Hi,
These are basic issues not easy to manage given what we have learned to
adopt.
1.Beta testing is the second wave (after alpha) of testing software....
users give it a run to find out how it works and publishers use the feed
back to adapt it. Since instructional
materials are software for the brain maybe we should beta test them. I
recall the start of this process with a publisher a few years ago that
they did not follow up on.
Beta testing could be used as a learning tool in any classroom. If
interested ask privately.
2. Next, we know more and more about learning /the reshaping of our
thinking from functional imaging. The most powerful learning is from
the context. In our case the teacher /preacher learning is
passive and weak as far as content.. But boy do they learn to sit
facing forward ... it is sometimes like a chapter out of Martin
Seligman's Learned Helplessness theory. I think that about a third
of feral dogs had learned helplessness. On the other hand there is
considerable evidence that classrooms dumb everyone down. That includes
the teacher/preacher. Why? Because we learn to adopt.
Durkheim warned us long ago that the mechanical with its sameness,and
the adopt orientation was primitive.
The science on learning would not rank commercial movies high on the
list of learning materials for the classroom. Even Good Will Hunting.
We may all wish students would learn from films what we think we do.
But it is not about us. As self fulfilling as the teacher/preacher
experience is, education is not about us.
3. Measuring learning beyond a grade
For > 30 years all of my assignments have been take home. More recently
I required students to include a learning statement. If they did not
include a learning statement
the assignment was returned unevaluated. I avoid the lecture format.
Students run the class. Each of us can find ways of measuring learning
that fit the class.
4. RE BBM
Like most commercial movies it is put together for profit. Since
marketing is often applied sociology it could be analyzed to study the
marketing strategy based on the ads.
Some viewers claim it was not what they expected ...... marketed.
5. It is interesting to examine the comments on the list. Particularly,
the justification of teacher/preacher activity at the expense of
students. I wonder how we can measure
homophobia ... so that using that term to label student behavior does
not become easy name calling or male bashing. I would hope that
sociologists would be able to get
beyond psychological explanations such as lazy, and phobia.
We recall the courtroom admonition, don't ask a question that are not
sure of the answer you will get. Perhaps there should be an
instructional parallel. Don't use instructional
materials that you can't measure the learning impact. Why should more
care be taken with games than educational materials?
Del
Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur wrote:
Leaving aside for a moment the pedagogical value of Brokeback, which
can be argued from both sides (though I do have an opinion and will
get to that in a moment), I think it is really key to think about what
is going on here.
Yes, males who do not want to see it are labled homophobic. There are
likely a few students who have serious objections on the grounds that
their faith does not permit them to view nudity--a showing involving
clips could clearly bypass these sections, as they are of limited
intellectual value anyhow. If these scenes were left out, I can't
imagine what justification besides homophobia would propell a student
to simply refuse to see the film. If the film had a similar plot but
involved an adulterous heterosexual couple (or, as long as the sex
scenes were filmed for the erotic benefit of men, a lesbian couple),
the vast majority of male students would be happy to watch the film.
No, that's not true, I can think of another justification: that of
lazy students who don't want to do their homework and are just using
their homophobia as an excuse.
Should we really let our students control our choice of classroom
materials? Should my sexist students tell me that they refuse to read
an article about the social construction of gender because it is
offensive to me? Should my Christian students be allowed to walk out
because I ask them to consider the role of Eastern religions in the
contemporary United States? Sometimes, learning makes you
uncomfortable. That's okay, and we should be able to say so.
Now, if you don't think Brokeback is a good learning tool, that's
different. But if that's the case, you should be able to make the
argument without recouse to the students' refusal to watch as the
decision-making factor. They are students; while sometimes they know
what they need to learn, often they do not.
I agree that Brokeback is probably not the most useful cinematic tool
that has ever been made. However, it (or more accurately, clips of it)
could be used to good effect to talk about stigma and sexuality in
particular as a form of stigma. I think it is actually a powerful
thing to ask many of our students to consider the fact that men who
have sex with men do not always identify as gay (and to talk about why
that is and how it relates to the social construction of sexuality)
and to consider the fact that sexuality and gender expression do not
line right up as the stereotypes would have it (i.e. the men in
Brokeback are typical cowboys--violent, tough, rough, quiet, rarely
emotional, etc. rather than effeminate as are gay men in most
Hollywood productions).
If we want to have a serious discussion about the utility of the film,
we should stick with our own theoretical and pedagogical knowledge
about sociology and the classroom. We should not give in to a
homophobic classroom, institution, or society which suggests that a
film becomes automatically offensive because two men love each other
in it.
And finally, Del, don't tell us any more about Good Night and Good
Luck. It's not about sexuality and therefore if one is considering a
film to use for classroom sessions on sexuality, it would be a highly
inappropriate choice (no matter its cinematic and pedagogical use).
--Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur
New York University
Queens College/CUNY
Del Said:
I will address the punitive part first. By and large the post on the
list have a punitive response to most problems in the classroom,
tardiness, not working, etc. In the case of this movie
apparently the following took place with regard to those who would
refuse/object to viewing this film.
""Plenty of people e-mailed back privately that if they refuse the
viewing/discussion have them do a long, awful research paper"
Next there is little data on what would be learned by showing the
film. The quality is not a question. For example, the film
apocalypse now was widely considered an anti war film.
However apocalypse now is used to charge college age males up for
battle. It has already been marketed as a love story with infidelity
.... so in some ways damage has been done. Will students learn that
homosexuality involves cheating on "good" women. Who knows. On the
other hand the marketing and reaction to the film could be examined
without showing
the film. For example, males who don't want to see it are quickly
labeled homophobic .... should those who want to see it be considered
voyeurs?
On the other hand Goodbye and Good Night which may not win Oscars
because of the way it was made could be more constructive in terms of
learning. Unlike Brokeback it is not fiction
and McCarthy's own words are used. Clips as have been suggested
might contain important information without risk of the doom and gloom
factor. Then I favor discovery more than
teacher/preacher classrooms and would not be likely to show films in
class. Perhaps extra credit for those who want to go and write a paper.
Del
Jack Estes wrote:
