Section 2 of Armageddon and Science
The question deals with the following:
Does the enhancement and advancement of humanity speed up the doomsday clock?
I can only answer with a depends. The advancement of humanity can give us tools to wipe each other out, to wipe out life on earth. Our advancement may get us to depend too much on technology, so much so that when an EMP like phenomena occurs, we become hopeless, losing our ability to adapt.
I feel that the advancement may have delayed the doomsday clock for humanity. Technology wiped out smallpox. Yes diseases could come by and ravage our populace but we can develop ways to a artificially combat it, healthy immune systems work well. Being able to have humans with the ability to be immune to such diseases would prolong our doomsday clock, although the humans would need the immunities in their body, therefore the diseases would still exist..we would not be affected by them.
Yes our technology harms the environment, but it did so back in the middle ages as well with massive geographical alterations and destruction of natural habitats, along with heavy deforestation. Having said that, technology can change that. Look t the newer forms of energy, solar, wind, clean coal, nuclear, LHC (if done right), artificial photosynthesis (would be huge if it works) etc. IF solar and wind become more efficient, we learn how to reuse and store and make safer the nuclear power, and get the LHC and photosynthesis to work our technology would become "greener."
Lastly, and this gets even more sci-fi, our advancement into space can delay the human doomsday clock. If we are to colonize worlds light years away, but through means that are FTL or CTL, when this planet gets wiped out by an asteroid or the sun exploding, humanity would still exist far out in the stars. yes I am aware that humanity will probably eb wiped out by the time the sun blows up, or is wiped out by a rapped race of teddy bear aliens, but still, expanding past our solar system increases the likelihood of longer human survival.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Armageddon...or the Science of it...
Section 1
So I know this is gonna sound like captain obvious but... I like the science behind this book, particularly the disasters etc. The part I liked is the LHC. I used to think that this thing would be the end of the world, but after further research it kind of excited me. The implications of it working..man think about it. It could be one of the new energy sources but, as the book so lovely put it, it takes more energy to create the energy that has less energy output. Of course there is always Cold Fusion ( probably impossible but a guy can dream can't he)
I liked the characterization of the science as childish because mashing two objects together to try to harness that energy does feel childish. But does not science have a childish nature to it, especially those sciences that explore and push the envelope. Science boils down to observation: I want to see what happens when I do A....I do A... B happens..lets see what happens when I do A with C.." etc.
What i would use this, the LHC, for social studies is perhaps linking it to other inventions and theories that worked, such as the light bulb, theory of relativity, harnessing nuclear power, the wheel, with things that have not, bad proto-airplanes, Florida State University etc.
We could link this to historical themes such as pushing the envelope vs not being risky, exploration comes to mind here, as well as themes of a hopeless dream , such as Byzantine Empire trying to retake italy or Japan trying to preserve it's isolation.
Section 1
So I know this is gonna sound like captain obvious but... I like the science behind this book, particularly the disasters etc. The part I liked is the LHC. I used to think that this thing would be the end of the world, but after further research it kind of excited me. The implications of it working..man think about it. It could be one of the new energy sources but, as the book so lovely put it, it takes more energy to create the energy that has less energy output. Of course there is always Cold Fusion ( probably impossible but a guy can dream can't he)
I liked the characterization of the science as childish because mashing two objects together to try to harness that energy does feel childish. But does not science have a childish nature to it, especially those sciences that explore and push the envelope. Science boils down to observation: I want to see what happens when I do A....I do A... B happens..lets see what happens when I do A with C.." etc.
What i would use this, the LHC, for social studies is perhaps linking it to other inventions and theories that worked, such as the light bulb, theory of relativity, harnessing nuclear power, the wheel, with things that have not, bad proto-airplanes, Florida State University etc.
We could link this to historical themes such as pushing the envelope vs not being risky, exploration comes to mind here, as well as themes of a hopeless dream , such as Byzantine Empire trying to retake italy or Japan trying to preserve it's isolation.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Starstruck : The Business of Celebrity
The part that stuck out to me is the segment about celebrity perception. “ It’s not an accident that all the stars are partying, walking down red carpets, or smiling for the camera in the same venues and on the same streets. In Los Angeles, for example, all of the Getty’s celebrity photographs occur within a very narrow spine along Sunset and Hollywood boulevards between Vine Street and the Beverly Hills Hotel. That’s about five miles east to west and a quarter mile north to south.” Couple that with the discussion about pseudo-events, not so random daily life photos, and the agents push to create a celebrity persona, one would assume that it is fake. You have the reality of what Hollywood looks like, not pretty, is ti really fake? I do not really think it is fake, but mainly setting a narrative, telling a story. I believe that this relates to my students because this is the narrative they consume. They only see the narrative side of Hollywood and do not see the reality of it. Therefore the quest for fame may deviate their priorities. Also, my students may idolize the persona of a certain celebrity. Perhaps a celebrity persona promotes destructive behavior, while in reality the person may not partake in such behaviors.In addition, I can sue this in hsitory to tell about past "mass narratives" or zeitgiest-esc narrative, where the story may not be as clear cut as it appears. Perhaps popular folk tales about hero, glorifying them.
Question 2:
"A crucial part of modern celebrity is our desire to access celebrities through new forms of media and the creation of new types of stars."
There is no question that media has helped create easy access to celebrities and helped create reality show stars. Do you think people would still crave so much information about celebrities if technology was not here to give them the information right away? Is technology the main culprit for why our society is so obsessed with celebrities?
I believe that technology enables the democratic celebrity, and perpetuate and promote the hollywood mainstream celebrity. It also helps maintain this obsession of celebrity. On the other hand, local celebrity has always existed, such as Aunt Tillie and her pies, as reference in the book. I do not think there would be the degree of celebrity obsession, but there still will be a lot of celebrity "worshiping." There will always be that local hero, high school quarterback, and idolizing those big fish in small ponds. Although I do believe technology makes it easier to be obsessed and "connected" to the celebrity.
The part that stuck out to me is the segment about celebrity perception. “ It’s not an accident that all the stars are partying, walking down red carpets, or smiling for the camera in the same venues and on the same streets. In Los Angeles, for example, all of the Getty’s celebrity photographs occur within a very narrow spine along Sunset and Hollywood boulevards between Vine Street and the Beverly Hills Hotel. That’s about five miles east to west and a quarter mile north to south.” Couple that with the discussion about pseudo-events, not so random daily life photos, and the agents push to create a celebrity persona, one would assume that it is fake. You have the reality of what Hollywood looks like, not pretty, is ti really fake? I do not really think it is fake, but mainly setting a narrative, telling a story. I believe that this relates to my students because this is the narrative they consume. They only see the narrative side of Hollywood and do not see the reality of it. Therefore the quest for fame may deviate their priorities. Also, my students may idolize the persona of a certain celebrity. Perhaps a celebrity persona promotes destructive behavior, while in reality the person may not partake in such behaviors.In addition, I can sue this in hsitory to tell about past "mass narratives" or zeitgiest-esc narrative, where the story may not be as clear cut as it appears. Perhaps popular folk tales about hero, glorifying them.
Question 2:
"A crucial part of modern celebrity is our desire to access celebrities through new forms of media and the creation of new types of stars."
There is no question that media has helped create easy access to celebrities and helped create reality show stars. Do you think people would still crave so much information about celebrities if technology was not here to give them the information right away? Is technology the main culprit for why our society is so obsessed with celebrities?
I believe that technology enables the democratic celebrity, and perpetuate and promote the hollywood mainstream celebrity. It also helps maintain this obsession of celebrity. On the other hand, local celebrity has always existed, such as Aunt Tillie and her pies, as reference in the book. I do not think there would be the degree of celebrity obsession, but there still will be a lot of celebrity "worshiping." There will always be that local hero, high school quarterback, and idolizing those big fish in small ponds. Although I do believe technology makes it easier to be obsessed and "connected" to the celebrity.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
You are Not a Gadget...or are you?
In "You are Not a Gadget" Lanier asserts that there is a lack of creativity, creative thinking, and culture because of how we are using technology. I will first address evidence that supports his claim. Students can just copy anything they see off the internet to use for their projects, as I have seen in person. You see many trends online take hold, and everyone is doing it. Take multiplayer in single player games for examples, it is everywhere now - Some of you may understand this reference ;)) Critical thinking can decline from relying heavily on the computer to find the instant information, or using Google in a shallow manner.
I disagree with these views though. From my students alone, they created some pretty creative works through technology. They managed to use the tools they were given and put their own identity to it, adding their own character. On the meta level technology, particularly the internet, gives rise to a plethora of ways for one to be creative, there is blogger, you tube, comic life, twitter etc. one of the learning objects used in this presentation was a creative video , that can be used in the classroom to teach the students in a creative way. In fact using technology has opened up so many doors for just teachers alone when it comes to teaching. Just the basic fact that books can be placed on the internet, primary sources and secondary sources, gives teachers a great advantage because it requires little resources to have students read a historical primary source, and then analyze them. Technology is a tool that you can use for great purposes.
Lazy students will always be lazy, great students will always be great. I do not mean that an individual lazy student will always be lazy, but that students can be lazy without internet or general technology. All that means is that lazy people will use the internet in a lazy way and the non-lazy people will use it in a good way.
His third point ties into the question section:
Question 6:
The previous generation "holding back" "progress" is not something new...it existed for as long as man began to write , and of course soon after we had man's first trolling of the stone tablets. Older generations usually view changes as something wary, they have seen changes for the worse (and better) int heir lives, be it personal or world related. Also the idea of progress as moving from point A to B is also wrong. There is no set path to progress, in fact many paths lead to a society falling off a cliff, move to far in a direction things get messed up, that is what older generations fear.
From my experience the older generation is not holding back technology. I have met many from the Baby Boom generation, or those who were born soon after it, who love this new technology and embrace it. Those who do not usually do not use the technology anyways, therefore not affecting the use or nature of the technology because they have no interaction with it. Some of this advancement comes from the elder generations, see Bill Gates, Steve Jobs etc.
The culture has changed as well, we can access culture and create our own niche culture. YouTube casters have huge followings, music is shared easier, diversifying what is hear. Also , just because an older generations culture still exists, that does not mean it is holding anything back. I mean he points to the 60's and how nothing big came from it after but really, I don't care about anything from the 60's, except like Civil Rights, Moon Landings those things but not artsy cultural music stuff) Honestly, I can not care less about the Beatles, I listen to them and go "meh." Meanwhile music, art, and expression has changed. How many rockers, rappers, or even trumpet players say "the 60's really influenced me." Not alot, and if it did, they would also mention the 70's , 80's, 40's etc. Influences can come from many generations.
TLDR: No generation is holding back cultural or technological change. The advancement and improvements to both have come from both the young and the old.
In "You are Not a Gadget" Lanier asserts that there is a lack of creativity, creative thinking, and culture because of how we are using technology. I will first address evidence that supports his claim. Students can just copy anything they see off the internet to use for their projects, as I have seen in person. You see many trends online take hold, and everyone is doing it. Take multiplayer in single player games for examples, it is everywhere now - Some of you may understand this reference ;)) Critical thinking can decline from relying heavily on the computer to find the instant information, or using Google in a shallow manner.
I disagree with these views though. From my students alone, they created some pretty creative works through technology. They managed to use the tools they were given and put their own identity to it, adding their own character. On the meta level technology, particularly the internet, gives rise to a plethora of ways for one to be creative, there is blogger, you tube, comic life, twitter etc. one of the learning objects used in this presentation was a creative video , that can be used in the classroom to teach the students in a creative way. In fact using technology has opened up so many doors for just teachers alone when it comes to teaching. Just the basic fact that books can be placed on the internet, primary sources and secondary sources, gives teachers a great advantage because it requires little resources to have students read a historical primary source, and then analyze them. Technology is a tool that you can use for great purposes.
Lazy students will always be lazy, great students will always be great. I do not mean that an individual lazy student will always be lazy, but that students can be lazy without internet or general technology. All that means is that lazy people will use the internet in a lazy way and the non-lazy people will use it in a good way.
His third point ties into the question section:
Question 6:
The previous generation "holding back" "progress" is not something new...it existed for as long as man began to write , and of course soon after we had man's first trolling of the stone tablets. Older generations usually view changes as something wary, they have seen changes for the worse (and better) int heir lives, be it personal or world related. Also the idea of progress as moving from point A to B is also wrong. There is no set path to progress, in fact many paths lead to a society falling off a cliff, move to far in a direction things get messed up, that is what older generations fear.
From my experience the older generation is not holding back technology. I have met many from the Baby Boom generation, or those who were born soon after it, who love this new technology and embrace it. Those who do not usually do not use the technology anyways, therefore not affecting the use or nature of the technology because they have no interaction with it. Some of this advancement comes from the elder generations, see Bill Gates, Steve Jobs etc.
The culture has changed as well, we can access culture and create our own niche culture. YouTube casters have huge followings, music is shared easier, diversifying what is hear. Also , just because an older generations culture still exists, that does not mean it is holding anything back. I mean he points to the 60's and how nothing big came from it after but really, I don't care about anything from the 60's, except like Civil Rights, Moon Landings those things but not artsy cultural music stuff) Honestly, I can not care less about the Beatles, I listen to them and go "meh." Meanwhile music, art, and expression has changed. How many rockers, rappers, or even trumpet players say "the 60's really influenced me." Not alot, and if it did, they would also mention the 70's , 80's, 40's etc. Influences can come from many generations.
TLDR: No generation is holding back cultural or technological change. The advancement and improvements to both have come from both the young and the old.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
A Peculiar Institution
A Peculiar Blog...okay a sub-par blog.
For this blog the aspect of the death penalty being a catharsis for society is the issue I would like to discuss. Many societies has public executions for that reason. Rome had gladiator combat, feeding people to the lions, France had the guillotine, biblical era societies had stoning, or today in Afghanistan. This was to quell any tension, or blood lust, as society had. While the public execution may have been in place to set examples and keep order, this may have evolved into the catharsis release for society, like the Hunger Games.
In modern times, we still view the death penalty as catharsis. Yes we do no actually want to see the execution, but the trial, because the trial determines the sentence. In my life, I have encountered many who, upon hearing of a awful murder, murder-rape, etc. wanted themselves to hurt the individual who committed the crime. Their desire for their perceive just judgement increases if the suspect gets away. Look no further than the first O.J. Simpson trial, or the a Casey Anthony trial. Upon hearing and seeing these crimes, people wants someone to die. The idea that that someone could murder a child and still breathe seems unjust to them, that is why many turned to the Casey Anthony. That is why the idea that the death penalty as a catharsis for society makes sense.
I could sue this in my class to connect it to my students lives. How many of them had a friend who was cheated on, or done wrong by a close friend, strangers, former boyfriend or girlfriend? How many of them wanted something to happen to that person, and when something did happen, how many thought "serves them right." I would ask how they felt if they found out that boyfriend or stranger etc. actually didn't do anything wrong and was a mistake, how would they feel then? I would also try to connect it to the question of should society use the death penalty as a release? Is it healthy? Is it human? can society have catharsis at the expense of a potentially innocent person? How can society experience catharsis if the procedure takes decades? Which is more humane, the quick procedure to end a life thus keeping someone rotting away in a cell, or the prolonged procedure to give the system a chance of finding out they have the wrong person and releasing him/her?
On a side note, I know my analogy is not exactly correct, but I would come up with a better one as I prepare the lesson for my class.
Section 2:
I am going to tackle question number 4, regarding how the christian countries seem to have the death penalty. I spoke of this a little bit in the BBB session but perhaps I can create something a bit more coherent in this blog.
I think part of it comes from what Danielle said in the BBB. Maybe it is a coincidence that Christianity is part of the overall culture that features the death penalty. Also, if one were to look into the bible, there are numerous cases of Jews and Christians doing the exact opposite of what they are suppose to do. They are, after all human. Therefore a Christian living in a culture that features the death penalty, may not like it, but may still support it, because of their human side. To sum it all up: Christians, like everyone else, are hypocrites, myself included. Just because someone is a Christian, that does not mean they will live up to the standards they have to live up to because they are human. The church supported crusades one the basis of "Just War." Christians served in the roman army, some killing other men, and hated doing so. To me it is the earthly vs heavenly pulls on the conscious.
On another level, while we are a nation founded on Judea-Christian values, we do not have a government designed for one faith; there is no state or "official" religion. If I were to speculate, if Christians opposed to the death penalty rose up and set forth laws banning the death penalty, citing religious beliefs, and even using the cruel and unusual punishment found int eh constitution, there would be many who would see it as an attempt of Christians to rule by theocracy. That is not to say the opposite could happen; the reaction could be all well and fine. Obviously there are many holes in this instance , but it is just one scenario.
I can go on and on about why a Christian may support the death penalty, or not be against it, but this is not a theology class, and if I have to go into metaphysics and other such things I might be getting a little bit off topic /sarcasm. I think it comes down to what Danielle said about Christianity being one aspect of the culture that has the death penalty.
Let me know if you agree, disagree, do not care, or think I am a right wing christian fanatic who has an altar of Ronald Reagan holding an assault rifle, with Jesus carrying a with an American flag ,in his closet....what? have I said too much?
A Peculiar Blog...okay a sub-par blog.
For this blog the aspect of the death penalty being a catharsis for society is the issue I would like to discuss. Many societies has public executions for that reason. Rome had gladiator combat, feeding people to the lions, France had the guillotine, biblical era societies had stoning, or today in Afghanistan. This was to quell any tension, or blood lust, as society had. While the public execution may have been in place to set examples and keep order, this may have evolved into the catharsis release for society, like the Hunger Games.
In modern times, we still view the death penalty as catharsis. Yes we do no actually want to see the execution, but the trial, because the trial determines the sentence. In my life, I have encountered many who, upon hearing of a awful murder, murder-rape, etc. wanted themselves to hurt the individual who committed the crime. Their desire for their perceive just judgement increases if the suspect gets away. Look no further than the first O.J. Simpson trial, or the a Casey Anthony trial. Upon hearing and seeing these crimes, people wants someone to die. The idea that that someone could murder a child and still breathe seems unjust to them, that is why many turned to the Casey Anthony. That is why the idea that the death penalty as a catharsis for society makes sense.
I could sue this in my class to connect it to my students lives. How many of them had a friend who was cheated on, or done wrong by a close friend, strangers, former boyfriend or girlfriend? How many of them wanted something to happen to that person, and when something did happen, how many thought "serves them right." I would ask how they felt if they found out that boyfriend or stranger etc. actually didn't do anything wrong and was a mistake, how would they feel then? I would also try to connect it to the question of should society use the death penalty as a release? Is it healthy? Is it human? can society have catharsis at the expense of a potentially innocent person? How can society experience catharsis if the procedure takes decades? Which is more humane, the quick procedure to end a life thus keeping someone rotting away in a cell, or the prolonged procedure to give the system a chance of finding out they have the wrong person and releasing him/her?
On a side note, I know my analogy is not exactly correct, but I would come up with a better one as I prepare the lesson for my class.
Section 2:
I am going to tackle question number 4, regarding how the christian countries seem to have the death penalty. I spoke of this a little bit in the BBB session but perhaps I can create something a bit more coherent in this blog.
I think part of it comes from what Danielle said in the BBB. Maybe it is a coincidence that Christianity is part of the overall culture that features the death penalty. Also, if one were to look into the bible, there are numerous cases of Jews and Christians doing the exact opposite of what they are suppose to do. They are, after all human. Therefore a Christian living in a culture that features the death penalty, may not like it, but may still support it, because of their human side. To sum it all up: Christians, like everyone else, are hypocrites, myself included. Just because someone is a Christian, that does not mean they will live up to the standards they have to live up to because they are human. The church supported crusades one the basis of "Just War." Christians served in the roman army, some killing other men, and hated doing so. To me it is the earthly vs heavenly pulls on the conscious.
On another level, while we are a nation founded on Judea-Christian values, we do not have a government designed for one faith; there is no state or "official" religion. If I were to speculate, if Christians opposed to the death penalty rose up and set forth laws banning the death penalty, citing religious beliefs, and even using the cruel and unusual punishment found int eh constitution, there would be many who would see it as an attempt of Christians to rule by theocracy. That is not to say the opposite could happen; the reaction could be all well and fine. Obviously there are many holes in this instance , but it is just one scenario.
I can go on and on about why a Christian may support the death penalty, or not be against it, but this is not a theology class, and if I have to go into metaphysics and other such things I might be getting a little bit off topic /sarcasm. I think it comes down to what Danielle said about Christianity being one aspect of the culture that has the death penalty.
Let me know if you agree, disagree, do not care, or think I am a right wing christian fanatic who has an altar of Ronald Reagan holding an assault rifle, with Jesus carrying a with an American flag ,in his closet....what? have I said too much?
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
The Devil is in the Details!
Section 1:
Section 1:
The road to hell
is paved with good intentions. What I am
talking about is about the notion of home ownership linked to the American
Dream. Modern American dream theory, or perhaps 50’s to early 00’s, is that the
American Dream is the house with the
white picket fence, a dog named sparky, and that rascal neighbor child who will
eventually date your daughter creating hilarious
sitcom material and run on sentences. Next thing you know, policies start being
implemented to put people in homes because everyone should have a home. Firms start bundling mortgages, I will skip over
the complicated process of doing so but the Learning Object and the visual
video history found in the resources section provide good information on how
the process works, enabled this to
happen.
Fast-forward and
you have the entrenched entitlement philosophy where Wall Street is trying to
out due Fannie and Freddie, corruption in government and Wall Street, promoting
bad predatory practices so people can get into homes, even if they cannot afford
it, in exchange for votes, and thus the perfect storm is born. That is what I
find interesting about the section. An idea everyone thinks is good, home
ownership. While the idea of property
ownership, and its status in society, was something to be attainable in the
founding of the country, there is a reason why the phrase “Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of Property” was changed to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness.” It’s a more realistic outlook, not everyone at the time, and today in
regards of home ownership, can or should have property. Also happiness creates a
better, optimistic, view that invokes feelings of freedom than the idea of
property.
What we can do
with this in the secondary social studies classroom, is to compare modern views
of what is “the founding spirit of America” with what the founders actually
said. We can have students compare past politicians and economists expressing home-ownership
and the American Dream with the founding ideas expressed by the Founding
fathers, even the letters between two founders who did not agree with each
other. We can also use this to teach students to think critically, as the idea
of the “American Dream” had no origins within the foundation of the country.
Section 2:
To answer question number 4. No. So long as there is corruption and greed in Washington and Wall Street there will be another crisis. In addition, when those who helped cause the crisis, or who blundered through it, are writing the bills to prevent it, my faith in the bill's ability to do anything positive is no existent. We had regulatory committees full of people who benefited from Fannie and Freddie, who got friends and loved ones in jobs, who lambasted the regulator, people who have gone back and forth between these companies to Washington and back to these quasi-governmental companies. When the blind lead the blind, we are likely to fall into a hole.
In addition, even if these safeguards are placed in, there are chances that the very preventatives we place may end up causing another crisis, or prolong the crisis making a bigger crisis; unintended consequences. We cannot stop all crisis from happening, what we can do is adapt correctly, and respond correctly, to the ones that we face.
The way our economic system is set up, there will be booms and busts as the market fluctuates. There have been times when things have crashed, 1920. The response was to let the market correct itself and we got the roaring 1920s. It crashed in the 1930s, where some say our response to the 1930 crisis, not letting things work out itself, prolonged the Great Depression. then again that was a different time, each crisis is different. as much as history repeats itself, the details are not always the same.
In today's age, we all want control, we do not like chaos, or what we perceive as chaos. That is why the idea of controlling the market to get the booms without the busts, having cake and eating it too, is a temptatious idea. This is a fallacy because you can have a controlled economy and it will have crisis. The prolonged crisis of those tends to be an inward collapse.
In conclusion, we cannot control life. Sometimes bad things happen. We as a society have to let go of the idea that we can control everything, that there is no risk in life, that we can have our cake and eat it too. You cannot have the good times without the bad. Therefore there will be another crisis. How we respond to it will be key to how it is remembered. It is easy to remember the crisis gone wrong, rarely do we remember when the crisis went right.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
5/17/2012
Discussing Controversial Issues: Four Perspectives on the Teacher's Role
by Thomas E. Kelly
http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Documentation_Group_OurFellowCitizens/xMoTyO7lY0CdG3zr/ReadKelly1986.pdf
The section I want to discuss here is found on page 14 3rd paragraph under the critique section of Neutral Impartiality. In that section she brings up critiques of the neutral impartiality approach. One is that the teacher should express their view because it encourages and promotes critical thinking within the class. It explains that the teacher's influence over the class is rather small , and that students will resent a silent teacher. I kind of disagree with that assertion. From my experience, when a teacher starts to express their view, students will tend to gravitate toward the teachers view because they are "the expert," especially if it is a teacher they like. If a student opposes the teachers view, unless they are "that vocal student," they will remain silent because they either want the teacher to like them or not jeopardize their grade.
This happened from personal experience as a student.There was a discussion in class about healthcare, the teacher stated his view, next thing you know more people supported his view. It might not have even been a conscious decision on the students part.
Even if the teacher does not beat the student over the head with their belief, the simple fact that student know where the "expert authority stands" effects the discussion. Those who oppose the teacher view point are at a disadvantage because the other side now has the teacher.
The way I can see partiality working is if the students , as a whole, are very outgoing and confident, and mature, perhaps in a upper level college discussion. Even then there is that risk of doing more harm to a discussion than good.
Personally, I am in the Committed Impartiality camp. The critique of resentment does not really go well with me because I tended to enjoy a teacher playing devils advocate, explaining that they will argue both sides to get us thinking. When that same teacher, from my example, played devil's advocate, it was a great discussion, he would play both sides encouraging us to think for ourselves. I had a philosophy teacher who, when answering a students objection to a philosophers view, would answer them from the philosopher's argument, even if he disagreed with the argument.
Committed Impartiality works because it encourages the students, from both sides, to really defend their position and question why they believe what they believe and if they can defend it. Regarding the criticisms, what can improve Committed Impartiality is if the teacher explains that they will play devil's advocate not because they like sick and twisted discussion games, but to encourage the students to think critically.
Discussing Controversial Issues: Four Perspectives on the Teacher's Role
by Thomas E. Kelly
http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Documentation_Group_OurFellowCitizens/xMoTyO7lY0CdG3zr/ReadKelly1986.pdf
The section I want to discuss here is found on page 14 3rd paragraph under the critique section of Neutral Impartiality. In that section she brings up critiques of the neutral impartiality approach. One is that the teacher should express their view because it encourages and promotes critical thinking within the class. It explains that the teacher's influence over the class is rather small , and that students will resent a silent teacher. I kind of disagree with that assertion. From my experience, when a teacher starts to express their view, students will tend to gravitate toward the teachers view because they are "the expert," especially if it is a teacher they like. If a student opposes the teachers view, unless they are "that vocal student," they will remain silent because they either want the teacher to like them or not jeopardize their grade.
This happened from personal experience as a student.There was a discussion in class about healthcare, the teacher stated his view, next thing you know more people supported his view. It might not have even been a conscious decision on the students part.
Even if the teacher does not beat the student over the head with their belief, the simple fact that student know where the "expert authority stands" effects the discussion. Those who oppose the teacher view point are at a disadvantage because the other side now has the teacher.
The way I can see partiality working is if the students , as a whole, are very outgoing and confident, and mature, perhaps in a upper level college discussion. Even then there is that risk of doing more harm to a discussion than good.
Personally, I am in the Committed Impartiality camp. The critique of resentment does not really go well with me because I tended to enjoy a teacher playing devils advocate, explaining that they will argue both sides to get us thinking. When that same teacher, from my example, played devil's advocate, it was a great discussion, he would play both sides encouraging us to think for ourselves. I had a philosophy teacher who, when answering a students objection to a philosophers view, would answer them from the philosopher's argument, even if he disagreed with the argument.
Committed Impartiality works because it encourages the students, from both sides, to really defend their position and question why they believe what they believe and if they can defend it. Regarding the criticisms, what can improve Committed Impartiality is if the teacher explains that they will play devil's advocate not because they like sick and twisted discussion games, but to encourage the students to think critically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)