Week 6 -- Armageddon Science

I have always found the Cold War fascinating. One semester of my undergrad I actually took three separate history classes all dealing with the Cold War. So, as you can imagine, the part of the text this week that kept me interested was the nuclear and atomic sections Clegg discusses. Particularly, I really enjoyed the history of the atomic bomb as discussed in chapter three (Atomic Devastation). I thought the following quote from President Eisenhower was particularly interesting after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima during WWII: "We have spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history -- we won (50)." I think that this quote sums up the book in a nutshell, at least what I took from it. We are in an age of constant competition, especially between governments. No country wants another country to one-up them and even in the news last night there was speculation as to what Obama was going to do in response to the Pakistanis arresting those who helped to bring down Bin Laden. Every country and every government want to be, as Eisenhower would say, the "winner." We are living in an age where winning literally means having the most physical power and, ultimately, the biggest bombs. As was brought up in discussion, we are a world addicted to science and progress and, in this case, that means major destruction and devastation to the globe and the inhabitants in it if this power ever extends too far (which I personally believe that it will).

As for the discussion itself, I really enjoyed the last question: How do we teach the ethics of science in a social studies classroom? I loved Dustin's point comparing the ethics of science to the importance of civics. Science is, as we've seen throughout the course, a driving factor that plays into every aspect of our society. Just as we learned that technology is everywhere (not just electronics), so too is science. It fuels our culture and, as we have seen, can alter it greatly. From Sputnik days of fear to medical scientists working tirelessly to find cures for diseases, science plays a huge role in our lives as individuals and as a people. It is important that we illustrate for students this fact and teach the history of science and the impact it has made on our society if we want them to find interest in the topic. Like Dustin said, just as we aim to teach healthy civic attitudes, we should also aim to teach about ethics... and this includes science! These shouldn't be separate!!

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2008#comic

Week 5 -- Starstruck: The Business of Celebrity

When reading this book I was thinking about how great the discussion would turn out for this. We could relate it to celebrities today and really go deep into the idea of the "celebrity" as Halkett talks about. I don't know if I just had high hopes or everyone else is more in tune with celebrities today that I am, but I was a little disappointed at how surface level some of the answers remained throughout the course of the conversation. I thought that we did a good job of coming up with questions and linking ideas relevant to the book, but for some reason everyone wanted to talk about actual shows or celebrities when they talked. I think some of it had to do with the fact that people were kind of celebrity gossiping in the text area of elluminate... but maybe this just goes to further exemplify the authors claims of the celebrity industry greatly affecting our lives whether we want it to or not.

Besides the discussion, I honestly think that this is super relevant to every aspect of our society. It helps to relate almost all the other books we have talked about... the economy, government, even technology. It helped me to understand each one of the other books' importance as well as how the celebrity culture we live in truly affects our society (and, by nature, our classrooms). From MTV to Huckabee to Twitter and tabloids, the media/social media perpetuates the idea of being successful equates with being famous. With the UK classroom study it is obvious that this fuels our students to mimic what they see and 70% of teachers state that celebrity culture influences their students' aspirations for the future. If the next generation aspires to be like the cast of Jersey Shore or even Paris Hilton, then I think we are missing the mark as educators.

This goes into the ramifications for ourselves and our students question in the Prezi. Like Dan was saying, he had to sit his son down and explain to him that slapping someone is not an appropriate reaction as it was displayed in one of his tv shows. What happens to the students that don't have a father like Dan (whooop-whoop Dan!) or another role model to exemplify positive behavior? As teachers we need to constantly be influencing our students to make responsible and good decisions.... the question remains, however, as to how can we do this when they are so infatuated with the media telling them otherwise? I think that while it is good to use examples of celebrity in our classroom, it is also important to show the fact that it is an industry and that everyone is susceptible to buying into it. How one does this along with pacing guides and standardized tests to teach to...? Maybe that question is exemplary of our current values when it comes to education.

Week 4 -- What Technology Wants (addition)

Found this video on YouTube and had to share:

Week 4 -- What Technology Wants

This book was a little “out there” for me in the fact that I am not that savvy with technology. I still have a “dumb” phone, don’t know computer codes, and don’t own anything but a computer and iPod. However, I really liked some of the things Kelly had to say in the book. One section that I think would be completely applicable to us as social studies educators is when he talks about world cultures. On page 288 he states that minority cultures benefit from technology and we can benefit from them: “Once connected to standard roads, electricity, and communications, their differences can potentially make a difference to others.”  I had never thought about technology in that way. So often we think about technology as something that hinders a people group and causes them to give up their way of life. But think about it – without technology, we wouldn’t know what the Great Wall of China looks like or that an island called Guam even exists. We wouldn’t be able to connect with people across the world or even across the country. Technology in this sense has caused the world to not only see different things and be able to experience them through travel or pictures, but also it has caused the world to (sometimes reluctantly) accept differences. We have an appreciation for Indian culture because as technology has grown, so has our awareness of it. This can be said with most things throughout the world.

This directly relates to our teachings of literally every social studies. What people didn’t even know existed hundreds of years ago is at our fingertips in the sense that we can find someone, somewhere who has experienced it via the internet. Our knowledge has grown so much in the past few centuries and so has our technology. We must be willing to explore the physical world and technological world in order to engage the next generation and provide them with tools to become responsible citizens.

Is Kelly correct in equating technology to biology? 

Like what was stated throughout the presentation and discussion, I think that it all comes down to how you define technology. While yes, many ideas have happened around the world at around the same time, does this organic organization go all the way back to the beginning of the world? Kelly obviously says yes – pointing back to the big bang and the composition of the world. Though I am no expert in the many theories of the beginning of the world, I thought the whole reasoning behind the big bang theory was that it was random and not ordered. But other things, like DNA, are very orderly and organized.  The universe and DNA are very organic and can be considered “living organisms.” However, do each of them “have its own wants” or a driving force behind them as Kelly defines as a part of the technium? I would say no. I don’t think that the universe has a motive for existence or that DNA works to undermine the living things it is in – however I am not a biologist.

Week 3 - Peculiar Institution

I found this week’s book to be fascinating and really make me think about my own views on capital punishment. An issue that came up as I was reading the book (and was briefly mentioned in the discussion today) was the idea of the United States as a “retentionist” nation when it comes to the death penalty. However, when I think of a country that is traditional and retentionist I think of nations like the U.K., with a parliament and figureheads. I began to wonder why countries like these abolished the death penalty while the U.S., a promoter of democracy worldwide, would support capital punishment. Then, I came across Garland’s distinction between liberalism and democracy. While knowing the difference between the two from various courses, I always thought of the two synonymously. Garland stated otherwise: “Liberal institutions aim to restrain the coercive power of the state and to uphold the rights and freedoms of individuals (136)” while “Democracy’s central commitment is not to equality, nor to civil liberties, nor even to limited government, but to a form of rule in which ‘the people’ govern themselves (142).” Interesting comparison, especially when you think about the United States. Do we value the concept of liberalism or democracy? I would have to say the latter. The issue of capital punishment is in conflict with much of the liberal issues talked about today (social welfare, freedom, dignity, nonviolence), but as Americans we strive to give power to the people and focus not on these social issues. This is the difference between the U.S. and most of Western Europe – local level politics and what the people at the local level value. As Garland stated,  “wherever popular majorities rather than liberal elites control law and policy, the death penalty is more likely to exist (142).”

I really liked to fact that the leaders created a question stemming off from the book about education and crime. The chart that they showed was crazy in the fact that prison inmates cost so much more money than a student. It can be argued that the less we invest in education, the more we are going to pay for imprisonment… and that really goes along with the stigma today. The view is that the less educated someone is, the higher they are at risk of committing crime; despite this popularly held outlook, what is being done to promote change? It relates to one of the first questions in the discussion and the fact that we, as Americans, are obsessed with headlines talking about the death penalty and not those urging for education reform. While a quality education does not mean that you won’t commit a crime or ever be sentenced to death row, it can give empowerment and a sense of responsible citizenry to people, helping them to make responsible decisions as well as upward mobility.

This whole issue can be used in a variety of classrooms and in a variety of ways. From working it into race relations, to discussing differences between the U.S. and Western Europe, to relating it to lynchings when talking about American history, to correlations to education, this topic covers such a variety of issues… and that is why it is so controversial!

Week 2 -- All the Devils are Here

I really enjoyed some parts of the text this week… and others, well, not so much. Something that I saw very rarely, but really enjoyed, was reading about the media’s reactions to the looming crisis. There were a few different quotes that stuck out to me, but the main one came from more than halfway through the book: “The newspapers offered further evidence of the looming problems (257).” I think that this stuck out to me so much because all the “average Joe” knew about the financial market at the time was through the media; all the news came from either one biased report or another. The investors on Wall Street, however, didn’t need the media to connect them to the situation. They had evidence right in front of them of the situation happening and they never really did anything until it was too late. I also think back to what I knew of what was happening at the time: the media would report and stock tickers would run at the bottom, but I had no idea what they were talking about because they never chose to break it down. I think that the media definitely played a role in the financial crisis. Even though it couldn’t have caused a lot of change on Wall Street, it may have been able to educate the average person or the family getting the subprime loan about what is taking place in the financial world. Though many of the issues piled up in the end, I think that McLean fails to point any finger at the media and the fact that they did little to intercede on behalf of the public.

As for our discussion, I really liked what Amy started to say at the beginning of the discussion session. The question was posed, "What are your thoughts and opinions on the financial bailouts?" As everyone was talking about the banks and investors, Amy brought up the point that the media just talks about the corporations and investors... how does the bailout affect the average person?! I think much of the blame on the whole crisis can be put on not only lenders and investors, but also the average person. Building up credit and interest, we have been taught by our culture that it is okay to live beyond your means and greed has fueled our economy. I believe that McLean would say that this same greed is evident in the lenders and investors. However, the corporations got the bailout and the American people who could afford to borrow huge lumps of money went bankrupt. What is wrong with this picture? I think that this, too, has a connection to the media. The way they portray the ideal American way of life cause many to think that they can live like they want – i.e. see the film and tv industries. I think the process of educating Americans on the fact that they can’t live however they want or wherever they want has just started to be chiseled away at through the effects of this crisis, but it is going to take a great amount of energy and time by action groups and those who care about the issue to really gain strides in this issue anytime soon. 


How does this relate to us as social studies teachers?? I think that it shows us that though economics can be overwhelming to teach and learn, it is something that can be broken down for our kids if we really understand it ourselves. When I was in an economics classroom for one of the observation sessions in the fall, I had a really hard time understanding the material and teaching about graphs and fancy words. I think that, though you may have a pacing guide or an AP test to get the students to pass, it is important to bring the topic back to them, show why it is relevant, and really exemplify what things they do from their end of the economic scale that affects the rest of the market.

Week One -- Learning Object & Teacher Opinions

I was really confused when reading over the syllabus for this class and trying to determine what "Learning Objects" were -- luckily Cramer cleared it up. I have come to think of "Learning Objects" as a fancy term (much like "cooperative learning" is to "group work") as a multi-use resource. I started to think about the many resources I used in lessons during my internship, like The Sneetches video for introducing Apartheid and The White Man's Burden poem when talking about colonization in Africa. I had found resources like these and put them to use in a specific topic that I was teaching. Luckily, these resources I listed (much like the rest of my favorite) I will be able to use in a different context and when talking about a different topic all together... ah, the beauty of a "learning object."

I thought the article on Discussing Controversial Issues by Kelly was interesting. As I was reading, I tried to picture myself acting as one of the four teachers he described. I definitely ended up fitting the description of neutral impartiality (the third teacher listed). This is when the teacher promotes discussion and dialogue in the classroom, but does not state what side of the issue they personally stand on. While Kelly has a lot of critique on this style, I would have to say that I love it. I used this outlook throughout my internship and discussed controversial issues frequently with my class. The kids loved participating in role-playing activities (such as simulating colonization) and then discussing their perspectives. Another time that comes to mind revolves around teaching the 5 major religions -- I strived to do so in a very 'unbiased' way by not stating my own views in the classroom. I think that the teacher can effectively teach about an issue, have students discuss it, and remain neutral the whole time IF a little tender-loving-care is put into the planning of discussion. I think that, if asked by the students, teachers should definitely be able and willing to share their views, but I think that it is not a mandatory action that needs to take place during every controversial discussion... especially in the context of a younger-grade classroom where students have not formed opinions of their own about a topic yet.