More coming…

The following text is the accepted symposium proposal, and paper descriptions. Mine’s #3.  Ideological struggles often find their way into the curriculum because the curriculum contains assumptions about what interpretation of reality is ‘legitimate’, ‘ good’, ‘true’, ‘neutral’, and ‘official’ (Apple, 2000). Theorists point to the connection between ideology and the curriculum in areas such as family (Turner-Vorbeck, 2006), community (Katriel & Nesher, 1986), nationalism (Anderson, 1991), patriotism (Westheimer, 2006), identity (Baxter, 2002), terrorism (XXX [blind], 2007), religion (XXX [blind], 2006), human migration (XXX [blind], 2007), and capitalism. Theorists have also described how curriculum promotes knowledge construction of concepts such as race (Foster, 2006; King, 2004), gender (Tetreault, 1986), and imperialism (Willinsky, 1998). It is no wonder that the curriculum is a tinderbox of controversy. 

The public school curriculum is a political statement that defines the public interest  (Pinar, 2003). The public interest is expressed by what perspectives and ideologies are included in the curriculum. What is or is not included in the social studies curriculum has been a perennial source of contention. Inclusion signals what is valued or in the public interest and exclusion signals what is not (Eisner, 2002). In sum, curriculum disputes are competitions between different ideologies concerning what is in the public interest. What should we include, or not, in the social studies curriculum in order to best serve our students and society? Nowhere is this question more contentious than in the teaching of controversial issues because educators decide whether and how controversial perspectives are included in curriculum. 

Because the public school curriculum is embedded in the ebbs and flows of the ideological struggles of society at large, the degree to which an issue in the curriculum is considered controversial also ebbs and flows. For example, the issue of the Japanese American Internment was once taught as a controversial issue, but now it is generally considered as a non-controversial issue. Gladwell (2000) describes large shifts in the political and ideological terrain of society as the ‘tipping’ of a scale. When a critical mass of society adopts a new ideology or the political landscape shifts, the scale tips toward change. Hess (2007) describes the categorization of an issue in the curriculum as controversial or non-controversial in a similar way. When a tip occurs in society, a controversial issue in the curriculum often follows suit. The curriculum reflects these tips by the degree to which students are encouraged to express varying perspectives. Issues that are tipped toward being non-controversial are ‘closed’ to more than one perspective, and issues that are tipped toward being controversial are ‘open’ to multiple perspectives. Disagreements over whether an issue is open or closed are central to many curriculum controversies.

The proposed symposium will stimulate conversation about the contemporary borderland where tips occur in the social studies curriculum. How do contexts such as shifting political and ideological landscapes tip the social studies curriculum toward being open or closed?  How do educators and curriculum developers decide what is and is not a controversial issue, or in other words, how can we know if a tip has occurred?  Can we know when a tip occurs? What is included in or excluded from the curriculum as a result of these tips? What influences do teachers have upon tips? Should teachers as gatekeepers (Thornton, 2005) always accommodate these tips? How do new technologies or social phenomenon influence these tips? How does local context influence whether an issue is considered opened or closed? Finally, what do these tips tell us about social studies education in a pluralistic democracy? 

Paper #1: Controversies surrounding the teaching of religion within the elementary public school curriculum.This paper discusses current controversies surrounding the teaching of religion within the elementary public school curriculum. Though widely viewed as fundamental to multiculturalism and important to understand in today’s world, religion, as a subject matter, is fraught with teaching dilemmas. Should teachers disclose their religious views? (And, is this kind of disclosure akin to or different from political disclosure, a topic which is much better documented in the research literature? See, for example, Hess, forthcoming.) Is teaching about Christianity equivalent to teaching about Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Atheism–if so, why and if not, when? What social conditions ‘tip’ the contexts for controversies about the teaching of religion? Which contexts even matter? This paper uses the case of a Kindergarten teacher who taught a robust unit on religion–and not only the religions represented among her students–as the basis for discussing some of the thorny theoretical issues that plague pluralistic democracies.

Paper #2: Teaching in the tip: Using “educational” film to teach controversial historical events

This paper presents findings from a collective case study of two teachers’ use of documentary film to teach about controversial historical events: 1) the use of atomic weapons by the U.S. on Japan at the end of World War II using  Hiroshima (1995), and 2) the role of the U.S. in Vietnam using Letters Home from Vietnam (1987). The teachers’ practice with these films revealed a tension between their personal views about the “right” answer regarding the events and their goals for students and to engage openly with controversial events and issues, or what Hess (2007) refers to as “teaching in the tip.” Both teachers ask students to openly examine multiple perspectives on each event and take a position using evidence to support his/her stance. The activities the teachers construct and films they select, however, show that they are privileging (Hess, 2005) their own perspectives on the events. For example, one of the teachers asks students to take a position on the role of the U.S. in Vietnam, but during the viewing asks students to identify at least three compelling reasons why the U.S. was doomed to fail in Vietnam, thus establishing students “reading” of the event through the film, which served as the major source of evidence. The selection of the film was also used to privilege the teachers’ perspective. For example, the film Hiroshima includes reasons for and against the use of atomic weapons, but favors an anti-bomb message through the use of a powerful film of the destruction and interviews with Japanese survivors. The impact on students varied, but the teachers’ pedagogy and the films’ representations had a strong influence on the beliefs of students who didn’t have a position or who had little knowledge of the events prior to the activities. Students also struggled in identifying the perspectives of the films and of their teachers. The author utilizes and expands upon the concept of the “tip” to better understand what it looks like in terms of teacher practice, the role of teacher ideology in the selection and use of classroom media, and the impact on students’ beliefs about the events.

Paper #3: Into the Woods: Fear, Masculinity, and Video Games Hit the Trail

This paper discusses the introduction of a location-based handheld video game in the curriculum of a primitive deep woods summer camp for boys. Controversies simmer over this geography and outdoor curriculum. Stakeholders on both sides of the issue struggle over ideologies over human connections to the environment. This paper examines the game and the battle over a ‘tip’ toward technology in the social studies curriculum.

Played throughout a 4-day hiking trip, the Augmented Reality (AR) game triggered the display of place-specific just-in-time information leading campers through a game narrative “to save the camp” while directing them to explore areas on and off established trails. Findings indicate that the game narrative motivated deeper participation in the trip, and navigational assistance from the game’s Global Positioning System (GPS) eased players’ fears, reassuring them as they ventured beyond their comfort zone.

The study also raises issues regarding masculinity, environmentalism, and tradition, as embedded in the camp community culture. Foremost, as a video game at a “primitive” deep woods camp for boys that has no electricity and telephone, it bucks a culture that is sometimes disdainful of certain manifestations of technology (e.g. LED flashlights and high-tech garments are good, but iPods are bad). Additionally, in encouraging players to go off main trails in order to avoid enemy scouts, the game narrative contradicts a basic tenet of environmental Leave-No-Trace guidelines — to stay on trails.

Furthermore, while some boys attributed the addition of GPS and games to opening up the possibility of “more hard-core” trip, some felt the high-tech navigational aids (v.s map and compass on a typical trip) emasculated them. Finally, framing the hiking trip through a “silly” game narrative trivialized their experience.Beyond the culture of the camp, the video game-based curriculum broaches larger contentious questions. For example, do the ecological costs of the extra traffic off trail in the local mountains outweigh the pollution and gas costs to van the trip to a state park? Is this type of woods-based informal education safe enough in the nation’s current culture of fear where parents are reluctant to be disconnected from their children, even beyond the tether of the mobile phone, for 2-7 weeks? If this sort of place-based AR game makes for good learning, then where is the equity for families who cannot afford to send their kids to camps where it occurs?

Paper #4: Teaching the Japanese American Internment: A case of curriculum controversy

This paper examines the case study of a 2004 curriculum controversy over Leaving Our Homes, a sixth grade U.S. history curriculum. The curriculum claimed that the WWII internment of Japanese Americans was a grave mistake. This was the dominant interpretation in the community where the curriculum was taught, but the “wrongfulness claim” was challenged by a small group of parents who claimed that the internment was done out of military necessity and not a mistake. They pointed to a school district policy on controversial issues, which stated that all sides of a controversial issue must be included in the social studies curriculum. According to the challengers of the Leaving Our Homes curriculum, the issue of the wrongfulness of government actions against the Japanese American community was still controversial, and students should have been given information supporting a “military necessity” claim. To these parents, a tip toward excluding the ‘military necessity’ claim had not occurred. They cited government reactions after the attacks of September 11 and a New York Times bestselling book (Malkin, 2004) as an indication that society had not tipped, or in other words, the Japanese American Internment was still controversial. They demanded that the curriculum be revised to include their views. Although parents were not able to convince the school to change the “wrongfulness claim”, the curriculum was changed in substantial ways. Critical discourse analysis was used to interpret interviews with stakeholders on both sides of the controversy. Findings shed light on how a group with an unpopular ideology was able to make changes in the social studies curriculum. How do public schools in a liberal democracy react when some community members dispute whether a tip has occurred? How are competing ideologies concerning what is and is not a controversial issue negotiated? What claims can stakeholders such as students, parents, and educators make on deciding whether an issue in the social studies curriculum should be considered controversial?

I hate air travel. 

• Tuesday: Madison-> Minneapolis-> Sacramento 
• Wednesday: Sacramento-> Denver-> Houston
• Thursday: Houston-> Denver-> Sacramento

 and on Monday (after an all-to-brief Northern CA vacation)

• Sacramento-> Minneapolis-> Madison

Yes, I’d hate driving more. And, yes, it’s important enough to go to theses places that I put up with air travel, but honestly, I wish I’d checked out AmTrak fares…  

On Friday, November 7, at the Green Charter Schools Conference, I was invited to present on my research on place-based games in the “Outta-The-Box” Schools & Anywhere, Anytime Learning section.

Technological innovations are changing the ways young people learn. In innovative new environment-focused schools, students can attain knowledge and skills through mobile and wireless technology no matter where they are — in the classroom, in the field, or online. Through educational programs that utilize real-world situations, epistemic and augmented reality games, and place-based learning, students can connect with their community, gain an understanding of the local ecology, and engage in environmental planning simulations and significant projects. Green charter schools with student-centric learning are redefining what it means to be an educated person.           

My presentation was on “New Technologies for Local Learning.” This is the gist of it:  

What if the a model was made that went in a different direction than what will be announced tomorrow, or an old rejected prototype was photographed and fed to the rumor mills?

What if tomorrow’s spotlight on notebooks brings products that look nothing at all like the “leaked” items?

Then Jobs would be able to stand on stage, and smile, because his audience thinks he’s going to announce what looks like a pretty boring upgrade, and he can announce something totally different, and deal a friendly blow to the rumor sites.

That would please him tremendously I think.

•  wide and tall slot for wheel
• “duck bill” (?) sticks out far enough for a U-lock or cable to attach to the frame and wheel. 
• reverse bike and you can secure the rear wheel and frame.
• rack does not scratch frame because it doesn’t require frame to lean against it. Also, by holding up bikes other bike won’t fall on my frame.
• plenty of space to fit between other bikes
• efficient use of space (double-sided). 

It is not as “pretty” of a rack as the inverted U-style racks that litter the space around the newly renovated Grainger Hall, but those inverted U-style racks don’t hold the bikes up well, so the bikes fall down and the place looks crappy — a perfect example of a committee design where no one was a biker. They look great when they’re empty. It is a design that looks and works much better than the angle racks where only bike wheels are held (unless the bike has fenders — those don’t fit and fall over).  Hopefully, we’ll see more of these “duck-bill” (if that is what they’re called) racks around campus (and the world!). 

Arguably, Apple’s most major product is Jobs (Reality Distortion Field), and the transition to Ives and his toilet-smooth product design will cause investors to be wary temporarily, until they see how well it all flushes out.

It’s all very brilliant, and humorously understated in typical Apple fashion. And framed positively as a party — “Let’s rock!” Hopefully there will be new laptops unveiled (shipping immediately) as well because I really need one. Also on my wish list is an iPod Touch (phoneless) with GPS and camera that we can use to create our Augmented Reality Games for schools (so they don’t have to buy iPhones and 2-year phone contracts).