You're Gonna Hear Me Roar: My thoughts on Tiger Mom's "Triple Package"

I came across this news story this morning and thought you might want to to check it out, especially in light of the civil law suits rising over the implementation of race-based education goals not only in Florida, but throughout the United States. I'm actually trying to hash out my thoughts in this blog post with respect to what this type of research could mean for society and the field of education regarding policy and ideology that use the classification of individuals by race and culture as the rationale for its relevance as it contributes to the acceptance of the separation and marginalization of cultural groups. It feels like a publication in which the authors demonstrated ultimate success in society based on race is an affirmation for the establishment and implementation of race-based policy and goals in the field of education because we are showing policymakers that race is the social factor directly linked to student performance and success, and that pedagogy, practice, quality of resources, etc. have absolutely no affect on student performance and success.

In this article Tiger Mom, Amy Chua and her husband and co-author, Jed Rubenfeld,seem to echo the philosophy of Dinesh D'souza who also touts that certain groups outperform others in certain aspects of life. According to this short article about their book, "The Triple Package", they list the following "groups as the most likely to succeed in America: Jewish, Indian, Chinese, Iranian, Lebanese-Americans, Nigerians, Cuban exiles and Mormons" because they claim that certain cultural groups have what it takes to succeed and others do not. The "triple package" refers to the superiority complex, insecurity, and impulse control of some cultural groups as opposed to others. These authors suggested that the cultural groups who succeed are disciplined, determined, and feel a need to prove themselves in society.

In their interview this morning, Chua and Rubenfeld said that this type of research was meant to challenge ideas like the model minority myth often associated with Asians. It's always difficult for me to understand how attributing success to certain character traits and then linking those traits to culture (or race, or gender or socioeconomic status) help de-mythologize any stereotype or stigma, especially when you start telling people they succeed or do not succeed because of something like race or culture that is initially inherit to the social construction of their identity. In a recent discussion with my students about race-based educational goals, we talked about how this type of ideology and policy leaves all children behind in its attempt to help them reach certain goals or make learning gains. Instead of thinking how to help all students succeed or at least ensure equitability of opportunity why to we keep choosing to pick and choose traits that demonstrate why someone may or may not be better than someone else? What's more how is highlighting difference in such an elitist way going to help anyone succeed at all? Is policy and ideology like this not just a reappropriation of Separate but Equal and the 3/5ths Rule in which we dehumanize and marginalize groups instead of trying to help them make sustainable changes in the construction f their expectations and abilities to ensure success among all groups regardless of race, culture, SES, gender...?

I think it's interesting to consider how this type of ideology and policy keeps finding its way into the limelight especially when you see us crown a South Asian Miss America (an event which bred its own controversy) or even something as mundane as last night's Coke commercial that attempted to showcase diversity through its rendition of America the Beautiful in several languages. You have to ask yourself are we truly singing with one voice and celebrating culture and difference or becoming more assimilationist and ultimately separatist in our ideology and policy?

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/tiger-mom-races-better-article-1.1567501#ixzz2sGdhF4qo

Anyway, just some food for thought this morning! Happy reading! Thanks for indulging me as I sorted through some of these ideas without reaching any conclusions just coming up with more questions to consider today.

Our Kind of Technology: The First World Bandaid

Our Solution for Your Problem...

While I agree that the potential of dumbing down of students via what's "cool" online exists, as educators we cannot deny that medium plays an important role in helping to convey information unto our students. I think the point is that education has to evolve with the audience it is trying to reach. Yes, television, radio, laser discs, and all that jazz may have been used as supplemental tools in the classroom, but the fact is as new technology they were incorporated into academia in some capacity. Something that some teachers are fightning for one reason or another. I cannot suggest that we revamp the entire system to inlcude nothing but technological tools, but there are some who reject even the consideration of technology as a tool in the classroom because they feel it is for entertainment use only, so it cannot possibly serve an educative purpose. There is a way to use technology to encourage critical thinking among students -- just as there is a way to use television to broaden their scope of knowledge or make an lesson come alive -- I just don't think its use should be accompanied by a worksheet. This is why I say that the advent of technology in the classroom is a case of access and agency. In these types of discussions we are always aware that there are areas where access to "our kind of technology" is impossible or nonexistent -- but we have to change the way we think about technology -- we have come to know technology as a computer, cell phone, or tablet -- and the term itself is often associated with modernization; however, the fact is that technology is really a fancy word for a tool that makes a process more entertaining, efficient, or effective -- so even in our most rural areas technology is there in some form, and being used in some capacity. Considering also that schools may be the only place some students have access to books or other informational tools, one cannot use over-crowding or other faults of school districts (and the USDOE) as an excuse for why technology cannot be a staple in our classrooms -- every child does not need his own personal computer (although, I am sure for entertainment purposes he finds his way to one) -- but tools like interactive whiteboards, and digital projectors are also ways in which technology can be used on a larger scale to present information to a class of students. This type of usage exposes students to new resources, and can be used to enhance a traditional lesson. It really is a matter of agency (power) because the way the teacher chooses to utilize these tools to frame a lesson/concept can faciliate critical thinking among students, and equip them with traditional skills at higher levels, as well as other functional literacy skills in a digital age.

When we consider issues in the field of education it is often from a position of our privilege , although our intentions may be to reach even those on the lowest rung.  Even when we try to be socially aware we still (unconsciously) impose the use our first world ideas on others -- a let them eat cake ideology of sorts.  Among the things I have learned as an educator with regard to inspiring social action among my students is that awareness and reflective analysis are big parts of social change. I find myself using this blog as a forum for social change -- using it to express my ideas in the hope that someone will read it and say to himself/herself, "I never thought about it that way before!"  In our top-down society it is important that we as teachers make the existence of issues of privilege and oppression in education and within society clear to our students so that they may be inspired to change the system.  For us as teachers, this could mean helping our students learn how to read the word and the world (Freire & Macedo) -- by facilitating an understanding of socially constructed difference among them; helping children in our poorest schools become more aware of their social position in society in relation to the world around them, or making the suffering of others due to societal inequities more real for the children in our most privileged schools (perhaps even enraging them a little about the differences that exist with society's heirarchies of difference worldwide).  As Ray Bradbury so aptly reported -- these are not responsibilities of the state, but of the people.

Fahrenheit Four-Fifty…Facebook?

Choose Social Networking…Because Nobody Reads Anymore?

While sitting in the Student Union on Wednesday I overheard a conversation among a group of girls, who I assumed were undergraduate students.  Their conversation made me fear for the future of our society.  My ears perked up immediately when I heard those infamous words that made me cringe:  “nobody reads books anymore”.  I could not believe my ears.  Sure, the consensus among many of us as we move toward an age of digital literacy is that text will soon refer to words on a screen as opposed the printed words on a page; however, my belief has always been that we, as a society, would swap out one form of text for the other.  Instead we, as a society, are allowing the printed page to become obsolete in favor a more efficient form of information construction, acquisition, and distribution.  The increased use of social networking sites will, without a doubt, change the way we create, receive, and disseminate information because these sites “serve as performative spaces that might help students understand the postmodern logics of identity construction” (37, 38).  This new medium may entail that the foundational hierarchies of knowledge within our society may come undone; however, it also means that it will assist in the development of new foundational hierarchies of knowledge in which we create new societal norms. 

My experience from earlier this week…coupled with my reading of Presnky, led me to consider Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 as I contemplated the future of literacy among members of society.  Where indeed will they get their information from?  Published in 1953, Bradbury’s book predicted a future of American society in which books were outlawed and firemen burned the houses that contained them.  In a 2007 interview, Ray Bradbury contended that his book has been misinterpreted as a protest against censorship, when in reality it spoke to how the advent of new media (i.e., television) affected literature, and destroyed interest in reading.  The opinion of the young lady from my anecdote demonstrates that our present day society is not far off from Bradbury’s prediction. 

In an attempt to reconcile Prensky’s contentions that digital natives prefer flashy text, random access, instant gratification, and frequent rewards with their apparent value of future content (technology, ethics, politics, sociology, language, etc.), I once again advocate for openness regarding the significance of new technology as an educative tool.  It is becoming commonplace in my blog to continuously showcase the ways in which technological nuances can be used as a curricular and instructional tool.  How many times will I explain that when framed and implemented in a way conducive to exploration and discovery, technology and new media (i.e., social networking) can be used to facilitate student learning?  At this point I cannot stress any more the importance of choosing a tool based on its appropriateness for achieving a task or completing an objective.  Some readers may think I am suggesting a dumbing down of curricular and instructional tools; that instead of asking students (and society) to rise to the challenge of meeting traditional scholastic expectations with regard to mediums through which knowledge acquisition occurs, that I am asking them to use unintelligible methods to do their homework.  Far from it; I am simply suggesting that we can frame/construct the use of technology, and social networking as tools that encourage critical thinking among our students. 

The fact is that many digital natives are already constructing their identities via technology and social networking sites.  These digital natives are treating identity construction as a performative act, in which the construction of their identities is conditioned by technology, and occurs through technology.  Technology makes concepts real and meaningful for digital natives, including the concept of self/identity.  Therefore, technology constructs meaning and realness for digital natives.

In keeping with Bradbury’s prediction – society should neither render a tool/skill obsolete, nor replace it with something that retards society’s ability to appreciate knowledge/information.  We cannot simply buy in to the snippet, status, and sound bite culture into which society is devolving.  What’s more, Bradbury contends (and rightly so) that it is not the state, but people who are actually the ideological [state] apparatus.  The state institutionalizes societal norms, but the citizen takes what begins as a habit of thought and creates a cultural habit or ideology in the establishment of a collective identity/shared community (Clark). 

 

Side Note:  Please check out Amy Boyle Johnston's (2007) piece about the truth behind Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451:  Fahrenheit 451: Misinterpreted

Social Networking: Closing the Achievement Gap & Leveling the Playing Field

Social Networking:  Closing the Achievement Gap & Leveling the Playing Field

It is becoming more apparent that with each advancement in technology our relationship with knowledge changes.  With each day we are learning that there is a new tool or innovation through which we can manipulate information.  As teachers we have to take into consideration that our students are more often than not plugged in to some kind of technology.  They are constantly engaged by it.  It is up to us to discover how we are able to use technology for our professional development, and the academic enrichment of our students.  As Vie attempts to demonstrate the relationship between social networking and pedagogy, she suggests that as teachers and scholars we do not have to yield to social networking sites as a pedagogical tool, but acknowledge that student attention is drawn to social networking sites, and technology as a whole.  I am assuming that this is a caveat, in which she insinuates that as adults we do not have to yield to our students’ new toys, but as educators we may want to consider technology (and social networking) as an appropriate educative tool. 

Whether this tool is a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a video, a disk, or a website, providing access to information is one way in which teachers may broaden a students’ knowledge base.  One reason we step away from social networking sites as an educative tool is because its implicit use is nonsensical.  At this point, Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking websites have been used to primarily to connect friends, and share pictures cats – they do not appear to serve an academic purpose.  We have to justify the use of social networking and social media as a pedagogical tool.  We must change the face of social networking and social media so that they represent education and demonstrate their value in the field of education.  As teachers we should attempt to demonstrate how social networking and social media can broaden the scope of student and teacher knowledge.  Moreover, we should reveal that the use of this type of technology can create new dimensions of academia, and avenues through which learning can occur (i.e., connecting students to resources or people, used as interactive curricular & instructional tools).   We have to show our parents and administrators that social networking and social media can help close the achievement gap that exists in our society on a global level by connecting students and teachers so that they can engage one another in an information exchange.  It is time to use the resources we have at our disposal for entertainment to level the academic playing field among students by providing access to information for all.

The issue of social networking and social media as an educative tool is more a question of agency than access.  Technology can bring many positive aspects into the classroom, but fear and issues of control are associated with giving a classroom freewheeling access to information.  This type of access leaves room for the potential danger of exposure to information for which students may not be ready.  Moreover, this type of openness may expose students to information that has the potential to affect the social construction of their beliefs/identities, and change their foundational hierarchies of knowledge, as well as established hierarchies of privilege/oppression in society. 

Whose Idea was the Scarlet Letter?

Agency, Authority, Autonomy, Access & Ability:

Portfolios, Pedagogy & Praxis

Horrace Mann suggested that the role of the education was to be “beyond all other devices of human origin…the great equalizer of conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery”; however, as demonstrated in studies by Anyon (1981) and Kozol (2005), the role of education has evolved into the social reproduction of identity among students.  In this age of accountability (and by accountability I mean TESTING), educational policy has continued to divide students, and reproduce social hierarchies of difference and otherness to create character molds for students.  Rather than facilitating student learning, and critical thinking with regard to their social positions in society, traditional pedagogy has evolved overtime to encourage automaticity, mechanization, and obedience among the identity development of students and teachers.  Compliance is ingrained in student/teacher relationships and identities through curriculum and instruction. 

In her article The Digital Imperative:  Making the Case for a 21^st – Century Pedagogy (2009), Elizabeth Clark begins with an allusion to Gutenberg’s printing press in 1450.  She suggests that this technological innovation changed education and literacy among the masses by providing access to information through its “rapid distribution of knowledge” (28).  As we consider the ways in which we construct our identities within the myriad of forums that make up society, it is difficult to overlook the ways in which aspects of Agency (power), Authority (right/ownership), Autonomy (freedom), and Access affect our Ability to do so.  Citing Siva Vaidhyanathan and John Dewey, Clark suggests that the identities we construct in an effort to function in mainstream society are a result of habits of thought.  She states, “[t]hese ‘habits’ among individuals build into ‘cultural habits,’ or ideologies, though discussion, deliberation, and distribution” (28).  These ‘cultural habits’ develop along with a collective identity.  As a shared community (Clark 28), we move into another stage in the process of social construction since these ‘cultural habits’ often develop into a shared identity, and later a shared relationship with information and the world.  There is no individuality of thought or thought process among cyber socialites.  So how can there be individuality in our identity construction?

The ePortfolio is among the pedagogical tools/methods invoked by Elizabeth Clark.  As a tool for instruction or evaluation it seems that the use of portfolio pedagogy will work to promote individuality of thought in education and identity construction by encouraging students to think about their identity and relationships to their work (in progress) and ultimately (or eventually) the world around them.  What’s more, as an evaluative tool it forces teachers and administrators to judge students on an individualized, rather than a collective, basis/criteria.  My limited experiences as a teacher have helped me to understand how the development of individual relationships with information among students affects their academic performance.  As a machine for social reproduction, education does more than its fair share of facilitating group-think (much like the mentality that punished Hester Prynne) and the collective identity of students, and does nothing to help students learn a concept, let alone process information.  The implementation of pedagogical tools that open the world up to students will change the way they think about their world because, like Gutenberg’s printing press, there will be marked improvement in their Accessibility to information.  Students will no longer be robbed of their Ability to develop a relationship with the world and understand their position in it through education.  In their social lives students understand that a simulated power, freedom, and right exists which allows them to “express themselves”.  This is something that is missing in education because we are so focused on teaching to the test – Agency, Autonomy, and Authority have been taken out of education, in turn retarding our Access to information and Ability to understand the self in relation to the world.  The classroom has been closed off from the world by educational policy, and curriculum reform.  According to Clark, the use of technology and new media in the classroom creates a learning experiences for students that enable them to “tailor their…identities…to see how the function within different communities...[contest] knowledge production…question…make connections…between their academic and lived lives” (29 – 30).  Students and teachers are able to engage in dialogue, reflection, and analysis of their social conditions and positions right now, and even social action toward social justice because technology gives us the ability right now (in this moment…TODAY) to bring the world, literally the world, right into our classrooms. 

Naturalized Digital Citizenship...

I am a Naturalized Digital Immigrant!

The following is an adaptation of the United States Oath of Allegiance taken by all immigrants who wish to become naturalized citizens of the United States upon passing through the appropriate channels.  This is a version for digital immigrants.  While its recitation is not imperative for becoming naturalized citizens of the technological state, our actions are demonstrative and indicative of the promise we make through our growing use and dependence on technology and new media.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any primitive tool to which I have hencetofore been a subject; that I will support and defend the advancement and innovation of the technological state; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will construct my identity as a part of this new digital age; and I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me Jobs.

Considering Prensky’s (2001) definitions of Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants, I did not have a hard time deciding that I was a Digital Immigrant.  I was not “born into the digital world” but as a student, and with the advent of the Apple IPhone, I have definitely “become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of new technology.”  As Dr. Barrios so aptly stated in my class on the night of October 16th, 2012, we are, in fact, living in an Apple Ecosystem; however, as technologically savvy as I would like to think I am, because I consider myself a digital immigrant, I often find myself restricted by technology.  I cannot effortlessly go forth and start using new media or technology without first learning it – sometimes several times.  While the World Wide Web opens me up to endless possibilities with regard to the acquisition of information, sometimes it can be a difficult place to navigate.  Moreover, with technological innovations knocking on every classroom door it is difficult not to incorporate technology into our teaching and learning.  Although pencils and paper may never become obsolete, a stylus and a tablet is certainly the way of the future.

I like to think of myself as a self-directed learner; someone who takes the initiative and responsibility for regulating -- “planning, implementing, and evaluating” (Hiemstra, 1994) -- my own progress on a lesson.  As the world becomes more fascinated with technology and society moves into a new dimension of functional literacy, in which technology holds great weight, I do not feel as though my capacity to be a self-directed learner has been retarded in anyway.  Being a digital immigrant kicks my tendency toward self-directed learning into overdrive.  This is because in addition to familiarizing myself with the new learning concept, I am also compelled to master the new technology. 

For example, my experiences with the new media project for this class have shown me just how determined, and self-directed, albeit stubborn, I really am as a student.  Working with the concept of a webquest, I first had to learn about webquests in general.  Moving forward into actually creating a webquest, I had to familiarize myself with a lesson and curriculum that would accommodate this type of teaching tool.  Upon doing that I decided that Prezi was my medium of choice for increasing the interactive-ness of this tool – sure a word document or powerpoint presentation may have done the job just fine, but I decided to challenge myself with yet another piece of new media.  To make a long story short, there was a lot going on here.  Without having completed the actual project I was swimming in learning concepts associated with it before it manifested itself physically.

Neil Flemming provided a model for categorizing learning styles in which he identified three types of learners:  visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile.  According to Flemming, visual learners “think in pictures”, they use visual aids to facilitate their learning; auditory learners best acquire information by listening; and kinesthetic/tactile learners are best engaged through exploration and experience – moving, touching, doing.   I used to pride myself on being a visual learner (for the most part).  Put something in front of me to read and I was good to go, words were my friends.  But now I realize that as technology advances into education, I am becoming more and more of a kinesthetic/tactile learner – I need to do in an order to learn.  It is no longer enough for me to see or hear something in an effort to process or grasp an understanding of it.  I need to touch it.  I need to explore it.  I need to experience it.  I am becoming a new type of learner because of the evolution of functional literacy vis a vis technology.  I am still a self-directed learner because I believe this is a part of my learning personality, but I am learning differently because of the changing forms/embodiment of information.

 

Technological Power Play:

New Media as Critical Pedagogy

As society and education move toward a new type of functional literacy, one that emphasizes the knowledge and use of technology, new media is playing a more significant role in pedagogy.  Students (and teachers) are developing a symbiotic relationship with technology in which machines and technology are being systematically ingrained in culture and human history.  According to Hayles (2006), “[c]ultural beliefs and practices are part of this co-evolutionary dynamic because they influence what tools are made and how those tools are used, which in turn affects who we are as biological organisms, which then feeds back into the co-evolutionary spiral."  Because it is the responsibility of educational practitioners, as well as the field of education to meet the social and academic needs of their students, the teacher, and the field must change to accommodate the evolution of its students and society.  Ultimately, to meet the needs of its students, the academic institution must, as it has always done, reflect the societies, cultural norms, and social norms that shape human beings. 

As an expansion of my new media project and Tech/Rhet Wiki tool (WebQuest and The Khan Academy), I want to continue my exploration of the use of new media as critical pedagogy.  This would mean demonstrating for educational practitioners (school teachers and administrators) how the use of technology as a part of their curriculum and instruction helps students develop an understanding of their social position in the classroom and society.  This means that in addition to considering how the use of technology affects superficial student learning, research must demonstrate how technology facilitates student (and teacher) understanding of the relationships of power in the classroom and society.  Research centered on the role of technology as critical pedagogy must consider the extent to which agency (power) and autonomy exist in teaching and learning as students (and teachers) make meaning of knowledge (Toffoletti, Baudrillard, Derrida, Badmington).
 
Paulo Freire (1969) maintains that when teachers engage in teaching practices that facilitate conscientization (awareness) and praxis (reflective analysis) among their students regarding their relationships with power a shift occurs within these dynamics of power in society through education.  The forms (embodiment) in which these tools and practices manifest (i.e., how lessons/lesson plans are structured/constructed) demonstrate for the educational field how social reproduction occurs in society (Hayles, Welch, Bolter, Johnson-Eilola & Selber).  Considering this social construction of schooling, one must also consider the social construction of the student and the teacher (Hayles).  The aim is to consider the different roles technology and new media play in education as a tool (or agent) of teaching and learning.  In so doing, one is able to consider the ways in which technology informs pedagogy, and pedagogy informs technology.