Sunday, November 30, 2008
Response for 12/1
What is patriotism? This is, I believe, the underlying argument in the articles for this section. It is only through answering this question that we can begin to teach it in our classrooms. But my question is, Is there are "right" kind of patriotism? There are obviously what some people consider "bad" or "wrong" kinds of patriotism, like the blind patriotism mentioned in the Kahne and Middaugh article. But no one seems to agree on what the "right" kind of patriotism is, or if there even is a "right" kind. The Kahne and Middaugh article seems to come the closests to actually telling us how to teach patriotism in the classroom, but even their explanation is a bit confusing. Apparently we are supposed to help foster our students' "love of country" by teaching them about democratic ideals, but at the same time lead them to question the actions of the country that they are supposed to be loving. Now of course I understand that it is possible to love this country AND question it at the same time, but I am not sure if even high school students would be able to see this distinction. Mitchell and Parker even point out on page 24 of their article that a group a high school seniors seemed much more connected to what they call their "urban identification" than to any kind of national identity. How does this connection breed a sense of patriotism? If we are teaching students to question the actions of the country they are living in while they are so firmly attached to their local connections, how are we teaching them national patriotism? I guess I don't really have an answer to this question. I am in such a state of frustration with this country right now that I don't know how I would be able to step into a classroom and help my students form a "love of country." If I don't even understand how to be "patriotic" while at the same time questioning the motives and actions of my country, how can I teach a group of students patriotism?
Response for Sustainable Development
I think it is incredibly important to address Sustainable Development in the classroom, especially as social studies teachers. It is our job to help our students not only learn about the past, but the present as well. If they do not have an understanding of the state of our world right now, how can they ever hope to understand the history of it? Where we are today is a result of where we have come from, so a thorough understand of the here and now is imperative to the study of history. Through knowledge of where their world stands today, we can help our students look back and discover what was done, or not done, to put us in our current position. This will then lead to understanding of how to keep future generations from dealing with the same problems. The best way to live is to learn from the past! Beyond that, as we have seen in a number of our readings now, we are living in a global world and the idea of sustainable development is not just a local or national problem, it is a global one. We as teachers need to step up and take the responsibility of preparing our students to live completely in this global world, which includes knowing how to take care of it for the future! For all we know, one of the students in our classroom, after learning about sustainable development from us, may grow up to be a leader in the fight to save our planet! How can we expect the upcoming generations to care about the environment and the future of our world if we don't teach them about it?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Response for 11/24
How do the findings presented by Doppen and Barton & Levstik address the quote made by Cornel West?
"That democratic idea (that all are 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 of Africa and Asia, the pernicious and vicious crimes against working 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 viciouos crimes." Cornel West
I think the best way to describe how these two articles address this idea of West's is to say that the Doppen article articulates this idea through the teaching of multiple perspectives at the global level, whereas the Barton and Levstik article teaches multiple perspectives at the national level.
Doppen's article looks at the idea of building historical empathy in students through presenting them with history in the form of mulitple perspectives. This specific study focuses on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Instead of teaching the students with a standard textbook, the teacher presented the students with 18 different sources, each coming from a different viewpoint. By doing this, the students were given a much broader account of the events that took place. They were not just provided with the story from the American side, as is often the case when only textbooks are used. Some of the articles were from the American point of view, but others were also from the Japanese and British point of view. The students were able to form an educated opinion about what happened based on not only how it was viewed in the United States, but also around the world.
This directly links to the Cornel quote because, in many history classrooms, U.S. History is taught in a way that makes it appear that the United States has rarely ever done anything wrong. By teaching this way, the students were given the opportunity to form opinions for themselves based on much more information. I think it was especially important that the perspective of the Japanese was included because it actually gives them a human voice. When the dropping of the bombs is taught, most of the time, the idea of civilian casualties is glided over, or not mentioned at all. By exposing the students to the Japanese voice, it made those victims real and allowed them to take the civilian deaths into consideration when forming their beliefs.
The Barton and Levstik article obviously touches on this quote, seeing as it is the article that features the quote! As I said before, Barton and Levstik address the idea of looking at history from both sides through the idea of multiple national perspectives. They call these multiple perspectives "official" history and "vernacular" history. Official history is what is taught in the classroom. It is the textbook endorsed, government standardized history that students across the country are taught. This form of history focuses very heavily on America as the country of freedom and progression. If people in the past did not have the same rights as everyone else, somewhere in history they were given those rights, as seen in the Civil Rights movement and the Sufferage movement. America is also portrayed as the protector in official history. We are the country that comes to the rescue to help other countries. This is the undertone of most units about war taught in school. This is one perspective that the students are given on their national history, but there is another version that they get outside of the classroom. This is vernacular history. Vernacular histories "derive from lived experience in specific and general small-scale communities." (p 7) This is the story the students are given at home by their grandfather who was part of the Civil Rights Movement or the uncle who fought in Vietnam. It is the first hand experience that is supported by more than just a book.
These two perspectives relate to the Cornel article in that the students are being given a two sided picture. Often the picture that is portrayed by the official history is all about the "grand achievements" because that is what the government thinks our children should be learning about. It is through the vernacular history that the students are exposed to the "vicious crimes." When some who lived through the Civil Rights movement, the cruelties and prejudices are brought to life for the student. When a Vietnam vet talks about the experience of coming home to a country that doesn't want you anymore, the child is given a fuller account of the time period than is provided in the classroom.
"That democratic idea (that all are 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 of Africa and Asia, the pernicious and vicious crimes against working 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 viciouos crimes." Cornel West
I think the best way to describe how these two articles address this idea of West's is to say that the Doppen article articulates this idea through the teaching of multiple perspectives at the global level, whereas the Barton and Levstik article teaches multiple perspectives at the national level.
Doppen's article looks at the idea of building historical empathy in students through presenting them with history in the form of mulitple perspectives. This specific study focuses on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Instead of teaching the students with a standard textbook, the teacher presented the students with 18 different sources, each coming from a different viewpoint. By doing this, the students were given a much broader account of the events that took place. They were not just provided with the story from the American side, as is often the case when only textbooks are used. Some of the articles were from the American point of view, but others were also from the Japanese and British point of view. The students were able to form an educated opinion about what happened based on not only how it was viewed in the United States, but also around the world.
This directly links to the Cornel quote because, in many history classrooms, U.S. History is taught in a way that makes it appear that the United States has rarely ever done anything wrong. By teaching this way, the students were given the opportunity to form opinions for themselves based on much more information. I think it was especially important that the perspective of the Japanese was included because it actually gives them a human voice. When the dropping of the bombs is taught, most of the time, the idea of civilian casualties is glided over, or not mentioned at all. By exposing the students to the Japanese voice, it made those victims real and allowed them to take the civilian deaths into consideration when forming their beliefs.
The Barton and Levstik article obviously touches on this quote, seeing as it is the article that features the quote! As I said before, Barton and Levstik address the idea of looking at history from both sides through the idea of multiple national perspectives. They call these multiple perspectives "official" history and "vernacular" history. Official history is what is taught in the classroom. It is the textbook endorsed, government standardized history that students across the country are taught. This form of history focuses very heavily on America as the country of freedom and progression. If people in the past did not have the same rights as everyone else, somewhere in history they were given those rights, as seen in the Civil Rights movement and the Sufferage movement. America is also portrayed as the protector in official history. We are the country that comes to the rescue to help other countries. This is the undertone of most units about war taught in school. This is one perspective that the students are given on their national history, but there is another version that they get outside of the classroom. This is vernacular history. Vernacular histories "derive from lived experience in specific and general small-scale communities." (p 7) This is the story the students are given at home by their grandfather who was part of the Civil Rights Movement or the uncle who fought in Vietnam. It is the first hand experience that is supported by more than just a book.
These two perspectives relate to the Cornel article in that the students are being given a two sided picture. Often the picture that is portrayed by the official history is all about the "grand achievements" because that is what the government thinks our children should be learning about. It is through the vernacular history that the students are exposed to the "vicious crimes." When some who lived through the Civil Rights movement, the cruelties and prejudices are brought to life for the student. When a Vietnam vet talks about the experience of coming home to a country that doesn't want you anymore, the child is given a fuller account of the time period than is provided in the classroom.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Response for 11/10
How does the unprecedented movement of people challenge concepts of citizenship and identity? What are among C. Suarez-Orozco's chief concerns regarding immigrant students' identity formation?
The answer to the first question here is not really fully flushed out within this article. The idea of citizenship is only mentioned once, and then only in the title of one of the sections. Orozco doesn't really go into the affects of globalization on citizenship, except to talk about the formation of a global identity, which I guess you could link to growth as a global "citizen" but I personally think that is a stretch. In regards to identity though, that is what this article is all about! Concepts of identity have been challenged greatly. Identity has become a much more complex idea than before. A person no longer just identifies with the country in which they reside. Other factors have to be taken into consideration. Is this person an immigrant? If so, how does the life they led in their "home country" affect their identity in their new country? How much of the culture of thier new country helps to form their new identity? And this new complex form of identity does not just apply to immigrants. As our world continues to grow within globalization, even people who have lived their entire lives in one country as having to deal with this new growing force known as a "global identity." Where do we fit within the global community and how does that affect our identity? I do have to say, though, that immigrants definately have the most difficult time of forming identity because, in way, they are actually have to work from three different points of reference: their home country, their new country, and the world of globalization!
Orozco describes three different forms of identity that immigrants typically fall into. The first is the coethnic identity, in which the person completely denies the influences of the new, dominant culture they have moved into. This leads to rejection of the new culture and everything that comes with it, from language to social practices. This also usually leads to a decline in educational performance because being successful in school is seen as "trying to be white" and to the increased liklihood that these youth will join gangs. Orozco worries that this form of identity limits the future opportunities for youth who are already disadvantaged through poverty and discrimination.
The second form of identity is what Orozco calls "ethnic flight." It seems to be the exact opposite of the coethnic identity. Instead of rejecting the new dominant culture, immigrants embracing this form of identity actually begin to reject the culture and identity from their home country. They completely immerse themselves in the new culture and begin to reject the culture they experience in the home. This type of identity usually leads to a much higher likelyhood of academic success, as these students try everything they can to fit into their new culture. The problems with this form of identity though reside more in the emotional and social realms. These students are usually alienated from their ethnic peers and their family at home. This can lead to more severe emotional and social problems.
The final form of identity that Orozco describes is a combination of both of the previous ones. It is what Orozco refers to as "transcultural identity." These students embrace the new, dominant culture of the country they have immigrated to while still holding on to the cultural reminants of their home country. They combine what the know and what they are learning to create a new identity encompassing both. These students are more likely to be adademically successful, but also professionaly successful in our new "global" world. These students are much better prepared to deal with the world we live in and the demands to dealing with global business. As Orozco says, "this identity style not only serves the individual well but also benefits the society at large." (p 193)
My question is, what about the fourth form of identity that Orozco doesn't address....the when in which the student actually creates two seperate identities for themselve? Those students to are able to "switch" between the two cultures with ease and be accepted within both. I don't believe this is the same as the transcultural identity because the different cultures are not combined. When the student is with peers from his home country, he embraces the identity of his home country, but when he is at school, for instance, immersed in the dominant culture of his new home, he embraces that culture. What implications does this identity formation have one the future development of the student? Is he really forming an identity or is the jumping between cultures prohibiting him from becoming his own person?
The answer to the first question here is not really fully flushed out within this article. The idea of citizenship is only mentioned once, and then only in the title of one of the sections. Orozco doesn't really go into the affects of globalization on citizenship, except to talk about the formation of a global identity, which I guess you could link to growth as a global "citizen" but I personally think that is a stretch. In regards to identity though, that is what this article is all about! Concepts of identity have been challenged greatly. Identity has become a much more complex idea than before. A person no longer just identifies with the country in which they reside. Other factors have to be taken into consideration. Is this person an immigrant? If so, how does the life they led in their "home country" affect their identity in their new country? How much of the culture of thier new country helps to form their new identity? And this new complex form of identity does not just apply to immigrants. As our world continues to grow within globalization, even people who have lived their entire lives in one country as having to deal with this new growing force known as a "global identity." Where do we fit within the global community and how does that affect our identity? I do have to say, though, that immigrants definately have the most difficult time of forming identity because, in way, they are actually have to work from three different points of reference: their home country, their new country, and the world of globalization!
Orozco describes three different forms of identity that immigrants typically fall into. The first is the coethnic identity, in which the person completely denies the influences of the new, dominant culture they have moved into. This leads to rejection of the new culture and everything that comes with it, from language to social practices. This also usually leads to a decline in educational performance because being successful in school is seen as "trying to be white" and to the increased liklihood that these youth will join gangs. Orozco worries that this form of identity limits the future opportunities for youth who are already disadvantaged through poverty and discrimination.
The second form of identity is what Orozco calls "ethnic flight." It seems to be the exact opposite of the coethnic identity. Instead of rejecting the new dominant culture, immigrants embracing this form of identity actually begin to reject the culture and identity from their home country. They completely immerse themselves in the new culture and begin to reject the culture they experience in the home. This type of identity usually leads to a much higher likelyhood of academic success, as these students try everything they can to fit into their new culture. The problems with this form of identity though reside more in the emotional and social realms. These students are usually alienated from their ethnic peers and their family at home. This can lead to more severe emotional and social problems.
The final form of identity that Orozco describes is a combination of both of the previous ones. It is what Orozco refers to as "transcultural identity." These students embrace the new, dominant culture of the country they have immigrated to while still holding on to the cultural reminants of their home country. They combine what the know and what they are learning to create a new identity encompassing both. These students are more likely to be adademically successful, but also professionaly successful in our new "global" world. These students are much better prepared to deal with the world we live in and the demands to dealing with global business. As Orozco says, "this identity style not only serves the individual well but also benefits the society at large." (p 193)
My question is, what about the fourth form of identity that Orozco doesn't address....the when in which the student actually creates two seperate identities for themselve? Those students to are able to "switch" between the two cultures with ease and be accepted within both. I don't believe this is the same as the transcultural identity because the different cultures are not combined. When the student is with peers from his home country, he embraces the identity of his home country, but when he is at school, for instance, immersed in the dominant culture of his new home, he embraces that culture. What implications does this identity formation have one the future development of the student? Is he really forming an identity or is the jumping between cultures prohibiting him from becoming his own person?
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Response for 11/3
In your opinion, do the NCSS’ Teaching and Learning Concepts (pp. 5-6) address M.
Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard’s concerns about the impact of globalization on
education?
I would say that the NCSS’ Teaching and Learning Concepts most definitely address as least some of the concerns about the impact of education expressed by M. Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard.
The first concept, that “rapid change is operative and characteristic,” relates directly back to Orozco and Hilliards comments on the history of globalization and the 4 cycles of globalization set down by John Coatsworth. These cycles show that change as a result of globalization has been occurring for centuries. The main argument against the NCSS concept that Orozco and Hilliard might make though is that, according to Coatsworth, the globalization cycle we are experiencing right now is rather slow and weak. It does not have the same punch that previous cycles have caused in areas like immigration and the economy.
The second concept centers on the increasing number of corporations and jobs with international connections. This concept can also be connected to the fourth concept, that “political changes across the world and increased interaction among governments require understanding of other, traditions and cultures” because they both coincide with the same idea from Orozco and Hilliard. The link is found in the main reasoning behind why Orozco and Hilliard believe that there should be a change in education to accommodate our new globalized world. They say that “education will need both rethinking and restructuring if schooling is to best prepare children and youth of the world to engage globalization’s new challenges, opportunities, and costs.” (pg. 3) I believe globally connected jobs and participation in global politics both fall under all three of these categories.
Next the NCSS states that “the Information Age increases interrelatedness among all people.” I believe Orozco and Hilliard would wholeheartedly agree with that as a concept of globalization education. They believe that technologies will pave the way for better education in both quality and quantity, as more people around the world can be connected to share their knowledge. But they also bring up the downside of technology in education. It is said that the introduction of this technology worldwide will push\ us towards a more homogeneous world culture and lead to the breakdown of the diversity of cultures and experiences for youth around the world.
The NCSS concept relating to the globalization of economy relates directly back to the idea in Orozco and Hilliard about the widening gap in worldwide income and well-being as it correlates to the gap in global education. In the Orozco-Hilliard article, David Bloom is quoted as saying that “in the developing world, each additional year of basic education corresponds to a rise of over 10% in the individual’s earning power.” As efforts are increased to improve basic education in countries around the world, the income gap will also begin to shrink, which will allow global citizens to spend more money, which will help the global economy!
Finally, the NCSS states that there are problems as well as benefits to globalization. This is discussed extensively in the Orozco-Hilliard article. As I have already pointed out with the technology concept, Orozco and Hilliard do not only talk about the positives of globalization. One of the main negatives that they spend a good amount of time talking about is the identity struggle for the many youth members of the global community. This can come up in both immigrants and youth who have never left their homes. As we become a more global world, the cultures and traditions of different countries begin to blend into each other, through immigration and technology, to the point where it is becoming difficult for youth to figure out what their identity actually is. I would say this is a major problem!
Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard’s concerns about the impact of globalization on
education?
I would say that the NCSS’ Teaching and Learning Concepts most definitely address as least some of the concerns about the impact of education expressed by M. Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard.
The first concept, that “rapid change is operative and characteristic,” relates directly back to Orozco and Hilliards comments on the history of globalization and the 4 cycles of globalization set down by John Coatsworth. These cycles show that change as a result of globalization has been occurring for centuries. The main argument against the NCSS concept that Orozco and Hilliard might make though is that, according to Coatsworth, the globalization cycle we are experiencing right now is rather slow and weak. It does not have the same punch that previous cycles have caused in areas like immigration and the economy.
The second concept centers on the increasing number of corporations and jobs with international connections. This concept can also be connected to the fourth concept, that “political changes across the world and increased interaction among governments require understanding of other, traditions and cultures” because they both coincide with the same idea from Orozco and Hilliard. The link is found in the main reasoning behind why Orozco and Hilliard believe that there should be a change in education to accommodate our new globalized world. They say that “education will need both rethinking and restructuring if schooling is to best prepare children and youth of the world to engage globalization’s new challenges, opportunities, and costs.” (pg. 3) I believe globally connected jobs and participation in global politics both fall under all three of these categories.
Next the NCSS states that “the Information Age increases interrelatedness among all people.” I believe Orozco and Hilliard would wholeheartedly agree with that as a concept of globalization education. They believe that technologies will pave the way for better education in both quality and quantity, as more people around the world can be connected to share their knowledge. But they also bring up the downside of technology in education. It is said that the introduction of this technology worldwide will push\ us towards a more homogeneous world culture and lead to the breakdown of the diversity of cultures and experiences for youth around the world.
The NCSS concept relating to the globalization of economy relates directly back to the idea in Orozco and Hilliard about the widening gap in worldwide income and well-being as it correlates to the gap in global education. In the Orozco-Hilliard article, David Bloom is quoted as saying that “in the developing world, each additional year of basic education corresponds to a rise of over 10% in the individual’s earning power.” As efforts are increased to improve basic education in countries around the world, the income gap will also begin to shrink, which will allow global citizens to spend more money, which will help the global economy!
Finally, the NCSS states that there are problems as well as benefits to globalization. This is discussed extensively in the Orozco-Hilliard article. As I have already pointed out with the technology concept, Orozco and Hilliard do not only talk about the positives of globalization. One of the main negatives that they spend a good amount of time talking about is the identity struggle for the many youth members of the global community. This can come up in both immigrants and youth who have never left their homes. As we become a more global world, the cultures and traditions of different countries begin to blend into each other, through immigration and technology, to the point where it is becoming difficult for youth to figure out what their identity actually is. I would say this is a major problem!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
