Statement of Teaching Philosophy:
The word teaching means nothing without the word learning. The two are symbiotically related and inseparable without perishing.
The agitation of mindful activity is paramount where learning is concerned. In order for mindful activity to be ignited there must be outside stimulus that elicits a reaction. Meaning, the ‘teacher’ (stimulus provider) must deliver/convey/excite the ‘learner/student’ (stimulus receptor) with enough of the ‘right kind’ of motivation/catalyst to spur the mind into and out of sedation. Now, to be clear this is a first order event, regarding the binary balance of teacher and learner/student. For when the dialogue (a valuable tool of learning/teaching) is invoked the process is uplifted to a second and higher order functioning. It is within the realm of dialogue and discussion that teaching and learning become even more blurred. Blurred because the static and often routine division of teacher and learner becomes a manifestation of a cultivation of knowledge. Meaning that, information does not simply travel between transmitter and receptor, but rather – a rhizomatic situation is free to evolve (if those within the transversal arrangement supersede their own egos).
In plain English, the roles of teacher and student are just that: roles. My personal teaching philosophy is such that it allows for and encourages; constant change, self-evaluation/reflexivity and an active participation and commitment to engaging in learning.
Additionally and perhaps unnecessarily I would like to mention that learning/teaching must be highly attuned to sensitivities and frequencies of any given group. Leaning styles may vary greatly and consideration needs to be made to reflect a flexibility regarding the variation in cognitive function. Human rights and equity must be carefully observed so as to consider the issues as important, relevant and as open topics that require discussion, while creating a safe space within a group so as to not undermine any persons own credibility or self-esteem. Difference needs to be discussed so as to illuminate subjects (topics) that may otherwise occupy the territories of misunderstanding.
Teaching and learning ought to be held in high regard – both represent many challenges and difficulties. However, a flexible mind capable of critical thought is an invaluable resource that will serve an individual as they face a lifetime of choices and decisions. The ability to carefully make decisions based on critical thought reflects a commitment to learning that may mark the advent of an entire critical culture – maybe one day.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
how to deliver a successful lecture
Workshop: November 9, 2007 - Directed by, Dr. Batia Stolar
The Main:
[3 Parts] - Preperation - Audience (Who) - Delivery Style and Performance
These three factors are listed as such with dashes in between because as an educator or a lecturer or a presenter of some kind - The 3 must constantly be re-evaluated and changed, in order to partake in the reflexive act which is TEACHING.
Dr. Stolar - drove home points such as; understanding the role as lecturer, an active and a passive audience, goals for the lecture, preparation (how much), time of the lecture (how long, as well as time of day, being mindful of where an audience's mind may be i.e., food, sleep...),
She also spoke of using digression as a learning tool that keeps an audience engaged, however, there is effective and ineffective ways of doing it. The effective manner, had more to do with a carefully planned and orchestrated digression that actually answers and delivers the necessary information, while keeping the stories interesting - more like a practical discussion that leads to questions- related to a particular topic.
Also, the presentation forum is a stage - and while on stage - you need to be considerate of body placement, volume, space, mannerisms, eye contact, movement and form. Although she also stated that as a presenter you are not necessarily a performer in the sense of entertainment - because education is with purpose, and entertainment is usually thought of in terms of an entertained audience. Meaning that, one ought not think of being a rock-star and use the platform of education as an outlet for performativity. This also means that an entertaining presentation may in fact, have nothing of real value - may not have anything worthwhile to say. A smiling an laughing audience is not necessarily an informed audience. Just don't purposefully deliver dry presentations to counter the fluffy performance. There must be a balance.
Throughout my attempts at giving presentations and lectures I have tried to strike a balance and I feel that I have succeeded because of some good feedback from students and my advisors alike. I do have considerable experience of being on-stage in the form of bands, so I feel that I have somewhat learned to work a crowd - however - I always felt that my ability to perform needed to be bolstered and inflected with more critical commentary and dare I say information - which in most cases doesn't go over well with a bar crowd - or even with my own bands. Thus, I have turned from trying to use the musical stage as a platform for critical thought and discussion - towards a balance within a classroom and conference setting that demands rigorous academic 'educating' and discussing while employing some aspects of performativity that I hope stimilates minds and breaks barriers.
Dr. Stolar also spoke of; the need to brak down barriers in order to activate minds, by mixing up styles between lecture and discussion. Also, the need to properly and intuitively asses an audience to determine what tactic and when would work best. Spontaneity! - also has a place within successful lecturing. The ability to move fluidly though the class and materials in a way that is flexible to change as well as deliver the required material.
One point that I found quite debatable was the use of 'powerpoint' style presentations. In my mind, these kinds of tools are best used as visual delivery aids. I loathe the common use of powerpoint as a device that conveys the same material that is being spoken about. Especially when the presenter is reading off the screen - this drives me crazy - it seems to presuppose that the audience cannot read for themselves, as well it seems to undermine the necessity for a lecturer/presenter at all. I do see the value of word for word, in terms of an audience or members who may need these word for word translations because of a disability. However, the consensus was reached in our workshop that: when the words are up on the screen the students pretty much 'tune out' and simply copy. Yikes!
In my own view - I like to use presentation materials to provide image references, that help, the growing majority of visually oriented people to make connections and analysis for themselves - which is proven to create a deep understanding of a topic, more so than simply copying words.
My method, is to speak, and present images that are either timed to fit the text - or as click throughs, by which I use the images at specific times as discussion pieces. In a sense I found it difficult to listen to Stolar, who chose to read off her own powerpoint while she talked about the benefits of using it in a different and more image based way. In the end she thanked me for the comments about her own presentation. I hope that I didn't offend her.
Dr. Stolar made the point that she uses the text based powerpoint presentation as a way of repetition - and to this end I agreed - a word seen and heard may have more sticking power than a word simply heard.
To move off the powerpoint topic - she also mentioned - staying on track and not to let discussions veer too far off the required topics.
The part of the presentation I found most valuable was when she mentioned - journaling after a presentation experience. A way of self checking to see what worked and what needs work. A way of documenting the experience and working with one self in a self-reflexive manner in order to evolve and change. As a frequent contributor to a range of blogs, as well as a personal journaler, I highly value the act of self reflection. Through self reflection, we can help to help ourselves become better at whatever it is we do.
The Main:
[3 Parts] - Preperation - Audience (Who) - Delivery Style and Performance
These three factors are listed as such with dashes in between because as an educator or a lecturer or a presenter of some kind - The 3 must constantly be re-evaluated and changed, in order to partake in the reflexive act which is TEACHING.
Dr. Stolar - drove home points such as; understanding the role as lecturer, an active and a passive audience, goals for the lecture, preparation (how much), time of the lecture (how long, as well as time of day, being mindful of where an audience's mind may be i.e., food, sleep...),
She also spoke of using digression as a learning tool that keeps an audience engaged, however, there is effective and ineffective ways of doing it. The effective manner, had more to do with a carefully planned and orchestrated digression that actually answers and delivers the necessary information, while keeping the stories interesting - more like a practical discussion that leads to questions- related to a particular topic.
Also, the presentation forum is a stage - and while on stage - you need to be considerate of body placement, volume, space, mannerisms, eye contact, movement and form. Although she also stated that as a presenter you are not necessarily a performer in the sense of entertainment - because education is with purpose, and entertainment is usually thought of in terms of an entertained audience. Meaning that, one ought not think of being a rock-star and use the platform of education as an outlet for performativity. This also means that an entertaining presentation may in fact, have nothing of real value - may not have anything worthwhile to say. A smiling an laughing audience is not necessarily an informed audience. Just don't purposefully deliver dry presentations to counter the fluffy performance. There must be a balance.
Throughout my attempts at giving presentations and lectures I have tried to strike a balance and I feel that I have succeeded because of some good feedback from students and my advisors alike. I do have considerable experience of being on-stage in the form of bands, so I feel that I have somewhat learned to work a crowd - however - I always felt that my ability to perform needed to be bolstered and inflected with more critical commentary and dare I say information - which in most cases doesn't go over well with a bar crowd - or even with my own bands. Thus, I have turned from trying to use the musical stage as a platform for critical thought and discussion - towards a balance within a classroom and conference setting that demands rigorous academic 'educating' and discussing while employing some aspects of performativity that I hope stimilates minds and breaks barriers.
Dr. Stolar also spoke of; the need to brak down barriers in order to activate minds, by mixing up styles between lecture and discussion. Also, the need to properly and intuitively asses an audience to determine what tactic and when would work best. Spontaneity! - also has a place within successful lecturing. The ability to move fluidly though the class and materials in a way that is flexible to change as well as deliver the required material.
One point that I found quite debatable was the use of 'powerpoint' style presentations. In my mind, these kinds of tools are best used as visual delivery aids. I loathe the common use of powerpoint as a device that conveys the same material that is being spoken about. Especially when the presenter is reading off the screen - this drives me crazy - it seems to presuppose that the audience cannot read for themselves, as well it seems to undermine the necessity for a lecturer/presenter at all. I do see the value of word for word, in terms of an audience or members who may need these word for word translations because of a disability. However, the consensus was reached in our workshop that: when the words are up on the screen the students pretty much 'tune out' and simply copy. Yikes!
In my own view - I like to use presentation materials to provide image references, that help, the growing majority of visually oriented people to make connections and analysis for themselves - which is proven to create a deep understanding of a topic, more so than simply copying words.
My method, is to speak, and present images that are either timed to fit the text - or as click throughs, by which I use the images at specific times as discussion pieces. In a sense I found it difficult to listen to Stolar, who chose to read off her own powerpoint while she talked about the benefits of using it in a different and more image based way. In the end she thanked me for the comments about her own presentation. I hope that I didn't offend her.
Dr. Stolar made the point that she uses the text based powerpoint presentation as a way of repetition - and to this end I agreed - a word seen and heard may have more sticking power than a word simply heard.
To move off the powerpoint topic - she also mentioned - staying on track and not to let discussions veer too far off the required topics.
The part of the presentation I found most valuable was when she mentioned - journaling after a presentation experience. A way of self checking to see what worked and what needs work. A way of documenting the experience and working with one self in a self-reflexive manner in order to evolve and change. As a frequent contributor to a range of blogs, as well as a personal journaler, I highly value the act of self reflection. Through self reflection, we can help to help ourselves become better at whatever it is we do.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Critical Thinking
October 26, 2007 - Critical Thinking Workshop - with Don Kerr
"Critical Thinking is the making of reasoned judgments, where good reasoned judgments reflect the use of 5 intellectual resources or tools."
The following material was adapted from: Bailin, Sharon; Roland Case, Jerrold Coombs and LeRoi Daniels. 1999. Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies 31; 285-302.
The 5 Tools
1] Background Knowledge -
i.e., big intro classes where a lot of information is put out and expected to be absorbed the purpose is to fill in the gaps of knowledge.
2] Criteria for Judgment -
Methodical. Different fields mean different specificity.
3] Reasoning Vocabulary -
Strong argument. The tools with which one can successfully produce an argument/ article.
4] Thinking Strategies -
Pause. Play devils advocate. Consider the outcomes. Consider the source...
5] Habits of mind -
(Non context specific) Rethink. Evaluate Beliefs. Look for bias. Re-examine.
WHAT we need to promote Critical Thinking -
1] Create situations that call for judgments. Create critical challenges.
2] Evaluate for demonstration of judgment. Meaning - ask, open ended questions.
3] Our aim is to reflect epistemological beliefs. No static certainty. Trying to get the students inside of the questions. Disciplines are made up 'of people arguing.'
__________________________________________________________________________________
Basically this workshop with Don, was a blast. Since Don has a background in teaching and pedagogy, especially in terms of ethics and philosophy - the nature of the workshop reflected his background. It was interesting to note that while we were discussing the topic of critical thinking and marking - the issue of grading an argument or a paper on the basis of 'good argument/ logical argument' came up.
The issue: that a person from another discipline would not be able to effectively grade a paper by a student from a different discipline. Don stated that the marker may not be entirely effective because the matter (the topic) would not be fully understood from the perspective of the discipline. However, our discussion, posed the question that: regardless of specificity regarding discipline - the marker would still be able to discern a strong argument from a poor one. As the debate went on - it seemed that a consensus would not be reached.
in my own view I agree with Don, because I feel that, certainly, being a student of Sociology, I would not be an effective, or fair, or knowledgeable marker if the paper was dealing with math or sciences. However I also agree with the other side of the argument, should the paper I am marking is from a student writing within the arts or humanities. I guess, the difference is that, within sociology and say, English, or comparative literature, I would stand a better chance to offer a critical commentary and thus a grade, than if I was to venture too far afield. The point being that, interdisciplinary studies, such as sociology may afford certain malleability regarding discussion and critical commentary. Whereas - with science I may find myself lost in a wash of theories and concepts that I don't have the proper background info on. And, therein lays the point of critical thinking - that one 'must' have a base of knowledge from which to draw on to be considered a critical thinker.
This workshop was rather short - well it seemed short - and the majority of the time spent was in critical discussion and argument. Meaning, to me, that critical thinking is rooted in the 5 basic elements of critical thinking as outlined above.
Although I feel that it is safe to say that being a critical thinker also means, that a topic that is out of a range of knowledge may require - an adaptation to the primary 5 elements - as well as being patient with one self should they hope to add, effectively to a discussion that 'at the moment' is unfamiliar.
The possibility of the 'everyman/woman/being' is increasingly impossible in our world where specificity seems to be on track towards hyper-specialization. There is a chance to be broad, but there is also the dignity and self respect to know when one should simply back away - until, such a time when the first 5 elements are met, at least on a base level.
"Critical Thinking is the making of reasoned judgments, where good reasoned judgments reflect the use of 5 intellectual resources or tools."
The following material was adapted from: Bailin, Sharon; Roland Case, Jerrold Coombs and LeRoi Daniels. 1999. Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies 31; 285-302.
The 5 Tools
1] Background Knowledge -
i.e., big intro classes where a lot of information is put out and expected to be absorbed the purpose is to fill in the gaps of knowledge.
2] Criteria for Judgment -
Methodical. Different fields mean different specificity.
3] Reasoning Vocabulary -
Strong argument. The tools with which one can successfully produce an argument/ article.
4] Thinking Strategies -
Pause. Play devils advocate. Consider the outcomes. Consider the source...
5] Habits of mind -
(Non context specific) Rethink. Evaluate Beliefs. Look for bias. Re-examine.
WHAT we need to promote Critical Thinking -
1] Create situations that call for judgments. Create critical challenges.
2] Evaluate for demonstration of judgment. Meaning - ask, open ended questions.
3] Our aim is to reflect epistemological beliefs. No static certainty. Trying to get the students inside of the questions. Disciplines are made up 'of people arguing.'
__________________________________________________________________________________
Basically this workshop with Don, was a blast. Since Don has a background in teaching and pedagogy, especially in terms of ethics and philosophy - the nature of the workshop reflected his background. It was interesting to note that while we were discussing the topic of critical thinking and marking - the issue of grading an argument or a paper on the basis of 'good argument/ logical argument' came up.
The issue: that a person from another discipline would not be able to effectively grade a paper by a student from a different discipline. Don stated that the marker may not be entirely effective because the matter (the topic) would not be fully understood from the perspective of the discipline. However, our discussion, posed the question that: regardless of specificity regarding discipline - the marker would still be able to discern a strong argument from a poor one. As the debate went on - it seemed that a consensus would not be reached.
in my own view I agree with Don, because I feel that, certainly, being a student of Sociology, I would not be an effective, or fair, or knowledgeable marker if the paper was dealing with math or sciences. However I also agree with the other side of the argument, should the paper I am marking is from a student writing within the arts or humanities. I guess, the difference is that, within sociology and say, English, or comparative literature, I would stand a better chance to offer a critical commentary and thus a grade, than if I was to venture too far afield. The point being that, interdisciplinary studies, such as sociology may afford certain malleability regarding discussion and critical commentary. Whereas - with science I may find myself lost in a wash of theories and concepts that I don't have the proper background info on. And, therein lays the point of critical thinking - that one 'must' have a base of knowledge from which to draw on to be considered a critical thinker.
This workshop was rather short - well it seemed short - and the majority of the time spent was in critical discussion and argument. Meaning, to me, that critical thinking is rooted in the 5 basic elements of critical thinking as outlined above.
Although I feel that it is safe to say that being a critical thinker also means, that a topic that is out of a range of knowledge may require - an adaptation to the primary 5 elements - as well as being patient with one self should they hope to add, effectively to a discussion that 'at the moment' is unfamiliar.
The possibility of the 'everyman/woman/being' is increasingly impossible in our world where specificity seems to be on track towards hyper-specialization. There is a chance to be broad, but there is also the dignity and self respect to know when one should simply back away - until, such a time when the first 5 elements are met, at least on a base level.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Leading a Lecture/Discussion
When I was first told that I would have to give a lecture in order to complete the requirements for the teaching practicum I was scared half to death. That was over a year ago and since then I have managed to lead a handfull of classes. My first opportunities were a string of three classes wherein I had to try and fill in for a professor who was unable to attend the final 3 classes of the semester. Needless to say I did not necessarily have to go about gathering materials to deliver to the class since I had a packet of materials handed to me. Instead I had to make sense out of materials for a class that up until that time I had nothing to do with. The students had never met me and were quite concerned that their professor was MIA. Another major issue was the fact that, getting close to the end of term, anxiety was quite high surrounding final projects, exams and who was going to be marking their work. I did my best, closely reviewing the notes that I was to deliver beforehand, so that I could talk freely about the pertinent issues, while being able to field questions on a topic that is not my area of expertise. I had a span of three classes and was thus able to try out a few distinct teaching styles in order to better understand how the group would react.
I was merely expected to place notes on an overhead and have the students copy it down - but in all honesty that isn't my style at all - I much rather prefer to have lecturing/discussion blend seamlessly and continuously turn the task of reflection and teaching back onto the students in an effort to keep the engagement level quite high. I also used specific questions as guides for small group discussion. Smaller groups tended to result in a higher level of interactivity, especially for students who would otherwise remain silent. I genuinely wanted to hear what the students had to say about a given issue and I would make my best attempt at leading them in a direction that would allow them to come to a conclusion or a better understanding on their own.
To move ahead to my latest teaching endeavor - October 2007. I have been a TA for the fourth year class: Sociology of disability which sees a range of students from Social Work/ Sociology and Gerontology in attendance. The wide range of students means that different disciplines are represented as well as a range of learning styles. In this case I was already familiar with the material of the class due to attending the same offering the year prior. As well I was familiar with the students because the professor had me attend all the classes as well as being the facilitator for the blog. This meant that there was a kind of familiarity with all parties involved.
My opportunity was tailored to reflect my experience and knowledge. I was gifted with the week dedicated to disability and the built environment. Fortunately I have a keen interest in the topic and was thus able to think in creative terms regarding how to effectively lead a discussion with a limited amount of lecturing. The first step was to get prepared - do the readings - do extra readings - read them again and then determine what the most important details or what the most important topics ought to be discussed in class. By the end of my lecture arrangement I had over 10 pages of material to deliver over a two class period.
In an attempt to get creative on the class I planned a course of action as such: Feed them some information, pose verbal questions, discuss, present new information, have the class free-write for 4 minutes and repeat. The goal was for the class to build up, individually, through free writing a total of 4 bodies of writing. Meaning that by the middle of the second class - after 4 bouts of free writing, they would each have enough material to motivate small group discussions. The idea was for them to build their free writing exercise into kindling for small group discussion. I must say, everything went off without a hitch. It went splendidly. Students took their free write time very seriously and appreciated the time they were given to discuss their thoughts.
Following the classes I received many compliments from students who enjoyed the classes and the structure very much. I was told that the free writing was something that most had never experienced - additionally they commented that I knew the material very well and answered their questions competently and respectfully while maintaining a good level of discussion at all times.
As for my professor who sat in on both classes, she told me that she was quite pleased with my performance. I knew the material very well ( a key factor) and I did a wonderful job keeping the students engaged and interested while introducing new and exciting techniques into the mix. A compliment from a mentor is always taken with much grace and this was no exception.
In terms of an assessment of student learning, an engaged student is one who takes part in discussions, reacting and acting critically in away that propels the discussion forward. It becomes obvious what 'thought' looks like on a students face, as well as the accompanying 'what about...' comment. My goal with these classes was to foster the movement of ideas in a way that was exciting and seen as important. Meaning that the motivation stemmed from a deep desire to share techniques of critical thinking/analysis. Discussion, free writing, small group, presentation... these methods seemed to work well with this class.
Thanks to this opportunity I was able to gain some confidence in terms of delivering a lecture. I was enlightened to the amount of work that is necessary for structuring and preparing lectures. I was also granted enough freedom to work with the class in a manner of my choice. A valuable set of lessons indeed.
Below is simply a copy of my lecture guide notes and embedded free writing questions.
The Built Environment as Disabling
October 2 – 4, 2007
1] What’s so great about independence? Sally French [1993]
The myth of independence.
Fitting into others plans = loss of freedom and autonomy.
Independence as restricting people’s lives. I.e., as when a helper and person being helped turns into an unbalanced situation.
Is it right to insist on this kind (struggling with clothing) independence?
Librarian – believed that the main goal ought to be ‘independence.’
The potential for pigeonholing, due to variations of disability. (The tendency for the able to ‘box’ disabilities into some impossibly uniform concept.)
The ‘expectation’ of the librarian and the general public to ‘use’ the ‘assistive’ device - for to shun an ‘expensive’ device would be “thoroughly ungrateful.”
The result of the ‘device’ may lead to the inability to fully function or integrate with the ‘machine’ as well as disallowing one from ‘asking for help.’
“Disabilities tend to make us slow.”
The assumption, by the able bodied, that the disable ‘want to be independent.’
The librarian may have felt like the assistance she provided was of a second rate quality compared to an ‘obviously’ superior independence.
“The librarian undervalued the help she was providing, and was so sure of what was best, she did not think to ask.”
Independence is a way of individualizing the disability rather than thinking of it in social terms. Individualizing a disability is a way to depoliticize an issue, an underhanded way of manifesting political convenience. Politics, in a capitalist society, tends to be the overarching ‘system’ we all work for, the big-business. Business is concerned with profits, not people. The usual drama is for those in power to turn the ‘raised issue,’ like a ‘raised curb’ with no ramp, back on the individual with the disability.
Words like, try harder and you’re not doing enough, would come in handy here. Status quo – in this context means that if you can’t get around in this city, on this university, to ride the bus, to go to the washroom, to use a photocopier, a computer, go see a movie, get in and out of a vehicle… if you can’t do these things easily – or if they take a long time for you – or you simply cannot do these everyday tasks – then something… is wrong with you!
Our built environments are made for, and designed with able bodied-ness in mind.
The thought is that disabled people want to be independent above all else. That they are supposed to be grateful for everything that is given to them. It is a FANTASY to say that we are all completely independent – food, water… It is more effective to state that we are all interdependent –
The ramp by the security office is conveniently placed – the ramp in the ATAC is not – and when you have to rely on an inconvenient RAMP you begin to think that you are certainly an ‘afterthought’ of the design community.
There doesn’t seem to be a commitment that disabled people are valued.
Consider that mechanical devices often frustrate disabled people – however given that mainstream society feels as though it has ‘given ‘ something – the thought is that no more is needed..
The Modular
“Le Corbusier developed the Modulor in the long tradition of Vitruvius, Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, the work of Leone Battista Alberti, and other attempts to discover mathematical proportions in the human body and then to use that knowledge to improve both the appearance and function of architecture. The system is based on human measurements, the double unit, the Fibonacci numbers, and the golden ratio. Le Corbusier described it as a "range of harmonious measurements to suit the human scale, universally applicable to architecture and to mechanical things."
Le Corbusier published Le Modulor in 1948, followed by Modulor 2 in 1955. These works were first published in English as The Modulor in 1954 and Modulor 2 (Let the User Speak Next) in 1958.
The Librarian: Sally French Says’
If the librarian continues to help me, I will have more time to read. Especially important because my (Sally French) reading time is slow.
“Striving for independence in terms of basic practicalities when, for that person, there are better things to do can seriously reduce independence by restricting the disabled person’s freedom of thought and action.”
The Normal Image – i.e., prosthetic limbs and hands – poor substitutes for the purely functional devices such as wooden legs or hooks they replace.
Prosthesis – were designed by able bodied people, to make sure that they would not have to deal with disabled people. Prosthesis may be uncomfortable for the wearer – it may not even provide any function – the whole point it get the ‘look’ right so that a person can ‘pass’ –
The argument goes on to say that disabled people do so much in private – just to seem, or to appear Normal. For if they ask for special accommodations – they would be labeled difficult. Once again, to stress, difficult and different are bad.
*** Maybe what disabled people need to do is – draw attention to themselves to make it known how difficult it is to be disabled.
Assistive devices usually send the message that – a person may require ‘no assistance’ at all – when in fact the contrary may be true.
Wolff proposes that technology can never replace the quality of interpersonal relationships. Instead it can lead to isolation – meaning that the problem is once again lumped onto the disabled person. Once again when the challenge of ‘doing’ something is placed back within the sphere of the disabled person, the able-bodied can once again ‘forget’ about the person. No longer, will a door be held open or a book brought down from a top shelve – rather the person and their assistive device will be seen as a ‘near’ equal – a person who is ‘already’ being assisted and thus – ‘they must not want or need any further assistance.
Job find:
Showing that you can cope – rather than the fact that you may need some assistance – for the workspace is another space that demands efficiency – especially when profits are involved.
Able-bodied persons restrictions are often seen as normal and acceptable – however… in terms of Sally French and working at the polytechnic – asking for academic assistance was seen as ‘normal’ however – asking for assistance because of the disability – like reading papers – was too much to ask - not to mention that the favor could be returned any number of ways.
(5 min free writing on this question set)
Consider this: Have you ever asked a disabled person for help? Have you ever offered your services to a disabled person? What are the normal rules of conduct? What could you suggest in terms of the socialization and acceptance of help?
2] Can Technology Overcome the Disabling City? Brendan Gleeson [1999]
Is disability a natural ill that technology can supposedly cure?
Technology meaning – small things like hearing aids to urban design technologies such as accessible design regulations.
There is a mixed opinion of hearing aids – for instance there is a stigma attached to ‘being seen with any kind of assistive device.’
Meaning that when you are seen with an assistive device, it is seen as ‘different,’ and in our culture, different is bad.
In terms of hearing aids, they have become a fashion statement, companies have started to make devices, smaller and smaller, meaning that, they do become less visible, however, they also become more difficult to maneuver into place. The batteries have become increasingly small, in addition, they may be lost easily, plus, the cost – like the crutches that we spoke of earlier, where does the interest lay in a capitalist society?
It seems to me that – faith in technology, reflected in laws, policies, institutional arrangements and social attitudes – privilege Technology above all else.
This article aims to present us with a critical appreciation for the limits of ‘technological solutions.’
The cultural materialist view:
Socially produced through 2 interdependent modalities –
Function and appearance. I.e., political economic marginality and cultural deviation.
Cultural materialism – views disability as naturally given set of limitations which can be reduced through environmental innovations.
The disabling city:
Industrial revolution meant the scale and complexity of cities increased… markets, urbanization, technological change… it is from this ‘event’ that urban industrial landscapes characterized as western were effectively created… These verses sound like the creation of Machines –
A range of social scientists now agree that the industrial city was not a machine designed for disabled people – built for the average, plus/minus half a standard deviation – In terms of a bell curve – persons with disabilities that are placed in the tails of the distribution are effectively isolated by their environments.
The layouts of cities – land use, internal building designs… discriminates against disabled people by not accounting for mobility requirements.
1) physical barriers, broken surfaces.
2) Building architecture, stairs.
3) Public transport modes, assumes a common level of mobility
4) Public information. Signage.
Machines or Nature:
So why? Did contemporary cities assume forms and functions that discriminate?
Gleeson talks about 3 reasons – natural limits, thoughtless design, and historical-geographical construction…
Natural Limits:
Placing the emphasis on the limits of the individual – the arguments states that natural limitations can be compensated for through “specialized urban technologies.” Motorized wheelchairs – tactual maps – moving ramps –
Meaning that the individual will be able to undertake meaningful social and economic activities.
‘Environmental modifications seek to increase access for disabled people by compensating for the disability.’
Thoughtless design:
Too often this rhetoric becomes a static diorama – meaning that academic and policy literature sees the oppression of the disabling environment in an over-simplified spatial analysis – meaning that they pinpoint the source of disablement upon the arrangement of the built environment.
Things like: Broken surfaces, poor maps, inaccessible transport, low-density urban form i.e., Thunder Bay… In this sense space is reduced to an inanimate configuration of objects – and the dynamics of the social character are disregarded.
Thoughtless design is criticized for being – technologically determinist – that faith in environmental solutions will solve all the problems of inaccessibility and immobility. Plus the approach is technocratic because it assumes that ‘expert and professional’ knowledge can identify and implement technological improvements to cities.
ATAC – the walkway – the smooth graded path up to the front doors was actually an aesthetic accident – making it relatively easy for a person in a wheelchair to maneuver – however – when it comes to the doors – there seems to be the same ableist perspective re-occurring – Standard double doors – that are heavy – and usually open from the right side – often times the left door is locked – in addition – the automatic door buttons have only been installed within the last 3 years – meaning that they were added after the building was built.
Historical Geographic Explanation:
Feudal life was governed by, a localized economy that encouraged cooperation instead of competition… Meaning that there was no imperative to discriminate between stronger and weaker forms of labor power… People with low mobility could work at jobs that did not require much mobility such as weaving and cobbling.
Localized work was easier to carry out than labour set to mechanized and standardized rhythms. In industrialized work there were very few specific workspaces for impaired people – doormen, guards, street vendors, entertainers, and domestic workers – these were merely shadows of the more inclusive labour that characterized feudalism.
Industrialization meant that – slower, weaker and inflexible workers were devalued in terms of their potential for paid work. This kind of arrangement meant the steady decline in disabled peoples labour power.
The shift from local to factory based wage labour meant that - the labour market of the 19th century effectively depressed handicapped people of all kinds to the bottom of the market.
The separation of home and work, which was absent in the feudal era, became a major disabling feature for an entire range of disabled people.
Karl Marx wrote: Industrialization and Urbanization, produced too great a section of the population which is… incapable of work, which owing to it’s situation is dependent on the exploitation of the labour of others or on kinds of work that can only count as such within a miserable mode of production.
Environmental Re-engineering, is it the answer?
A principal of competition presupposes that certain individual or (bodies) will be rewarded and enabled by paid employment – whilst others are disabled as socially dependent.
Better building standards, will not on their own revalue the labour power of all physically impaired people – these changes will not guarantee economic security and social acceptances for disabled people – these strategies can reduce ‘friction’ of everyday life for people with disabilities – but they will not solve the social-spatial oppression of disablement.
Of More importance than accessibility and enhanced functioning are – basic needs like security, autonomy, affiliation, accomplishment, intimacy and identity.
Recently, powerful corporations in the US have argued against requirements for businesses to provide wheelchair access – as an unnecessary restriction upon private property…
In Germany, while legislation has been passed that strives for inclusive labour processes, meaning that disabled folks are allocated a percent of the jobs in a given company relative to size… this example also is incomplete in it’s process – while this rights based approach guarantees the prerogative for work for disabled people it does not provide the institutional means for such a goal to be realized.
Gleeson Conclusion:
Natural Limits and Thoughtless Design – are both technologically determinist – inappropriately emphasizing the role of technology as an oppressor and as a means for overcoming problems such as inaccessibility and social-marginalization.
In terms of new adaptive work technologies – framed around computers – there has been a bi-polarization – between exploitative domestic labour and professionalized forms of individual contract based employment = neither of which are readily available or desirable for most disabled people, who remain handicapped by poverty and lower education standards in most western countries.
The overwhelming distinction is that we have become less interdependent on people and more dependent on technology.
Disabled people desire and have struggled for (as we all desire and struggle for) valued social roles, ensuring material welfare, cultural acceptance, and socio-spatial inclusion… As the historico-geographical perspective has shown, this value cannot be secured simply through technological innovations but must be won through lasting transformation of the political-economic, institutional and cultural forces that shape our cities and societies.
(5 min free writing on this question set)
Consider this
How has technology been implemented in ways that assist everyday life for disabled people?
Is technology letting us down?
If we have become more dependent on technology, is it productive to think of a society in which technology is used less, and interpersonal relationships are more apparent, or do we need to rethink this conceptualization? Meaning, can we ever go back to a feudal organization, likely not. Thus how can we imagine the future as a place that attempts to create balance between new technological advancement and interpersonal interactivity?
Oppression, Disability and Access in the Built Environment. Rob Imrie. [1998]
A recent awareness generated in terms of disabled people and the built environment. To confront hostile environments, access to buildings and streets is often impossible.
“Western cities are characterized by design apartheid where building form and design are inscribed with the values of an ‘able-bodied’ society.”
Some consider the built environment as disablist. Projecting able-bodied values which legitimize oppressive and discrimatory practices against disabled people purely on the basis that they have physical and/or mental impairments.
What do we take for granted – stairs… what is unavailable, and out of reach, cash machines…
Consider the ability to perform – is it severely diminished based on elements of the environment.
Consider this: what do you want your built environment to do for you?
Architecture:
The production of disablist and disabling environments are the roles of architects and/ design professionals.
Over the past 20 years, much criticism has befit the role of the architect in terms of the perpetuation of gendered, racial and other divisions of the city. Institutional practices of design professionals has served to exclude minority interests while reinforcing an alienating and oppressive built environment.
There is an assumption of sameness, or normality – that all sections of the population want the environment to do the same things for them.
There has been a rise of the professionalization of architectural and design practices – creating a technical. ‘expert’ elite; plus the rise of the corporate economy as the dominant clientele.
There appears to be an architectural myth that states “that art has a high moral purpose in the formation and transmission of culture… of the design of aesthetically pleasing forms of poetic spaces.” This projects the architect as a perveyor of beauty and truth, an elevated being, somehow with the abilities and skills to construct for (and in distinction with) the population as a whole.
Some writers note that it has never been a feature of the culture, social ethics and/or practices of design professionals to see themselves as part of wider political practices.
Postwar – Modern movement – minimalist sought to reduce the complexity of human movement – used a set of rules/laws – and the idea that all human action is knowable and controllable. I.e., winter cities, covered spaces, such as the tunnels of Lakehead University – the idea was that human movement and action was knowable and thus reducible to a set of laws and rules that dictated that space in essence does not matter, people would be fine in buildings that are underground and buried, without windows, hidden away and huddled under the artificial light of bulbs emitting a constant white glow… depression…
Architects have increasingly established themselves under the title of professional – in terms of space – ‘they know it all’… or what is best? In this sense, they could deny subjectivities of individuals by reducing everything to rationalism.
The post war emphasis on mobility instead of accessibility. Think Chapters, Wal-Mart – the powercentres that rely on the easy flow of traffic – rather than dense urban centers that could potentially host many people and services within less space. However compaction has its own pitfalls in terms of spatial accessibility.
The propagation and reification of the Normal person ‘a white male’ has been a powerful element of the design process. This is a model that perpetuates clear racist, sexist and albeist underpinnings.
Disability perspectives, where they may actually be taught, usually account for ‘after-thoughts to whole designs.
Throughout the 1950’s and onwards – architects became increasingly subject to building systems, new technologies and the global economy – meaning that autonomy was undercut to give way to the ‘limits, and costs, meaning that uniformity costs less…’ In this respect – money is the bottom line. Cost-effectivity - means that the able-bodied client is served, while the disabled client or user is relegated to the margins.
Able-bodied designs, implicated a demand for ableist environments catering to the able-bodied workforce.
Modernist forms that stressed – mono-functional forms, mass produced technology, seemed to deny human subjectivity.
“The avante-garde is intoxicated by the machine aesthetic… the intense intellectualism wants to suppress everything which is marvelous in life… Architecture without soul…”
Minimalism bereft of bourgeois ornamentation. Louis Sullivan - form should follow function.
Normality – LeCorbusier – believed in universal properties – he commented that “all men have the same organism, the same functions… the same needs”
-The idealized man was the embodiment of normality.
This concept reified the denial of bodily differences – as well as the idea of asexuality as the moral, or ethical standard bearer of the emergent esthetics of modernism.
Modernism could never hope to know the subjective experiences of the users of the built environment – because the philosophies more or less discounted the realm of the experiential, personalized, experience.
Consider this. Think of spaces, places, buildings and rooms that you hold attachment to, or memories. What makes the space important to you?
Technocracy, vain arrogance, elitism,
Modernism – Bauhaus movement – to reduce space, automate, standardize, use off the shelf materials, in an attempt to persuade people into using a certain kind of predetermined design. In essence bodily differences were being denied – as architects sought to standardize and engineer, people’s bodily interactions with the built environment.
Buildings come to embody fixed and unchanging functions… However, people are fluid, transformative and multi dimensional… Denial of the dynamic nature of society.
The Front Door:
A place that supports people’s activities and desires, permits them to do what they want, and causes a minimum of pain, frustration and embarrassment is more accessible than a place that confuses, harasses or intimidates people.
Schemes that allow for variation…? Can we name any?
APL is Oakland… A design success – a deep pink pavement – wide – shallow gradients and well positioned grab rails. The conflict of aesthetic vs humane.
“How ethical is it to practice architecture, to be a professional licensed to design buildings, without having first developed an intellectual and emotional understanding of people? The suggestion is that architects need to confront the social psychological context of design, how it feels for the users, and to acknowledge that there are no simple technical solutions.”
Empowering people with disabilities is multi-faceted, multi-dimensional – at a minimum it requires an engagement at the level of values and ideology, as well as the material base of building processes.
Consider this: Could you suggest ways in which the built environment could be dismantled and reconstructed to create an equality of accessibility, thereby smoothing a range of pitfalls that usually befall the disabled. The question is: how could the built environment.
I was merely expected to place notes on an overhead and have the students copy it down - but in all honesty that isn't my style at all - I much rather prefer to have lecturing/discussion blend seamlessly and continuously turn the task of reflection and teaching back onto the students in an effort to keep the engagement level quite high. I also used specific questions as guides for small group discussion. Smaller groups tended to result in a higher level of interactivity, especially for students who would otherwise remain silent. I genuinely wanted to hear what the students had to say about a given issue and I would make my best attempt at leading them in a direction that would allow them to come to a conclusion or a better understanding on their own.
To move ahead to my latest teaching endeavor - October 2007. I have been a TA for the fourth year class: Sociology of disability which sees a range of students from Social Work/ Sociology and Gerontology in attendance. The wide range of students means that different disciplines are represented as well as a range of learning styles. In this case I was already familiar with the material of the class due to attending the same offering the year prior. As well I was familiar with the students because the professor had me attend all the classes as well as being the facilitator for the blog. This meant that there was a kind of familiarity with all parties involved.
My opportunity was tailored to reflect my experience and knowledge. I was gifted with the week dedicated to disability and the built environment. Fortunately I have a keen interest in the topic and was thus able to think in creative terms regarding how to effectively lead a discussion with a limited amount of lecturing. The first step was to get prepared - do the readings - do extra readings - read them again and then determine what the most important details or what the most important topics ought to be discussed in class. By the end of my lecture arrangement I had over 10 pages of material to deliver over a two class period.
In an attempt to get creative on the class I planned a course of action as such: Feed them some information, pose verbal questions, discuss, present new information, have the class free-write for 4 minutes and repeat. The goal was for the class to build up, individually, through free writing a total of 4 bodies of writing. Meaning that by the middle of the second class - after 4 bouts of free writing, they would each have enough material to motivate small group discussions. The idea was for them to build their free writing exercise into kindling for small group discussion. I must say, everything went off without a hitch. It went splendidly. Students took their free write time very seriously and appreciated the time they were given to discuss their thoughts.
Following the classes I received many compliments from students who enjoyed the classes and the structure very much. I was told that the free writing was something that most had never experienced - additionally they commented that I knew the material very well and answered their questions competently and respectfully while maintaining a good level of discussion at all times.
As for my professor who sat in on both classes, she told me that she was quite pleased with my performance. I knew the material very well ( a key factor) and I did a wonderful job keeping the students engaged and interested while introducing new and exciting techniques into the mix. A compliment from a mentor is always taken with much grace and this was no exception.
In terms of an assessment of student learning, an engaged student is one who takes part in discussions, reacting and acting critically in away that propels the discussion forward. It becomes obvious what 'thought' looks like on a students face, as well as the accompanying 'what about...' comment. My goal with these classes was to foster the movement of ideas in a way that was exciting and seen as important. Meaning that the motivation stemmed from a deep desire to share techniques of critical thinking/analysis. Discussion, free writing, small group, presentation... these methods seemed to work well with this class.
Thanks to this opportunity I was able to gain some confidence in terms of delivering a lecture. I was enlightened to the amount of work that is necessary for structuring and preparing lectures. I was also granted enough freedom to work with the class in a manner of my choice. A valuable set of lessons indeed.
Below is simply a copy of my lecture guide notes and embedded free writing questions.
The Built Environment as Disabling
October 2 – 4, 2007
1] What’s so great about independence? Sally French [1993]
The myth of independence.
Fitting into others plans = loss of freedom and autonomy.
Independence as restricting people’s lives. I.e., as when a helper and person being helped turns into an unbalanced situation.
Is it right to insist on this kind (struggling with clothing) independence?
Librarian – believed that the main goal ought to be ‘independence.’
The potential for pigeonholing, due to variations of disability. (The tendency for the able to ‘box’ disabilities into some impossibly uniform concept.)
The ‘expectation’ of the librarian and the general public to ‘use’ the ‘assistive’ device - for to shun an ‘expensive’ device would be “thoroughly ungrateful.”
The result of the ‘device’ may lead to the inability to fully function or integrate with the ‘machine’ as well as disallowing one from ‘asking for help.’
“Disabilities tend to make us slow.”
The assumption, by the able bodied, that the disable ‘want to be independent.’
The librarian may have felt like the assistance she provided was of a second rate quality compared to an ‘obviously’ superior independence.
“The librarian undervalued the help she was providing, and was so sure of what was best, she did not think to ask.”
Independence is a way of individualizing the disability rather than thinking of it in social terms. Individualizing a disability is a way to depoliticize an issue, an underhanded way of manifesting political convenience. Politics, in a capitalist society, tends to be the overarching ‘system’ we all work for, the big-business. Business is concerned with profits, not people. The usual drama is for those in power to turn the ‘raised issue,’ like a ‘raised curb’ with no ramp, back on the individual with the disability.
Words like, try harder and you’re not doing enough, would come in handy here. Status quo – in this context means that if you can’t get around in this city, on this university, to ride the bus, to go to the washroom, to use a photocopier, a computer, go see a movie, get in and out of a vehicle… if you can’t do these things easily – or if they take a long time for you – or you simply cannot do these everyday tasks – then something… is wrong with you!
Our built environments are made for, and designed with able bodied-ness in mind.
The thought is that disabled people want to be independent above all else. That they are supposed to be grateful for everything that is given to them. It is a FANTASY to say that we are all completely independent – food, water… It is more effective to state that we are all interdependent –
The ramp by the security office is conveniently placed – the ramp in the ATAC is not – and when you have to rely on an inconvenient RAMP you begin to think that you are certainly an ‘afterthought’ of the design community.
There doesn’t seem to be a commitment that disabled people are valued.
Consider that mechanical devices often frustrate disabled people – however given that mainstream society feels as though it has ‘given ‘ something – the thought is that no more is needed..
The Modular
“Le Corbusier developed the Modulor in the long tradition of Vitruvius, Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, the work of Leone Battista Alberti, and other attempts to discover mathematical proportions in the human body and then to use that knowledge to improve both the appearance and function of architecture. The system is based on human measurements, the double unit, the Fibonacci numbers, and the golden ratio. Le Corbusier described it as a "range of harmonious measurements to suit the human scale, universally applicable to architecture and to mechanical things."
Le Corbusier published Le Modulor in 1948, followed by Modulor 2 in 1955. These works were first published in English as The Modulor in 1954 and Modulor 2 (Let the User Speak Next) in 1958.
The Librarian: Sally French Says’
If the librarian continues to help me, I will have more time to read. Especially important because my (Sally French) reading time is slow.
“Striving for independence in terms of basic practicalities when, for that person, there are better things to do can seriously reduce independence by restricting the disabled person’s freedom of thought and action.”
The Normal Image – i.e., prosthetic limbs and hands – poor substitutes for the purely functional devices such as wooden legs or hooks they replace.
Prosthesis – were designed by able bodied people, to make sure that they would not have to deal with disabled people. Prosthesis may be uncomfortable for the wearer – it may not even provide any function – the whole point it get the ‘look’ right so that a person can ‘pass’ –
The argument goes on to say that disabled people do so much in private – just to seem, or to appear Normal. For if they ask for special accommodations – they would be labeled difficult. Once again, to stress, difficult and different are bad.
*** Maybe what disabled people need to do is – draw attention to themselves to make it known how difficult it is to be disabled.
Assistive devices usually send the message that – a person may require ‘no assistance’ at all – when in fact the contrary may be true.
Wolff proposes that technology can never replace the quality of interpersonal relationships. Instead it can lead to isolation – meaning that the problem is once again lumped onto the disabled person. Once again when the challenge of ‘doing’ something is placed back within the sphere of the disabled person, the able-bodied can once again ‘forget’ about the person. No longer, will a door be held open or a book brought down from a top shelve – rather the person and their assistive device will be seen as a ‘near’ equal – a person who is ‘already’ being assisted and thus – ‘they must not want or need any further assistance.
Job find:
Showing that you can cope – rather than the fact that you may need some assistance – for the workspace is another space that demands efficiency – especially when profits are involved.
Able-bodied persons restrictions are often seen as normal and acceptable – however… in terms of Sally French and working at the polytechnic – asking for academic assistance was seen as ‘normal’ however – asking for assistance because of the disability – like reading papers – was too much to ask - not to mention that the favor could be returned any number of ways.
(5 min free writing on this question set)
Consider this: Have you ever asked a disabled person for help? Have you ever offered your services to a disabled person? What are the normal rules of conduct? What could you suggest in terms of the socialization and acceptance of help?
2] Can Technology Overcome the Disabling City? Brendan Gleeson [1999]
Is disability a natural ill that technology can supposedly cure?
Technology meaning – small things like hearing aids to urban design technologies such as accessible design regulations.
There is a mixed opinion of hearing aids – for instance there is a stigma attached to ‘being seen with any kind of assistive device.’
Meaning that when you are seen with an assistive device, it is seen as ‘different,’ and in our culture, different is bad.
In terms of hearing aids, they have become a fashion statement, companies have started to make devices, smaller and smaller, meaning that, they do become less visible, however, they also become more difficult to maneuver into place. The batteries have become increasingly small, in addition, they may be lost easily, plus, the cost – like the crutches that we spoke of earlier, where does the interest lay in a capitalist society?
It seems to me that – faith in technology, reflected in laws, policies, institutional arrangements and social attitudes – privilege Technology above all else.
This article aims to present us with a critical appreciation for the limits of ‘technological solutions.’
The cultural materialist view:
Socially produced through 2 interdependent modalities –
Function and appearance. I.e., political economic marginality and cultural deviation.
Cultural materialism – views disability as naturally given set of limitations which can be reduced through environmental innovations.
The disabling city:
Industrial revolution meant the scale and complexity of cities increased… markets, urbanization, technological change… it is from this ‘event’ that urban industrial landscapes characterized as western were effectively created… These verses sound like the creation of Machines –
A range of social scientists now agree that the industrial city was not a machine designed for disabled people – built for the average, plus/minus half a standard deviation – In terms of a bell curve – persons with disabilities that are placed in the tails of the distribution are effectively isolated by their environments.
The layouts of cities – land use, internal building designs… discriminates against disabled people by not accounting for mobility requirements.
1) physical barriers, broken surfaces.
2) Building architecture, stairs.
3) Public transport modes, assumes a common level of mobility
4) Public information. Signage.
Machines or Nature:
So why? Did contemporary cities assume forms and functions that discriminate?
Gleeson talks about 3 reasons – natural limits, thoughtless design, and historical-geographical construction…
Natural Limits:
Placing the emphasis on the limits of the individual – the arguments states that natural limitations can be compensated for through “specialized urban technologies.” Motorized wheelchairs – tactual maps – moving ramps –
Meaning that the individual will be able to undertake meaningful social and economic activities.
‘Environmental modifications seek to increase access for disabled people by compensating for the disability.’
Thoughtless design:
Too often this rhetoric becomes a static diorama – meaning that academic and policy literature sees the oppression of the disabling environment in an over-simplified spatial analysis – meaning that they pinpoint the source of disablement upon the arrangement of the built environment.
Things like: Broken surfaces, poor maps, inaccessible transport, low-density urban form i.e., Thunder Bay… In this sense space is reduced to an inanimate configuration of objects – and the dynamics of the social character are disregarded.
Thoughtless design is criticized for being – technologically determinist – that faith in environmental solutions will solve all the problems of inaccessibility and immobility. Plus the approach is technocratic because it assumes that ‘expert and professional’ knowledge can identify and implement technological improvements to cities.
ATAC – the walkway – the smooth graded path up to the front doors was actually an aesthetic accident – making it relatively easy for a person in a wheelchair to maneuver – however – when it comes to the doors – there seems to be the same ableist perspective re-occurring – Standard double doors – that are heavy – and usually open from the right side – often times the left door is locked – in addition – the automatic door buttons have only been installed within the last 3 years – meaning that they were added after the building was built.
Historical Geographic Explanation:
Feudal life was governed by, a localized economy that encouraged cooperation instead of competition… Meaning that there was no imperative to discriminate between stronger and weaker forms of labor power… People with low mobility could work at jobs that did not require much mobility such as weaving and cobbling.
Localized work was easier to carry out than labour set to mechanized and standardized rhythms. In industrialized work there were very few specific workspaces for impaired people – doormen, guards, street vendors, entertainers, and domestic workers – these were merely shadows of the more inclusive labour that characterized feudalism.
Industrialization meant that – slower, weaker and inflexible workers were devalued in terms of their potential for paid work. This kind of arrangement meant the steady decline in disabled peoples labour power.
The shift from local to factory based wage labour meant that - the labour market of the 19th century effectively depressed handicapped people of all kinds to the bottom of the market.
The separation of home and work, which was absent in the feudal era, became a major disabling feature for an entire range of disabled people.
Karl Marx wrote: Industrialization and Urbanization, produced too great a section of the population which is… incapable of work, which owing to it’s situation is dependent on the exploitation of the labour of others or on kinds of work that can only count as such within a miserable mode of production.
Environmental Re-engineering, is it the answer?
A principal of competition presupposes that certain individual or (bodies) will be rewarded and enabled by paid employment – whilst others are disabled as socially dependent.
Better building standards, will not on their own revalue the labour power of all physically impaired people – these changes will not guarantee economic security and social acceptances for disabled people – these strategies can reduce ‘friction’ of everyday life for people with disabilities – but they will not solve the social-spatial oppression of disablement.
Of More importance than accessibility and enhanced functioning are – basic needs like security, autonomy, affiliation, accomplishment, intimacy and identity.
Recently, powerful corporations in the US have argued against requirements for businesses to provide wheelchair access – as an unnecessary restriction upon private property…
In Germany, while legislation has been passed that strives for inclusive labour processes, meaning that disabled folks are allocated a percent of the jobs in a given company relative to size… this example also is incomplete in it’s process – while this rights based approach guarantees the prerogative for work for disabled people it does not provide the institutional means for such a goal to be realized.
Gleeson Conclusion:
Natural Limits and Thoughtless Design – are both technologically determinist – inappropriately emphasizing the role of technology as an oppressor and as a means for overcoming problems such as inaccessibility and social-marginalization.
In terms of new adaptive work technologies – framed around computers – there has been a bi-polarization – between exploitative domestic labour and professionalized forms of individual contract based employment = neither of which are readily available or desirable for most disabled people, who remain handicapped by poverty and lower education standards in most western countries.
The overwhelming distinction is that we have become less interdependent on people and more dependent on technology.
Disabled people desire and have struggled for (as we all desire and struggle for) valued social roles, ensuring material welfare, cultural acceptance, and socio-spatial inclusion… As the historico-geographical perspective has shown, this value cannot be secured simply through technological innovations but must be won through lasting transformation of the political-economic, institutional and cultural forces that shape our cities and societies.
(5 min free writing on this question set)
Consider this
How has technology been implemented in ways that assist everyday life for disabled people?
Is technology letting us down?
If we have become more dependent on technology, is it productive to think of a society in which technology is used less, and interpersonal relationships are more apparent, or do we need to rethink this conceptualization? Meaning, can we ever go back to a feudal organization, likely not. Thus how can we imagine the future as a place that attempts to create balance between new technological advancement and interpersonal interactivity?
Oppression, Disability and Access in the Built Environment. Rob Imrie. [1998]
A recent awareness generated in terms of disabled people and the built environment. To confront hostile environments, access to buildings and streets is often impossible.
“Western cities are characterized by design apartheid where building form and design are inscribed with the values of an ‘able-bodied’ society.”
Some consider the built environment as disablist. Projecting able-bodied values which legitimize oppressive and discrimatory practices against disabled people purely on the basis that they have physical and/or mental impairments.
What do we take for granted – stairs… what is unavailable, and out of reach, cash machines…
Consider the ability to perform – is it severely diminished based on elements of the environment.
Consider this: what do you want your built environment to do for you?
Architecture:
The production of disablist and disabling environments are the roles of architects and/ design professionals.
Over the past 20 years, much criticism has befit the role of the architect in terms of the perpetuation of gendered, racial and other divisions of the city. Institutional practices of design professionals has served to exclude minority interests while reinforcing an alienating and oppressive built environment.
There is an assumption of sameness, or normality – that all sections of the population want the environment to do the same things for them.
There has been a rise of the professionalization of architectural and design practices – creating a technical. ‘expert’ elite; plus the rise of the corporate economy as the dominant clientele.
There appears to be an architectural myth that states “that art has a high moral purpose in the formation and transmission of culture… of the design of aesthetically pleasing forms of poetic spaces.” This projects the architect as a perveyor of beauty and truth, an elevated being, somehow with the abilities and skills to construct for (and in distinction with) the population as a whole.
Some writers note that it has never been a feature of the culture, social ethics and/or practices of design professionals to see themselves as part of wider political practices.
Postwar – Modern movement – minimalist sought to reduce the complexity of human movement – used a set of rules/laws – and the idea that all human action is knowable and controllable. I.e., winter cities, covered spaces, such as the tunnels of Lakehead University – the idea was that human movement and action was knowable and thus reducible to a set of laws and rules that dictated that space in essence does not matter, people would be fine in buildings that are underground and buried, without windows, hidden away and huddled under the artificial light of bulbs emitting a constant white glow… depression…
Architects have increasingly established themselves under the title of professional – in terms of space – ‘they know it all’… or what is best? In this sense, they could deny subjectivities of individuals by reducing everything to rationalism.
The post war emphasis on mobility instead of accessibility. Think Chapters, Wal-Mart – the powercentres that rely on the easy flow of traffic – rather than dense urban centers that could potentially host many people and services within less space. However compaction has its own pitfalls in terms of spatial accessibility.
The propagation and reification of the Normal person ‘a white male’ has been a powerful element of the design process. This is a model that perpetuates clear racist, sexist and albeist underpinnings.
Disability perspectives, where they may actually be taught, usually account for ‘after-thoughts to whole designs.
Throughout the 1950’s and onwards – architects became increasingly subject to building systems, new technologies and the global economy – meaning that autonomy was undercut to give way to the ‘limits, and costs, meaning that uniformity costs less…’ In this respect – money is the bottom line. Cost-effectivity - means that the able-bodied client is served, while the disabled client or user is relegated to the margins.
Able-bodied designs, implicated a demand for ableist environments catering to the able-bodied workforce.
Modernist forms that stressed – mono-functional forms, mass produced technology, seemed to deny human subjectivity.
“The avante-garde is intoxicated by the machine aesthetic… the intense intellectualism wants to suppress everything which is marvelous in life… Architecture without soul…”
Minimalism bereft of bourgeois ornamentation. Louis Sullivan - form should follow function.
Normality – LeCorbusier – believed in universal properties – he commented that “all men have the same organism, the same functions… the same needs”
-The idealized man was the embodiment of normality.
This concept reified the denial of bodily differences – as well as the idea of asexuality as the moral, or ethical standard bearer of the emergent esthetics of modernism.
Modernism could never hope to know the subjective experiences of the users of the built environment – because the philosophies more or less discounted the realm of the experiential, personalized, experience.
Consider this. Think of spaces, places, buildings and rooms that you hold attachment to, or memories. What makes the space important to you?
Technocracy, vain arrogance, elitism,
Modernism – Bauhaus movement – to reduce space, automate, standardize, use off the shelf materials, in an attempt to persuade people into using a certain kind of predetermined design. In essence bodily differences were being denied – as architects sought to standardize and engineer, people’s bodily interactions with the built environment.
Buildings come to embody fixed and unchanging functions… However, people are fluid, transformative and multi dimensional… Denial of the dynamic nature of society.
The Front Door:
A place that supports people’s activities and desires, permits them to do what they want, and causes a minimum of pain, frustration and embarrassment is more accessible than a place that confuses, harasses or intimidates people.
Schemes that allow for variation…? Can we name any?
APL is Oakland… A design success – a deep pink pavement – wide – shallow gradients and well positioned grab rails. The conflict of aesthetic vs humane.
“How ethical is it to practice architecture, to be a professional licensed to design buildings, without having first developed an intellectual and emotional understanding of people? The suggestion is that architects need to confront the social psychological context of design, how it feels for the users, and to acknowledge that there are no simple technical solutions.”
Empowering people with disabilities is multi-faceted, multi-dimensional – at a minimum it requires an engagement at the level of values and ideology, as well as the material base of building processes.
Consider this: Could you suggest ways in which the built environment could be dismantled and reconstructed to create an equality of accessibility, thereby smoothing a range of pitfalls that usually befall the disabled. The question is: how could the built environment.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Back Burner...
Well it's been over a year since I began working on the Teaching practicum here at Lakehead University. My reference to the back-burner comes from the fact that no matter what, projects always seem to take on a life of their own. In this case the teaching practicum has laid dormant for some time. The back burner has kept the project tepid and in wait for its chance to shine. I welcome the return.
The List of topics to be covered by the teaching program include the following list:
1. Learning Styles
2. How to Deliver a Successful Lecture
3. How to Facilitate Small Group Learning
4. Human Rights and Equity Issues in Teaching
5. How to Teach Critical Thinking and Writing Skills
6. Principles of Instructional Design
7. Technology and Teaching
8. Assessing Student Learning
9. Pedagogy Theories
10. Is a statement of teaching philosophy, the part am yet to complete, but the other topics have been touched upon at least to some extent except for #7.
So lets hit #7, and blend the rest along the way. Lets go, we've got a stew to make.
Technology and teaching.
In an effort to get creative within the bounds of an academic world that is seeing vast changes in terms of the rise of student apathy and disengagement, I have decided to counter the problem while trying to employ technology to feign for some sort of engagement and interactivity with students by employing a blog.
Most students, I say most, because I am referring to the majority of undergrads who happen to be between 17 and 30 years of age, have come of age at a time when the internet has become a main source and medium of communication. Less and less do we see any 'actual' participation between students on a get-together level. Rather, students are increasingly kept 'connected' with their friends and classmates through digital mediation.
Sites like myspace and the increasingly popular facebook have managed to corner the college market into having to make the choice to 'get on' to lose touch. In a sense, if a student chooses not to join an online network they run the risk of losing touch and virtually disappearing. These issues have been widely discussed and the social implications will continue to be a major topic of study and conversation for years to come. See: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/bigge/index.html
for a discussion.
To return to age and users, one must also recognize that there is a proposed limit to who can stay connected through these virtual channels. Those without access, or with limited access to a computer and the internet, also run the risk of having a difficult time with this form of connectivity. Age and class seem to be factors, among others, that determine 'user status.'
To return to my project and the class I am currently TA'ing:
Sociology of Disability: a fourth year offering.
I was fortunate in the fact that I attended this class the year previous and now have the opportunity to provide assistance as a TA.
This class has allowed me the freedom to provide input into the structure of the class, the outline, the reading list, the films to be watched, the subject material, many opportunities to practice student assessment. Additionally I have been afforded the opportunity to be responsible for the grading and monitoring of participation of students in an online forum.
Also, I have been granted time and space to create a weeks worth of lecture material and deliver the discussions in the manner I saw best fit. I will return to my experience of planning, structuring and delivering later. At present i want to discuss the BLOG.
The impetus behind the blog was to create an online forum for discussion about the topic of disability studies. Much thought went into creating a motivational system that would allow the Blog to function in a manner that was productive.
The final decision was to give marks to students for participation. In total 15% of the class mark is devoted to this section of the class. The requirement is three fold. 5% each. The first part is to post one of the comment papers that a student has written online. (This section is pretty much a giveaway because the students already have to write 4 comment papers anyways for the class, by posting it, they just have to take a piece they have already written and make it public on the blog. To get the other 10% of the grade, students need to make at least 2 substantial comments on their classmates posts). In a sense the effort level for a student is relatively low, but should they complete the tasks they are awarded with the full 15%.
The blog is also designed in a way to foster online discussion of any topic related to disability studies or the class in general. At first the majority of posts dealt explicitly with technical difficulties that students faced while trying to get onboard with the blog.
A technical point: Since LU email is provided by GOOGLE, access to BLOGGER is rather seamless because the companies are the joined.
Once the technical difficulties passed and the whole class managed to find time to join the blog began to roll at its own speed. Moderation was provided by myself and the course instructor. The blog also, largely took over any of the roles that WEbCt may have provided in the past. When given the choice I decided to stay away from WebCt and use the blog instead as a way to introduce a popular modern online format to a class that had largely been unaware of Blogging or it's possibilities.
There was some apprehension from students about the prospect of having their writing being made public, but the fact that their first post (the comment paper) had already been given a grade allowed them the freedom to choose what to post, and to only post that which they felt comfortable with and had been approved (graded).
Additionally, students and the moderators have been using the blog to create links between the academic discussion of disability as a topic of study and a world of practicality and 'reality.' In this sense the blog has provided a way to create links between discussion and other forms of movement accessible through links. Things like videos from YouTube and other disability resources online have been linked in order to draw out or expand the experience that has begun in the classroom. To open a door to the world of real life disability has been a major goal and motivation. Plus, the blog provides a definitive location that students can point their friends, families and others towards, a place that offers the public an entry into a specific discussion.
Meaning that the blog offers an opportunity for discussion to flow, between the students and the teacher, between students, and outwards - including a seemingly infinite community accessible by web.
When a post has been made that offers an opportunity for much discussion, the communication is completely logged and is made available for other to join in at any time.
Certainly, a major consideration of this experimental project was 'how will the class respond, will they use it at all.' In response to this I must say that the Blog has exceeded my expectations. Students have become active in writing and responding. Some have become more involved, posting more frequently and on more whimsical topics that tend to stimulate short discussion all on their own, without the apparent need for valorization through awards of grades.
Thanks to the class, my project can be called a success. Since there is little or no time outside of class time where students may otherwise gather to discuss the issues I feel that the Blog has taken the place of face to face interactions which have seemingly disappeared. Additionally, the blog provides its own kind of accessibility, especially to students of a privileged university like Lakehead - providing a space free of the constraints of time. Also, the forum allows for links to be made between students who may otherwise feel uncomfortable discussion issues in class. The internet provides a blending of space that allows for comfort and anonymity as well as the support through various channels and networks to gather and discuss specific issues.
The blog also offered the students an opportunity to do something that is seldom if ever offered. They were able to interact with their classmates by reading and contemplating their posts. By reading others writings, students were afforded access into a world that most often remains closed. Students could gain an understanding and a knowledge of a topic from a different perspective as well as learn from others writings. Since the skills of writing seem to be disappearing, it seems important to me to have students read their peers work and critically analyze it. This is done through the second step where students are expected to make critical comments on their fellow students writings. In this sense, small group discussions may be formed as students work interactively on quite a personal level to generate a deeper understanding of pertinent issues.
I will return to my adventures in delivering a lecture at a later time
a
The List of topics to be covered by the teaching program include the following list:
1. Learning Styles
2. How to Deliver a Successful Lecture
3. How to Facilitate Small Group Learning
4. Human Rights and Equity Issues in Teaching
5. How to Teach Critical Thinking and Writing Skills
6. Principles of Instructional Design
7. Technology and Teaching
8. Assessing Student Learning
9. Pedagogy Theories
10. Is a statement of teaching philosophy, the part am yet to complete, but the other topics have been touched upon at least to some extent except for #7.
So lets hit #7, and blend the rest along the way. Lets go, we've got a stew to make.
Technology and teaching.
In an effort to get creative within the bounds of an academic world that is seeing vast changes in terms of the rise of student apathy and disengagement, I have decided to counter the problem while trying to employ technology to feign for some sort of engagement and interactivity with students by employing a blog.
Most students, I say most, because I am referring to the majority of undergrads who happen to be between 17 and 30 years of age, have come of age at a time when the internet has become a main source and medium of communication. Less and less do we see any 'actual' participation between students on a get-together level. Rather, students are increasingly kept 'connected' with their friends and classmates through digital mediation.
Sites like myspace and the increasingly popular facebook have managed to corner the college market into having to make the choice to 'get on' to lose touch. In a sense, if a student chooses not to join an online network they run the risk of losing touch and virtually disappearing. These issues have been widely discussed and the social implications will continue to be a major topic of study and conversation for years to come. See: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/bigge/index.html
for a discussion.
To return to age and users, one must also recognize that there is a proposed limit to who can stay connected through these virtual channels. Those without access, or with limited access to a computer and the internet, also run the risk of having a difficult time with this form of connectivity. Age and class seem to be factors, among others, that determine 'user status.'
To return to my project and the class I am currently TA'ing:
Sociology of Disability: a fourth year offering.
I was fortunate in the fact that I attended this class the year previous and now have the opportunity to provide assistance as a TA.
This class has allowed me the freedom to provide input into the structure of the class, the outline, the reading list, the films to be watched, the subject material, many opportunities to practice student assessment. Additionally I have been afforded the opportunity to be responsible for the grading and monitoring of participation of students in an online forum.
Also, I have been granted time and space to create a weeks worth of lecture material and deliver the discussions in the manner I saw best fit. I will return to my experience of planning, structuring and delivering later. At present i want to discuss the BLOG.
The impetus behind the blog was to create an online forum for discussion about the topic of disability studies. Much thought went into creating a motivational system that would allow the Blog to function in a manner that was productive.
The final decision was to give marks to students for participation. In total 15% of the class mark is devoted to this section of the class. The requirement is three fold. 5% each. The first part is to post one of the comment papers that a student has written online. (This section is pretty much a giveaway because the students already have to write 4 comment papers anyways for the class, by posting it, they just have to take a piece they have already written and make it public on the blog. To get the other 10% of the grade, students need to make at least 2 substantial comments on their classmates posts). In a sense the effort level for a student is relatively low, but should they complete the tasks they are awarded with the full 15%.
The blog is also designed in a way to foster online discussion of any topic related to disability studies or the class in general. At first the majority of posts dealt explicitly with technical difficulties that students faced while trying to get onboard with the blog.
A technical point: Since LU email is provided by GOOGLE, access to BLOGGER is rather seamless because the companies are the joined.
Once the technical difficulties passed and the whole class managed to find time to join the blog began to roll at its own speed. Moderation was provided by myself and the course instructor. The blog also, largely took over any of the roles that WEbCt may have provided in the past. When given the choice I decided to stay away from WebCt and use the blog instead as a way to introduce a popular modern online format to a class that had largely been unaware of Blogging or it's possibilities.
There was some apprehension from students about the prospect of having their writing being made public, but the fact that their first post (the comment paper) had already been given a grade allowed them the freedom to choose what to post, and to only post that which they felt comfortable with and had been approved (graded).
Additionally, students and the moderators have been using the blog to create links between the academic discussion of disability as a topic of study and a world of practicality and 'reality.' In this sense the blog has provided a way to create links between discussion and other forms of movement accessible through links. Things like videos from YouTube and other disability resources online have been linked in order to draw out or expand the experience that has begun in the classroom. To open a door to the world of real life disability has been a major goal and motivation. Plus, the blog provides a definitive location that students can point their friends, families and others towards, a place that offers the public an entry into a specific discussion.
Meaning that the blog offers an opportunity for discussion to flow, between the students and the teacher, between students, and outwards - including a seemingly infinite community accessible by web.
When a post has been made that offers an opportunity for much discussion, the communication is completely logged and is made available for other to join in at any time.
Certainly, a major consideration of this experimental project was 'how will the class respond, will they use it at all.' In response to this I must say that the Blog has exceeded my expectations. Students have become active in writing and responding. Some have become more involved, posting more frequently and on more whimsical topics that tend to stimulate short discussion all on their own, without the apparent need for valorization through awards of grades.
Thanks to the class, my project can be called a success. Since there is little or no time outside of class time where students may otherwise gather to discuss the issues I feel that the Blog has taken the place of face to face interactions which have seemingly disappeared. Additionally, the blog provides its own kind of accessibility, especially to students of a privileged university like Lakehead - providing a space free of the constraints of time. Also, the forum allows for links to be made between students who may otherwise feel uncomfortable discussion issues in class. The internet provides a blending of space that allows for comfort and anonymity as well as the support through various channels and networks to gather and discuss specific issues.
The blog also offered the students an opportunity to do something that is seldom if ever offered. They were able to interact with their classmates by reading and contemplating their posts. By reading others writings, students were afforded access into a world that most often remains closed. Students could gain an understanding and a knowledge of a topic from a different perspective as well as learn from others writings. Since the skills of writing seem to be disappearing, it seems important to me to have students read their peers work and critically analyze it. This is done through the second step where students are expected to make critical comments on their fellow students writings. In this sense, small group discussions may be formed as students work interactively on quite a personal level to generate a deeper understanding of pertinent issues.
I will return to my adventures in delivering a lecture at a later time
a
Saturday, December 02, 2006
"Everyone into the Pool"
November 21, 23 and 28 – These were the dates that I was pushed into the pool. The pool being the university classroom, the push coming from the fact that one of my supervisors became unable to fulfill their teaching duties. Thus I was told that I must fill-in – or make an attempt at ‘passing’ as an instructor, a substitute, a replacement.
Truth is, I had been planning and mentally preparing all semester for the moment when I would have to stand-up in front of a class of university students and present as a guest lecturer on ‘gender and sexuality.’
Since it was to be an introductory class of first year sociology students, I had been planning on using clips from popular shows like ‘queer as folk’ or ‘the L word,’ however when I asked some students from the class – “what media examples should I use”? they all seemed to want to point me in the direction of ‘Sex and The City.’
The students told me that because of Sex and The City, sexuality and gender have become popularized and have even entered mainstream discourse. Okay, fine, I can buy that – it’s because of ‘Sex and The City’ that smaller centers, like Thunder Bay, have been exposed to a world of sex, sexuality, sensuality, gender, gender bending, homosexuality… My question is, why is it that a show like ‘queer as folk’ and ‘the L word,’ not to mention the movie ‘kinky boots’ 
have not found their way onto the shelves of my favorite local film rental store? Therefore I had been forced by availability to use ‘Sex and The City’ as my class discussion fuel. I see that therein lay’s a keystone of subjectivity and context – for here – in Thunder Bay, it had been recommended to me by students – that Sarah J. Parker and her band of sexually ‘in tune’ deviates would be an impactful place to begin a discussion of gender and sexuality.
The fact of the matter is, my plans for a guest lecture spot were put on an indefinite hiatus when my supervisor informed me that the class was behind a few lectures. Okay, I guess I can wait, but I was kind of excited, I was starting to plan it all out – but alas – change is the only constant.
Two days after I received the news that I would not be delivering a prepared guest lecture, I was informed by a phone message left on my answering machine that ______ is not well, and that I was to take over until the end of the semester, three classes remained.
The class I was to cover for was not the 83-person intro class, rather it was a nice 20-person class – The sociology of Aging
– a third year offering. All I had to do was make some sense out a folder that had been handed, and then handed to me by way of a familial courier. The folder contained notes and transparencies for the overhead projector. Hmm, it sounded to me like this was not exactly the opportunity that I had been waiting for, I would not be delivering a crafted lecture and leading any discussion on heated issues. Instead it was my job to simply deliver the information in the folder to the students by way of overhead projector – needless to say – this was not the way I had imagined my instructorial debut. My dreams had been filled with engaging discussion and conversation on a plethora of issues and ideas – in effect – a discourse. Instead, what I had been asked to do here was refrain from ingenuity and simply allow the students to sit placidly their hands trembling from the tedium of copying notes displayed at the front of the room.
I did manage to add in some of my own flavor, as I read out the expletives I would often pause to relate the issue at hand to a varied example – or else stop and in effect cause a stop in the ‘copying’ process to slap the water, as a beaver who alerts all those in the vicinity to a perceived danger. I hoped to rustle some feather, stir the pot… get some discussion happening. The most effective method that I employed to cause this amorphous body of students to engage, the precursor to participate, was to call for a round-table discussion. As is often the case in a ‘classroom’ setting, nobody moves until the ‘perceived one in charge’ makes a move – so I started turning desks around and forming a circle, the shells started to show signs of cracking. This was great, by the time we were all facing each other I could see on the faces in-front of me that – this was going to be good, and, it was.
Was I nervous?
Hell yeah, just thinking about stepping in front of a class of students that are used to a specific instructor and specific flow – in a sense I was to become an interruption in proven method. So yes, I was nervous, but I also decided that no matter what happened I was there to have fun and interact as much as possible. I can’t necessarily simulate what went on in the class, but I can say that I did receive a handful of positive comments from students who could obviously sense my nervousness. I even had a some positive conversations with a few of the ‘mature’ students, they gave me credit for attempting to get some of the younger students to speak out and comment. These ‘mature’ students felt that these ‘new students’ needed some real encouragement to speak out and say their thoughts, they figured that the young students were anxious about speaking out – for fear of being thought of as ‘unintelligent.’ The mature students figured that the sooner the young students understood that the opportunity to engage in classroom discussion was a privilege like no other – and that they should be taking every advantage of it –“these kids need to learn that, being asked for your opinion, and giving it- really does matter.” I couldn’t help but agree.
As for this early experience of classroom dynamics and being ‘in charge,’ I am quite satisfied with the way I handled myself – and thanks to some influential teachers like Sharon Rosenberg and Karen Engle – and ‘Freire’ I was able to situate myself – my bodied experience – as a catalyst for discussion and engagement in a classroom setting. I am avidly aware of the position of power I entered the room with, as am I aware of my efforts to stimulate percolative dialogue.
End Transmission
A.
Truth is, I had been planning and mentally preparing all semester for the moment when I would have to stand-up in front of a class of university students and present as a guest lecturer on ‘gender and sexuality.’
Since it was to be an introductory class of first year sociology students, I had been planning on using clips from popular shows like ‘queer as folk’ or ‘the L word,’ however when I asked some students from the class – “what media examples should I use”? they all seemed to want to point me in the direction of ‘Sex and The City.’
The students told me that because of Sex and The City, sexuality and gender have become popularized and have even entered mainstream discourse. Okay, fine, I can buy that – it’s because of ‘Sex and The City’ that smaller centers, like Thunder Bay, have been exposed to a world of sex, sexuality, sensuality, gender, gender bending, homosexuality… My question is, why is it that a show like ‘queer as folk’ and ‘the L word,’ not to mention the movie ‘kinky boots’ have not found their way onto the shelves of my favorite local film rental store? Therefore I had been forced by availability to use ‘Sex and The City’ as my class discussion fuel. I see that therein lay’s a keystone of subjectivity and context – for here – in Thunder Bay, it had been recommended to me by students – that Sarah J. Parker and her band of sexually ‘in tune’ deviates would be an impactful place to begin a discussion of gender and sexuality.The fact of the matter is, my plans for a guest lecture spot were put on an indefinite hiatus when my supervisor informed me that the class was behind a few lectures. Okay, I guess I can wait, but I was kind of excited, I was starting to plan it all out – but alas – change is the only constant.
Two days after I received the news that I would not be delivering a prepared guest lecture, I was informed by a phone message left on my answering machine that ______ is not well, and that I was to take over until the end of the semester, three classes remained.
The class I was to cover for was not the 83-person intro class, rather it was a nice 20-person class – The sociology of Aging
– a third year offering. All I had to do was make some sense out a folder that had been handed, and then handed to me by way of a familial courier. The folder contained notes and transparencies for the overhead projector. Hmm, it sounded to me like this was not exactly the opportunity that I had been waiting for, I would not be delivering a crafted lecture and leading any discussion on heated issues. Instead it was my job to simply deliver the information in the folder to the students by way of overhead projector – needless to say – this was not the way I had imagined my instructorial debut. My dreams had been filled with engaging discussion and conversation on a plethora of issues and ideas – in effect – a discourse. Instead, what I had been asked to do here was refrain from ingenuity and simply allow the students to sit placidly their hands trembling from the tedium of copying notes displayed at the front of the room.I did manage to add in some of my own flavor, as I read out the expletives I would often pause to relate the issue at hand to a varied example – or else stop and in effect cause a stop in the ‘copying’ process to slap the water, as a beaver who alerts all those in the vicinity to a perceived danger. I hoped to rustle some feather, stir the pot… get some discussion happening. The most effective method that I employed to cause this amorphous body of students to engage, the precursor to participate, was to call for a round-table discussion. As is often the case in a ‘classroom’ setting, nobody moves until the ‘perceived one in charge’ makes a move – so I started turning desks around and forming a circle, the shells started to show signs of cracking. This was great, by the time we were all facing each other I could see on the faces in-front of me that – this was going to be good, and, it was.
Was I nervous?
Hell yeah, just thinking about stepping in front of a class of students that are used to a specific instructor and specific flow – in a sense I was to become an interruption in proven method. So yes, I was nervous, but I also decided that no matter what happened I was there to have fun and interact as much as possible. I can’t necessarily simulate what went on in the class, but I can say that I did receive a handful of positive comments from students who could obviously sense my nervousness. I even had a some positive conversations with a few of the ‘mature’ students, they gave me credit for attempting to get some of the younger students to speak out and comment. These ‘mature’ students felt that these ‘new students’ needed some real encouragement to speak out and say their thoughts, they figured that the young students were anxious about speaking out – for fear of being thought of as ‘unintelligent.’ The mature students figured that the sooner the young students understood that the opportunity to engage in classroom discussion was a privilege like no other – and that they should be taking every advantage of it –“these kids need to learn that, being asked for your opinion, and giving it- really does matter.” I couldn’t help but agree.
As for this early experience of classroom dynamics and being ‘in charge,’ I am quite satisfied with the way I handled myself – and thanks to some influential teachers like Sharon Rosenberg and Karen Engle – and ‘Freire’ I was able to situate myself – my bodied experience – as a catalyst for discussion and engagement in a classroom setting. I am avidly aware of the position of power I entered the room with, as am I aware of my efforts to stimulate percolative dialogue.
End TransmissionA.
Friday, November 17, 2006
“Violence is initiated by those who oppress, who exploit, who fail to recognize others as persons – not by those who are oppressed, exploited, and unrecognized” (Freire 1970 – Pedagogy of the Oppressed – 55).The teaching practicum workshop held on November 10, 2006 could be considered as a discussion of ethics, or power, or pedagogy – any of those could work – and all of them were discussed in a kind of flow that would be expected with roots in Freire.
The facilitator of the afternoon did a fine job of conveying her message in an interactive – dynamic manner that worked well to bend and stretch and challenge the beliefs and baggage we, as students and learners, carry around with us in our inflated self-disillusionment.
The first thing we did was STAND UP – get the blood flowing – walk around – mingle – anything but sit In rows and listen to some know it all impart knowledge from the pulpit on the great unwashed, us, students of the practice of teaching. NO – we stood up, we used our bodies to describe where on a continuum we felt we were in regards to questions about our own personalities and preferences. Questions like; “are you a listener or a talker?” - to which we would respond by standing on one side of the room or the other – or in between if we felt we did each of these options an equal amount. Q2; “Do you prefer to work in groups or by yourself?” – Again we, the bodies in the room, would shuffle in one direction or another. During this exercise I found myself standing still a great deal a lot. Even during questions such as; “Are you a ‘shit disturber – or would you rather keep the peace?” – I still stood in the middle – perhaps subconsciously realizing and acknowledging that these options did not present or represent necessary binaries – and the fact that these questions were being asked sans-context. The issue of context was raised after the exercise, and yes, we all passively agreed that under differing circumstances we would likely act in a different manner. The issue of binaries came up as well, in terms of, considering the questions as more ‘than’ simply binaries. The questions would instead represent abstractions of continuum poles. There is no black and white – context needs to be established – and the choices presented too narrow of a range for a representation of anything but an illusional artificiality.
The next activity continued in a similar manner – there was a paper placed on the floor as representative of the center of our group’s circle. The object was to stand and move once again – in and out – sliding on a continuum. This time the questions were a bit more specific. I.e., “Would you feel comfortable teaching a class?” (Keep in mind that this is a teaching practicum workshop – most of the participants have done little or no formal classroom teaching) In response to this question we were to place our foot on the paper if we felt comfortable – however if this proposal stimulated anxiety in us, we would stand back – away form the paper – once again if you had some reservations, but were kind of comfortable you could stand in the middle. As for me – I stood on the paper, since for the last few months I have been mentally preparing to teach a class as a guest lecturer for my respective supervisor. Although, in fact, yes, I do have some anxiety, by standing on the paper it was my way of trying to convince myself that I don’t have any fear or anxiety, when in fact I do, I’m kind of scared, mostly I’m scared about being that guest lecturer that totally sucks, and is boring and nobody really wants to listen to. I guess I’m just most scared of being a cliché’ of myself. I want to be that teacher or that lecturer or that interactive learner who is comfortable – knowledgeable – but most importantly – flexible and reflexive. I want to be the cool teacher who people like and have fun with and are excited to be in class with. I want to challenge others to want to take part and be active in their own learning. So I guess I should learn to be more honest with myself and show that in fact I’m not entirely comfortable with teaching a class – yet – but maybe I can learn to be comfortable and prepared and engaging and exciting. This is probably why I have such a heavy focus on visual culture – because I feel that we are all so knowledgeable about the world we live in, as a built mental and physical environment – engineered for our consumption – opinions are the right of all who traverse these lines.
Later on in the workshop we actually did sit down after slightly too long of a time standing up. We moved onto the Power Flower. The power flower is basically another exercise in self-reflexivity on the road to examining one’s own conceptual baggage. Imagine a simple drawing of a flower – with a centre – from the centre a person is asked to draw petals – the petals are then considered as mini-continuums – the closer on the petal to the middle the more POWER is assumed – inversely, the farther from the middle- the less power. My flower looked something like this.
For gender = Male > Female
Sexual Orientation =
Class = Privileged > Poor
Relationship with Professor (As a TA) = Less
Body Type = Upright/Bipedal > Immobile
Ability = Artificially, temporally Able > Disabled
Race = Fish n Chips = Of Color
After filling in these parameters the goal is to realize the amount of ‘power’ one has been privileged with or afforded. In my case I could clearly see that I have a boatload of power within the parameters of these questions. A main point was raised about ‘being white’ when you are white – it is the easiest thing in the world to ignore – you never really think about your whiteness – if for example you are not white – you may more critically be aware of the fact that you are not white. The privilege that is afforded a person because they are white is not ever realized from their position.
How does it feel being in the powerful positions?
Power = Guilt – the guilt of being ‘within’ any of the categories presented – this is a useful consideration – but probably not very productive – indeed one should be aware, but guilt may only work to reduce a persons ability to overcome.
Instead it was discussed that Power should not be seen or considered as a necessary point of guilt but rather it should be viewed as a RESPONSIBILITY.
Also while doing the POWER flower exercise it is useful to consider what petals you may willingly or unconsciously ‘neglect’ to include. The ‘blind spots’ of who we are, often it is within these categories that we posses the greatest power. (Categories of Privilege.)
In addition we need to be aware of the visibility and invisibility of the categories in whatever situation we are part of.
Part of the purpose of the Power flower exercise was to introduce the next topic; THE Power of Controversy.
I.e., in the classroom (for our contextual purposes).
-The conversation continued in the course of discussing how to handle or mediate or facilitate a controversy in the classroom and turn it into a real learning experience. The problem was presented; “Have you ever been present in the classroom where a real controversy broke out, and how was the situation handled, or not handled?”
In response to this question some of the participants in the room regaled us with some classroom horror stories, essentially highlighting ‘bad’ experiences. Thus as a group we sat and discussed and theorized the ways in which particular situations could be handled better – more effectively – equally – responsibly – in mind of bias – considering safety and confidentiality.
Some suggestions were; that an initial class should be the time and place for a critical reflexive discussion with the class about what is appropriate and not appropriate conduct in ‘this’ classroom setting. The issue of safety was of much concern – creating a ‘safe’ place, in which a ‘dialogue’ could be established, a dialogue which invariably is the crux of learning from this perspective. Knowing how to resolve disputes – by facilitating discussions that may become rather heated – especially among sensitive topics – (sensitive in the fact that the issue may be difficult to discuss because it causes pain of some sort to the participants).
At the end of the short 1.5 hour workshop I was left with a point of interest and importance that I was previously naïve towards; Identity affect the way that others interact with you – or feel comfortable with – or not comfortable with – the point being that self-reflexivity is very important and one should constantly be aware of their own identity and presumptions in any situation.
Additional resources:
http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/resources/self_critique.html
20 (Self-)Critical Things I Will Do to Be
a Better Multicultural Educator
Compiled by Paul Gorski for EdChange and the Multicultural Pavilion
1. I will learn to pronounce every student's full given name correctly. No student should need to shorten or change their names to make it easier to pronounce for me or their classmates. I will practice and learn every name, regardless of how difficult it feels or how time-consuming it becomes. That is the first step in being inclusive.
2. I will sacrifice the safety of my comfort zone by building a process for continually assessing, understanding, and challenging my biases and prejudices and how they impact my expectations for, and relationships with, all students, parents, and colleagues.
3. I will center student voices, interests, and experiences in and out of my classroom. Even while I talk passionately about being inclusive and student-centered in the classroom, I rarely include or center students in conversations about school reform. I must face this contradiction and rededicate to sharing power with my students.
4. I will engage in a self-reflective process to explore the ways in which my identity development impacts the way I see and experience different people.
5. I will invite critique from colleagues and accept it openly. I accept feedback very well until someone decides to offer me feedback. Though it's easy to become defensive in the face of critique, I will thank the person for their time and courage (because it's not easy to critique a colleague). The worst possible scenario is for people to stop providing me feedback, positive and negative.
6. I will never stop being a student. If I do not grow, learn, and change at the same rate the world around me is changing, then I necessarily lose touch with the lives and contexts of my students. I must continue to educate myself—to learn from the experiences of my students and their parents, to study current events and their relationship to what I am teaching, and to be challenged by a diversity of perspectives.
7. I will understand the relationship between INTENT and IMPACT. Often, and particularly when I'm in a situation in which I experience some level of privilege, I have the luxury of referring and responding only to what I intend, no matter what impact I have on somebody. I must take responsibility for and learn from my impact because most individual-level oppression is unintentional. But unintentional oppression hurts just as much as intentional oppression.
8. I will reject the myth of color-blindness. As painful as it may be to admit, I know that I react differently when I'm in a room full of people who share many dimensions of my identity than when I'm in a room full of people who are very different from me. I have to be open and honest about that, because those shifts inevitably inform the experiences of people in my classes or workshops. In addition, color-blindness denies people validation of their whole person.
9. I will recognize my own social identity group memberships and how they may affect my students' experiences and learning processes. People do not always experience me the way I intend them to, even if I am an active advocate for all my students. A student's initial reaction to me may be based on a lifetime of experiences, so I must try not to take such reactions personally.
10. I will build coalitions with teachers who are different from me (in terms of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion, first language, disability, and other identities). These can be valuable relationships of trust and honest critique. At the same time, I must not rely on other people to identify my weaknesses. In particular, in the areas of my identity around which I experience privilege, I must not rely on people from historically underprivileged groups to teach me how to improve myself (which is, in and of itself, a practice of privilege).
11. I will improve my skills as a facilitator, so when issues of diversity and equity do arise in the classroom, I can take advantage of the resulting educational opportunities. Too often, I allow these moments to slip away, either because I am uncomfortable with the topic or because I feel unprepared to effectively facilitate my students through it. (I often try to make myself feel better by suggesting that the students “aren't ready” to talk about racism or sexism, or whatever the topic might be, when it's more honest to say that I am not ready.) I will hone these skills so that I do not cheat my students out of important conversations and learning opportunities.
12. I will invite critique from my students, and when I do, I will dedicate to listening actively and modeling a willingness to be changed by their presence to the same extent they are necessarily changed by mine.
13. I will think critically about how my preferred learning styles impact my teaching style. I am usually thoughtful about diversifying my teaching style to address the needs of students with a variety of learning styles. Still, I tend to fall back on my most comfortable teaching style most often. I will fight this temptation and work harder to engage all of my students.
14. I will affirm and model appreciation for all forms of intelligence and the wide variety of ways students illustrate understanding and mastery of skills and knowledge.
15. I will reflect on my own experiences as a student and how they inform my teaching. Research indicates that my teaching is most closely informed by my own experiences as a student (even more so than my pre-service training). The practice of drawing on these experiences, positive and negative, provides important insights regarding my teaching practice.
16. I will encourage my students to think critically and ask critical questions about all information they receive including that which they receive from me.
17. I will challenge myself to take personal responsibility before looking for fault elsewhere. For example, if I have one student who is falling behind or being disruptive, I will consider what I am doing or not doing that may be contributing to their disengagement before problematizing their behavior or effort.
18. I will acknowledge my role as a social activist. My work changes lives, conferring upon me both tremendous power and tremendous responsibility. Even though I may not identify myself as a social activist, I know that the depth of my impact on society is profound, if only by the sheer number of lives I touch. I must acknowledge and draw on that power and responsibility as a frame for guiding my efforts toward equity and social justice in my work.
19. I will fight for equity for all underrepresented or disenfranchised students. Equity is not a game of choice—if I am to advocate education equity, I do not have the luxury of choosing who does or does not have access to it. For example, I cannot effectively fight for racial equity while I fail to confront gender inequity. And I can never be a real advocate for gender equity if I choose to duck the responsibility for ensuring equity for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. When I find myself justifying my inattention to any group of disenfranchised students due to the worldview or value system into which I was socialized, I know that it is time to reevaluate that worldview or value system.
20. I will celebrate myself as an educator and total person. I can, and should, also celebrate every moment I spend in self-critique, however difficult and painful, because it will make me a better educator. And that is something to celebrate!
and
http://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/print.php?doc_id=2815&direct
Suggestions for teaching and learning about human rights in schools
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)