Epiphany..

Response to:

Assignment J

Frans H. Doppen Teaching and Learning Multiple Perspectives: The Atomic Bomb (2000).

Melinda Fine “You Can’t Just Say The the Only Ones Who Can Speak Are Those Who Agree with Your Position”: Political Discourse in the Classroom (1993).

This week's reading really hit home...

In Dramaturgy in American Theatre, Susan Jonas writes,
"Theater could be a dazzling conduit of lofty aims:…Well rounded education that introduces students to a variety of different disciplines and fosters familiarity with a broad canon of ideas as well as critical and associative thinking…The ability to recognize and desire to seize the infinite opportunities to pursue knowledge"

Isn't this also what Doppen (paraphrazing Levstik) is begging for? A school history that no longer "ignores historical thinking by presenting unitary sanitzed version of what happened in the past?"

At the end of my undergraduate studies my colloquium maintained that if students were to become "dramaturgical thinkers" they would be able to enter a historical world.

Upon writing that statement, I believed that educators having students engage in Dramaturgical inquiry was the solution to "surface social studies" (social studies education that, simply tried to chronologize or "make sense of the past") I believed that dramaturgical inquiry was a way of looking at history through worlds. Examining characters and groups of people through the environment that surrpunded them learning what a macaroon tasted like or what the Tarantella looks like. ( references to A Doll's House)

Maybe I wasn't nuts... However, reading these articles made me realize I was missing one huge component
Empathy... what a novel idea!

My dramaturgical approach to social studies education wasn't any better than those already proposed! I was, in a more convoluted way, still subscribing to top-down information presentation, devoid of student opinion.

Fine's statment on Facing History, "guid[ing] students back and forth between an in-depth historical case study and reflection on the causes and consequences of present day prejudice, intolerance, violence and racism." made me realize that I should be a hell of a lot more conscious about blending my two passions, dramaturgical inquiry and teaching social justice issues. I should be consistantly be tapping into the push pull between modern psyche and canonized worlds. All with the goal of bringing-in an appalling large number of students who statistics show, "fail to see the relevance of the subject to their own lives." (Doppen).

Now...

I write briefly on The Cornell West Quote:

"The democratic idea (that we are all equal in the eyes of God) is one of the grand contributions of the age of Europe even given the imperial expansion, the colonial subjugation og Africa and Asia, the pernicious and vicious crimes against working people and people of color and so forth. So ambiguous a legacy means-- we have got to keep two ideas in our minds at the same time. The achievements as well as the downfalls. The grand contributions and the vicious crimes."

I think this dichotomy between man as good and man as bad perfectly examines the two distinct ways that people approach the teaching of social studies. I find that so rarely do teachers address both the "vicious crimes" WHILE paying tribute to "grand European contributions". This begs the question... can it be done?

I think both articles give it a go... but neither really succeeds at addressing the HOW to fuse the two. Pro and con lists? active debates? socratic seminars? constant linking of the past to the present? Cause and effect lists? 

I STILL think puppets.

ADDENDUM:

I have selected this post for two reasons. 

1) I did not complete Assignment L

2) As it was noted in the title the readings sparked a real turning point. 

I have actually retooled a few of the phrases in the text for my graduate school applications.

I am what I think you think I am.

Im not that you think I am, I am not what I think I am…

I am what I think, you think I am.

A tongue twister much more true than the one about Sally and her Sea Shells.

In this article S-O & Q-H are intensely concerned with how students interpret the social mirror and how this interpretation, impacts their identity formation.

I agree with S-O & Q-H in that identity formation is a "process that is fluid and contextually driven" However, I also agree with Parham, in that identity formation is both a linear and cyclical. When looking at these definitions it leads one to believe that there might possibly be a predictable ebb and flow in identity formation.

While the formation of identity is painfully individual with little prediction, it is also socially constructed.
S-O & Q-H are spot-on when they comment on cultural constructions such as, "food, entertainment, religion, music and friendship" are choices that can "provide insight into relative comfort and affiliation with the points of cultural contact." The choices that students make in regard to each of these things are CERTAINLY influenced by the environment around them.


I began to think about the "negative" and "hostile" mirroring from society that happens so commonly for immigrant communities. After a little research I remembered a study done by, NYU professor Josh Aronson that attempted to link student reaction to stereotype activation with academic performance.
To summarize the study:
A selection of students were asked to write their race at the top of a paper and others were not. The minority students who were asked to identify their race before performing a test, performed worse than those who were not asked to identify race. This begs the conclusion that when racial stereotype is activated (writing race on the paper) students feel it and respond to it... and this is negatively represented in their performance.
Pretty heavy stuff!

The Caravel = Dial Up

Response to:

Assignment G

Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard - Globalization: Culture and Education in the New Millennium (2004) 

National Council for the Social Studies - Teaching and Learning Concepts (2001).

Think about it, the ship that could sail both ways and a this, "transoceanic conquest, communication, and trade from 1492-1565." (Coatsworth) made us realize, "huh there's a  whole other world out there." With time, the ships improved (cable modems) and that "other world" suddenly became so much more accessible... and then so much more tangible...and then so much more stereotyped..... and finally, so much more misunderstood.

With this current BOOM of information at our fingertips, we (as "global citizens") are embarking on new territory. Just like back in the good olde, age of exploration, we find ourselves at a time when, "the other" is right there in front of us.  However, opposite to the exploration age, in 2008 we now have[progressive and vocal] scholars like Suarez-Orozco and Qin-Hilliard (S-O & Q-H) to express the idea that this time, we need to treat this mashing of culture (also known as globalization) differently. Scholars that say managing these perceived differences, addressing multitudes head on, and monitoring the formulation of young people's new identity are important things to think about. 

Now do these NCSS Teaching and Learning Concepts say the same thing?: Lets look.

Well I think they got some of S-O & Q-H main "big ideas." 

1) There are pros & cons to globalization,

•  "there are corrosive developments such as globalization's threats to century-long traditions, religious identities, authority structures, values and worldviews." (S-O & Q-H, 7)
  
• "In 1960 the average Chinese expected to live 34 years. By 1999 the life expectancy has risen to 70 years." (Rodrik, 2002 - S-O & Q-H, 11).

2)Interdependent global economy and the internationalization of economies are realities.

• ".. under the fate of globalization the fate of billions of people increasingly rests in the hands of the arbiters of global capitalism." (S-O & Q-H).  
  
• "The rate at which countries grow is substantially determined by their ability to integrate with the global economy" (Lawrence Summers 2003 - S-O & Q-H, 10) 

I also like the NCSS's tips for practical application. I think statements like: "utilize primary sources from other countries" and "include internationally experienced persons" would actually be helpful for teachers who are foreign to this crazy idea of "globalization."

But I think it is more important to note that S-O & Q-H bring up, "Globalization's increasing complexity necessitates a new paradigm.... the mastery and mechanical regurgitation.... should give way... to cognitive flexibility and agility." In other words.... "The Banking Method won't work... but [James] Banks will".

Does this idea line up with our American, Standardized education?

While I think the simple fact that the NCSS devotes a whole section to "teaching globalization" is bad-ass I do think that both the recommendations and the explanation (as well as S-O & Q-H's article) lack an important component...

How much of this "globalization" is actually "westernization" in disguise?" 

S-O & Q-H address the idea in endnote 18, "is globalization simply modernization, Is it Westernization in fast-forward? Is it "imperialism" now driven by the extraordinarily high octane of American Hyperpower?" This is something to REALLY think about when designing a "globally conscious" curriculum. How much of it really is global and how much is inherently western... all the way down to your "backwards design scaffolding"

ADDENDUM:

I have chosen this post for two reasons

1) Despite the serious need for grammatical and metaphoric retooling, I think this is a decent reflection and synthesis of the "standards" (teaching and learning concepts) and the writing on global education.

2) I like how this post reflects my thinking prior to my introduction to the "James Banks" Cheat Sheet of globalized education standards and the Hanvey article