchstone. Everyone is extending the same book in a different direction, which makes whole-class discussion of research findings possible in a way that fully open topic lists don't allow.
The point-value breakdown does a lot of quiet work here, too. Splitting mechanics (heading, spacing, font), content (thesis, body paragraphs, conclusion), and research skills (citations, Works Cited, source quality) into separate line items means a student who is a strong researcher but a weak proofreader, or the reverse, can see exactly where their points went and what to fix next time. That's more useful feedback than a single holistic grade.
Unit Rhythm
The unit runs across four weeks, alternating writing days with the class's regular spelling cycle:
Launch and thesis groundwork — Bell-ringer work on thesis statements, then introduction of the personalized research paper itself. Students see a model of a completed paper before choosing anything.
Topic selection — Students narrow the five broad categories down to a specific, workable question. This step gets its own dedicated class days rather than being rushed, since a narrow, well-chosen topic drives everything downstream.
Research and logging — Multiple days of instruction on finding quality sources, plus in-class research time with a running research log. The log has a hard minimum (at least one source by the end of the first research week) so no student falls behind unnoticed.
Drafting in stages — Rather than assigning the whole paper at once, students type the introduction first, then What I Know/Assume/Imagine, then The Search, then the remaining body paragraph and conclusion. Each stage has its own due date, which keeps the workload visible and manageable.
MLA and citation instruction — A dedicated lesson on in-text citations and Works Cited formatting lands right as students have real source material to practice on, rather than as an abstract grammar lesson.
Conferencing and peer review — Teacher conferences on the introduction and first body paragraph happen while students continue typing later sections, so no one sits idle waiting for feedback. Peer editing follows once a full rough draft exists.
Revision and final submission — Students revise based on both teacher and peer feedback, combine all sections into one document, and submit a final draft.
The rhythm is designed so that no single day carries too much weight. Research, drafting, and revision are spread out with visible checkpoints (the research log, the staged typing due dates, the two conferences), which makes it possible to catch a student who is falling behind before the final draft is due rather than after.