Virtual Meeting Bloggery

Let's think about these various questions --
-- How difficult is the topic for students? (Define "difficulty"....) Is that important? Should it be?
-- How easy/hard is it for students to define topics? What can we do/have you done for them to help them wade through this choice?
-- How difficult are the texts/films for the students? What great moments come out of that difficulty?
--....or any other questions that you can think of....

I think the answer to all of these questions is, for most students, “very” or “extremely.” This will be a surprise to nobody, though it is always a surprise to me. (All education is remedial education.) When I speak to the class in early weeks I often imagine that they are understanding what I mean, get references, are part of the discourse, and that their nodding and smiling assent confirms this. I am wrong, of course. This quarter I wised up earlier, or did I?
In a discussion about framing on Tuesday I asked how commercial media coverage of the first “serious” Black and the first woman U.S. presidential candidates was being framed, presented, offered. After some tooth pulling I finally got somebody to say “race” and “sex.” Whew. Then I tried to do same for the GOP frontrunner using the “hero” frame based on an interview I’d heard with Mr. Zogby the pollster, who said that young people supported McCain because he was a hero but, yes, wait, here it comes...exactly one (1) student in both my classes could identify candidate McCain, war hero. I asked that student what, exactly McCain was famous for and how he got himself tortured by the VC, you know, toward raising the question of how “heroic” was somebody who dropped big bombs on people he could not see.
That sort of bombed, ha ha.
But I got a few laughs with reference to a talk show I’d heard on the way in which suggested that, scientifically (sic) it could be proven that the man with the best hair and teeth always won, with a student brightly opining that Kerry’s “victory” supported that whimsicial thesis.

“Difficulty” means, in my experience, two things, vis a vis recognizing, defining topics: Intellectual curiosity and familiarity with research tools. Despite their presumed familiarity with the web, students are pretty unsophisticated, so that it occurs to very few “web-savvy” students to look up the author of a text or a key player on Wiki or someplace, just to make sure they know who the person or institution or agency really is. They are such easy marks for fraud and foolishness, and don’t have any skepticism. A student explained to me that “people” thought the Department of Homeland Security was a success. “What people?” I asked, demanding her source, which she proudly showed me. It was, you bet, an Administration official.

Earlier this week I set them up in groups with their Group Topic Presentation instructions and then ferried myself around from one set of desks to the next asking them what the problem was. Basically asking questions and demanding that they have an answer, which of course led to another question. This reduced the total number of groups in each class by one, since at least 5 students had not done real research and just couldn’t narrow or focus their topic, and found it more reasonable to join a group moving toward a stronger, narrow thesis.

We left class with at least one pretty strong draft thesis statement from each class, which I asked them to read and then share on the list serve, where we were meant to comment and offer suggestions for strenghthening, narrowing. Mostly I commented. I include some of my comments, below, many since improved after they worked on them for their group presentations, which were actually pretty good. So: I am pleased with the group responsibility part of, early on, making them all responsible for struggling with theses, being compelled to get up in front of a class and actually offer these, responding to my own skeptical, critical remarks, all toward changing them. So that I am hoping (again) for at least the outline of an argument in the form of opening paragraphs (intro, thesis, topic, problem) for the inclass, which is on Tuesday. So this weekend I am again responding to tentative, draft thesis, all a bit improved since we started.
Note that my comments responding to their draft theses are mostly in CAPS.


1. Hi everyone,I was reading everyone else's thesis, and I wrote one also because I wanted feedbackas to if I am going in the right direction. So please feel free to offer input!After the collapse of the World Trade Center, many harmful substances were released in the air which are deleterious to health. WHOSE? I’D FOCUS ON PERHAPS THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND THOSE IN IT, UNLESS YOU HAVE RESEARCH WHICH SUGGESTS A BIGGER THREAT (WHICH I DON’T DOUBT)

Without adequate data samples of air quality, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released statements that failed to accurately inform the general public as well as professional workers about the dangers of hazardous toxins, and as a consequence, Ground Zero rescue workers are facing long term respiratory problems.
EXCELLENT.

2. This is a broad thesis we have for our topic on civil rights, many of us are taking different directions and this will be addressed later on.

The direct violation of the Bill of Rights on our citizens, AWK Construction

residents and
visitors is a result of the lack of balance between maintaining rights and national security when Congress and the Bush Administration passed the USA PATRIOT Act shortly after the attacks of 9/11.

YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS IS PRETTY BROAD. YOU MIGHT FRAME THIS AS A PROBLEM OF APPLICATION RATHER THAN PHILOSOPHICALLY. "LACK OF BALANCE" IS PRETTY ABSTRACT, AMBIGUOUS. WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PROBLEM ON THE GROUND, AND HOW WILL YOU ILLUSTRATE IT...FOR INSTANCE ARE THERE INNOCENT PEOPLE IN JAIL OR ARE THE COURTS RULING AGAINST PATRIOT OR HOW, OTHERWISE, DO WE SEE A "DIRECT VIOLATION"?

3. We wanted to create our own thesis, but we decided that your thesis covered all parts of our argument so well. We decided to use yours if that is okay!

FINE. SO INSTEAD OF COMMENTING ON MY OWN WORK, I WILL OFFER WHAT I THINK MIGHT BE THE NEXT LOGICAL AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT, IN CAPS, BELOW.

AT

Thesis statement:

The recent problem of Blackwater's apparent lawlessness IN YOUR NEXT SENTENCE YOU WILL OF COURSE WANT TO IDENTIFY THIS VARIETY OF ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR

is a logical and
predictable consequence of the privatization of military security, STARTING WHEN? and stems from a failure by the Bush Administration and Congress YOU'LL WANT TO OFFER EXAMPLES, DATES, BILLS, ACTIONS to establish oversight and accountability FOR EXAMPLE, PRECEDENT OR DEFINITION for the Blackwater contractors who are stationed I AM NOT SURE THAT STATIONED IS THE RIGHT WORD in Iraq.

4. The Department of Homeland Security was established out of the events on
9/11 PRESUMABLY for protection against terrorist attacks. As a response to 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security has HOWEVER chosen to focus on illegal immigration. The problem is that illegal immigration is not necessariy related TO TERRORIST ATTACK, and the Department of Homeland Security is failing to address the THAT core problem.

VERY GOOD. I ADDED A COUPLE OF WORDS, BUT HESITATED TO MESS WITH THE FINAL CLAUSE BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE EXACTLY THAT YOU MEANT THE CORE PROBLEM WAS VULNERABILITY TO TERRORIST ATTACK...BUT I THINK IT IS, RIGHT?

NICE.

5. Due to poor management and communication within and between groups in charge of cleanup at Ground Zero, hundreds of workers were allowed into the area without taking necessary health precautions. The result is, years later, hundreds of workers plagued with life-threatening respiratory problems that could have been prevented.

GREAT START. WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM? AND HOW COULD IT PERHAPS HAVE BEEN PREVENTED? I'D AT LEAST ALLUDE TO THOSE IN MY OPENING.
Ground Zero, Health and Safety

The problem of long term NEED HYPHEN

negative health effects of AMONG

professional and
volunteer 9/11 workers comes from a purposeful and deliberate manipulation of the EPA estimates of the toxic contaminates AT GROUND ZERO AND SURROUNDING AREA?

Excllent. Provocative. You'll want to be careful in arguing this because it is pretty harsh. But I look forward to your presentation. Hope you have some excellent sources.


6. [The] United States Iraq war veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder frequently struggle in returning to a normal life [style]

due to lack of proper rehabilitation. This is a direct result of the irresponsible spending by the United States G government, which is resulting in the lack of funding towards treatment [!]

A bit of circular reasoning at the end, but otherwise good. Please edit for clarity and economy. And consider defining what, exactly, "irresonsible"
means. That is a pretty harsh charge indeed. What branch of government, agency? Department of Defense? More.