Pop Music!!!

Talkin’ ‘Bout…Pop Music!

I was actually really impressed by the chapters in Tooning In that discussed popular music. Often, in the articles I’ve read that relate to this topic, the authors focus solely on the big musical movements of the 1950s-70s or so: protest music, hippie music, bubblegum music, etc. Perhaps they discuss disco or rap or punk, but rarely do they offer insight into the current trends in popular music and the ways in which they impact society. The fact that the chapter mentioned Eminem, Green Day, and Marilyn Manson, etc., really showed me that the authors looked beyond the obvious and did their research. Granted, I would have my own suggestions and additions to the chapter in terms of popular music, but overall I was very impressed by the thorough nature of the text in relation to very recent music.

One of the reasons why music is so successful in the classroom is that music incites extremely personal and strong responses among individuals. Ask a 25 year old female whether or not she likes Britney. Ask a 10 year old whether or not he likes the Jonas Brothers. Ask a 16 year old whether she likes All American Rejects. I suppose that the age of the consumer and the specific artist are unimportant—the point is that popular music generally causes an extreme, “love ‘em or hate ‘em” mentality among many people. For this reason, it is a great way to create strong student engagement and discussions in class.

I have a personal experience to further this point, and it relates to the one oversight that I was able to locate in the readings. I think that the chapter focusing on popular music in the social studies classroom sells itself a bit short. As an English teacher, I found that this chapter was accessible and relevant to my content area as well. The author would have been wise to suggest that these ideas are applicable to other subject areas in addition to social studies. Let me offer an example. During a student teaching experience in a diverse middle school, my students read Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The unit was short—only eight days, in fact—so I had to make several accommodations in order for the students to comprehend the text. Not only did I offer the students “No Fear Shakespeare,” in which the original text was presented alongside a modern translation, but my fellow teachers and I (holla, Emily) also created iMovies in which modern music stars from pop culture represent the traditional characters in the text. The most memorable aspect of this story is the fact that two of the main characters from the play were represented by Chris Brown and Rihanna (this class took place before the whole physical abuse thing—obviously these iMovies can never be used again). The students freaked out! They were so excited to see connections between the pop music they love and a classical text. This iMovie really helped the students relate to the text, and it also helped us make great strides in terms of earning the respect of our students. They really appreciated that we tried to “meet them in the middle” and use their prior knowledge and interests as a foundation for their learning. In short, I have experienced first-hand the ways in which popular music can be incorporated into the classroom—and it did not occur in a social studies classroom.

Most importantly, however, integrating popular music into the classroom is an opportunity for teachers to learn just as much as students, and for teachers to learn more about their students as well. As a teacher, I am always surprised and pleased to learn about the interests and depth of critical thinking possible by my students. Sometimes it is hilarious and totally shocking. I am thinking about the 7th grade student I chatted with last year who, despite being labeled as LD and as somewhat of a troublemaker, was able to discuss the latest episode of Keith Olbermann with me. He talked and talked about how much he loved the Beatles, and as someone who grew up in a Beatle-centric home with hippie parents, I was able to keep right up with his conversation. I think that students really appreciate when we try to see where they are coming from rather than simply trying to shove curriculum down their throats. Popular culture is a great way to do that, and popular music is an important aspect of this idea.

Seriously though, integrating popular music into the classroom for students is like throwing a bucket of chum in a tank of hungry sharks. They love it, because they have been starved of music integration for far too long in the course of their k-12 career. I wonder why more teachers don’t realize this fact, especially those who struggle with behavior management or engagement issues? I speculate that they are simply too focused on the demands of high stakes testing and overstuffed curriculums. My cooperating teacher for my student teaching experience used to offer “Magic Music Mondays,” in which students could bring in music on Fridays, she would “screen” it to make sure the music is appropriate over the weekend, and then the students would get to listen to the music while they worked on Mondays. This caused them to be engaged and very on-task on Mondays, which otherwise can be sort of dreary days for tired students. I realize that the chapters discuss directly integrating music into the curriculum, with the “lyrics as a text” for critical analysis. I totally agree with this idea, but I think that even integrating music more peripherally through efforts such as “Magic Music Monday” is worthwhile. A baby step, if you will, toward more holistic integration of music into the murky depths of the curriculum.

Some important quotes from the text to consider:

“Popular culture remains one of the few arenas that provides a forum for common understandings, dialog, and communication…Neither simplistic generalizations calling for censorship nor attempts at ignoring the influence of media culture are needed” (40).

“Passion and intrinsic appeal are somehow inherent in media music and media culture” (42).

“While we may ‘just not understand’ the music of today, we cannot blame our parents and blindly dismiss its potential for critical social efficacy and activism” (43).

“Our traditional…education is so entrenched with covering essential knowledge to ensure high test scores, that excuses are often used for not integrating current music” (112).

“What one culture deems bright and imaginative is a cacophony of incoherence to another” (115).

“Using lyrics as a text would diversify the curriculum and allow communication across various social groups” (116).

“Children spend approximately 10,500 hours listening to music…this is only five hundred fewer than they spend in school over their entire twelve-year enrollment” (117).

“American students do not recognize their role as active citizens as they credit societal changes to historical leaders rather than independent acts…We must reverse this” (117). Obama, anyone?

Fake News? Real News? What's the Difference? Does it Matter?

Fake news. Sometimes doesn’t it all feel like fake news? Weren’t the past eight years filled with fake news? Though it seems as though the fake news industry has boomed in the past few years as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have gained in popularity, we sometimes forget how far back the history of fake news goes. Weekend Update on SNL started long before either show, and I am sure that even earlier examples exist.

In any case, I think that fake news is great. Sure, it becomes a problem when ALL we see is fake news. However, I think that it is a fantastic supplement. In my experience, I tend to become jaded and disillusioned when all I see are “serious” news reports. Madoff’s a sleazebag, Bush is a liar, Palin is….well…I don’t even know where to start. It is exhausting, and fake news sources are a refreshing place to turn when I am sick of hearing sound bites and I want to laugh. And let’s face it—sometimes it just feels good to take our crazy political and public figures down a few notches.

Besides, it is informative, as the online article by Andrea Janus suggests. This is how I feel: If people are watching regular news sources AND supplementing them with fake news, then great. Even if people are using fake news as their only source of news, that’s great too, because they likely wouldn’t be getting any news at all otherwise. This second group, who use fake news as their only news source, is nevertheless more informed by Steven Colbert than if they had simply been watching reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond, for example. Perhaps the satirical fake news could even spark their interest to look further into an issue.

All of the articles assigned for this week really got me thinking about where the line is drawn between fake news and “real” news. Without a doubt, this line is very, very blurry. I think about this as a spectrum. Steven Colbert and The Onion? Obviously on one far side of the spectrum. MSNBC or hard-hitting “real” news, for example? The other side of the spectrum. But what is in the middle, and how are we positioned to think about it? Right now I am specifically thinking about entertainment news shows such as Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, and Extra. At first, people may write off these shows as being completely un-newsworthy. But during the 2008 Presidential Election, I watched time and time again as these shows dealt with very newsworthy issues. Does anyone remember when Extra host (and former Saved by the Bell star) Mario Lopez interviewed Barack Obama? Or when Access Hollywood scored the interview with the entire Obama family, including Sasha and Malia? Sure, as the Janus article suggests, these interviews focused more on the personal and less on the political, but if I remember correctly, serious political issues were also discussed. This brings up an important set of questions that sums up all of the readings for this week: What exactly is considered newsworthy? What is the ratio of fluff to “hard news” that qualifies a story as real news? Why does this matter? Finally, which is more important: the reputation of the news source, or the content?

Additionally, many assumptions are made in the “fake news” business. First—readers are expected to come to the news source with a basic knowledge of current events. As one of the readings suggested, The Onion would not be as funny if readers did not know the story behind the “stories.” So we assume that the audience is clued in to the joke. Second—we come to a certain news source, satirical or not, with a very specific set of expectations. On Meet the Press, we expect to see serious politics discussed. In The Onion, we expect to see bizarre, obviously fake stories that are based in real or pseudo-real situations. On Access Hollywood, we expect to find out what Charlize Theron wore to the Oscars. That’s why it seems so unexpected and shocking when our assumptions are proven to be incorrect, and why it was so memorable to see the Obamas interviewed seriously on that program. Third—audiences are expected to have a certain level of cultural savvy and intelligence. We must know when the news is fake and when it is real. We must be able to read the signals in order to figure out when the joke stops and starts.

Increasingly, however, these assumptions are proving to be quite fluid, and they are challenged from various angles. In this case, I am thinking about the “Taking Colbert Seriously” clip, when fake news was “recognized as legitimate or influential enough to warrant correction.” Though not everyone agrees that fake news is a good source for “real” news (I happen to be on the pro-fake-news side of the debate), Colbert’s apology unequivocally speaks to the power of fake news. It is a force to be reckoned with, and these fake news sources hold considerable political power and access to a very key demographic. Would the political outcomes of campaigns be different if different parties had “worked” the fake news sources differently? There is no way to know, but logic would suggest that this is true.

Fake news is only going to become more popular in these distressing economic times, as citizens look for humor in current events. Indeed, fake news requires critical and cultural analysis just like any other news source, but we are currently in a very interesting news environment in which “fake news” could prove to have a very powerful and (dare I say it) positive effect on the nation’s collective psyche. This reminds me of the powerful effect of Jon Stewart’s Indecision 2000, as discussed by Kothe. Indeed, “by donning the fool’s cap, by playing the clown,” as Kothe suggests, hosts such as Stewart are able to be more honest and candid from their unofficial platform than any shellacked, mainstream newsperson could have the power to be.

Since this class is meant to relate to education, let me close on this note. Teachers--do not be afraid to incorporate fake news sources into your classroom. Often, the satirical nature of fake news makes it much wittier and more engaging than traditional news sources, and may also spark more critical thinking from students. Fake news provides a great intro to just about any serious topic, and it is a great way to scaffold material for students who may not "get it" right away. If we want to get kids excited about school and current events, why not incorporate a bit of humor into the classroom? Likely, they are already somewhat familiar with shows such as Jon Stewart. If not, let's start them early! English classes, history classes, science classes--fake news exists for nearly every subject. Fake news is just another resource out there for teachers to access in order to make school exciting for students and to help students make real-world connections to the society around them.

Kid Culture in Schools?

Kid culture is a powerful and unstoppable force in society, yet I am continually surprised by the ways schools try to “run against the wind” by ignoring and resisting the trends. White and Walker suggest that “kid culture is often subject to condemnation, censorship, and regulation. Kid culture has always been questioned regarding its legitimacy and impact on youth and society…What one finds in schools is a negative reaction to kid culture in whatever form (rap, Pokemon, video games) through stereotypes, banning, and demeaning acts and comments” (77). As I begin student teaching, I find myself wondering why administrations fail to realize that this approach is so ineffectual.

Many teachers find themselves looking out at a sea of disengaged, uninterested students as they push the same old curriculum year after year. Perhaps incorporating some facets of kid culture (even just one or two will do at first) may engage some of these students with the material, helping them to understand the real-world relevance of what they learn in class. Many scholarly articles suggest that one of the reasons that many students do not achieve in school is that they fail to see the connection between their real-world, out-of-school activities and what they learn in the classroom. If there is no connection there, then why should students care? More importantly, how are we preparing students for life after k-12 if we aren’t equipping them with the skills to analyze the world around them?

I am not suggesting that we trash the curriculum staples that have driven our classrooms for decades. In English, for example, the classics and the Canon definitely have their place. They need to be read by students, not only because they represent masterpieces of their times but also because cultural literacy demands that citizens understand the pop-culture references that often originate in literature. Take Shakespeare, for example. Students need to know the basics of Shakespeare in order to participate in our culture, since so many cultural references revolve around his plays.

So maybe we keep the staples, but we add new ways for students to access them through kid culture. We pair the classic text Dracula with the kid culture phenomenon Twilight. We incorporate Harry Potter into British literature or folk tale classes. We use The Simpsons or Shrek to teach satire as a genre. We use Liberty’s Kids (which actually is a pretty entertaining show) to supplement a US History class or colonial texts. We bring “new media” into the classroom. We incorporate play-like behavior into our lesson plans. It doesn’t need to be fancy. It doesn’t need to add to our already-overstuffed workload as teachers. It benefits our students, and it can be implemented easily.

The whole “student engagement” thing is key here. Some students have been able to skate through the system without really interacting with a rigorous curriculum. It is sad, but that’s a fact. So we should not be surprised when some students shut down when they are assigned to read Shakespeare. We need to build a sort of ladder which allows students to feel comfortable accessing rigorous academic challenges such as Shakespeare. Incorporating kid culture and play into the classroom allows us to build those connections.

One of the biggest benefits of this approach is that it may get some students involved in their own education who haven’t been in the past. The vast majority of us have great memories of our childhoods—they give us those “warm and fuzzy” feelings, and many people spend a lot of time and money chasing the experiences of their past. It may seem a little “gimmicky,” but incorporating those classic toys into learning at school will definitely get students excited. Think LEGOs in a geometry class, for example. In the English classroom, high school students flip out with excitement when teachers read a children’s book to them aloud. Students are expected to “grow up” too quickly, in my opinion, and we often forget that high school students are still kids who enjoy play-like activities. Keeping this in mind will help us get students excited to come to class and engaged in the material. Schools need to embrace kid culture and play in the classroom, because fighting against this inevitability has failed.

March 1 Post: Avatars

Let me begin by saying that I had a ton of fun making avatars this week. I really enjoyed http://www.gizmoz.com/, but I decided to upload a different avatar that I made, from http://www.simpsonsmovie.com/main.html.



Moving on. The readings for this week were very informative. I have very little experience with avatars, aside from seeing Dwight Schrute’s Second Life character on my favorite show, The Office. I remember that episode vividly, and I remember thinking that the technology was pretty cool. Before the readings, I had not considered that avatars could be used for educational purposes. Boy, was I wrong. I can absolutely see the benefit of using avatars, particularly in an online class. Sometimes, online classes can feel a little bit isolating and alienating, since students miss out on actually interacting with classmates (unless online chats, for example, are required). Even when classmate interaction is facilitated through chats, that visual element sometimes remains missing, and the visual element is a factor that students find important. For example, my blog buddy and I added each other as friends on Facebook last week, and I now feel like I know her a bit better. We have chatted online for quite a few weeks, but I now feel like I have an even fuller picture. Avatars can serve an even more personalized purpose than images alone, and they can be even more effective in this regard. I think that they have the potential to revolutionize online classes (and other classes, for that matter), but I think that most people are still fairly unfamiliar with the whole avatar issue.

In my experience, students are very engaged and excited about avatars. I overheard someone in one of my classes discussing an experience in which she showed an avatar of herself to her own students and had the avatar explain the daily writing prompt. She said that the students were completely blown away. As a result of her efforts, the students were engaged in the activity. The readings for this week seem to suggest a similar pattern. Even if avatars are not as useful as students would hope, as was the case with the eFolio avatar, they nevertheless spur student curiosity and involvement with the class. I have taken the same class (from the study) in which we had to create an eFolio, and believe me, that project was incredibly confusing. I certainly understand the rationale for creating an avatar to field student questions for EDHD 5007.

At this point, the whole “avatar abuse” thing should probably be addressed. Maybe I am too liberal for my own good, but I simply don’t think that it is that huge of an issue. This is a new technology that, as I said above, thrives on student curiosity. Of course they are going to push the boundaries of the technology—actually, I would be disappointed if they weren’t interested in the capabilities of the technology. If sexuality is a natural part of “human” life, doesn’t it make sense that students would be interested to find out if the non-human avatar was programmed to respond in an equally human-like fashion? Though I wouldn’t type inappropriate comments to an avatar in a school setting, I would nevertheless be curious to find out how an avatar would respond to such…dare I say it…probing questions? I think it just comes with the territory. The study gave a bunch of students anonymous access to an attractive computer “tutor” without consequences. I would have been more surprised if the inappropriate comments did not occur. In my opinion, the same goes for the group of high school students discussed in the readings. Demographically, should we be shocked that high school boys like to test boundaries and are interested in attractive females, or that their minds aren’t always the purest? I think not.

I am not suggesting that abuse to women is not a serious issue. But there is a significant distinction that must be made—these avatars may appear to be life-like but they are definitely NOT real humans, and I think that the “dirty talk” that the avatars face has much more to do with technological curiosity than anything else. I don’t think we should expect that people pay avatars the same level of respect as an actual human—in the end, why does it matter? Nobody gets hurt. I don’t think that this mistreatment of avatars should deter avatar use, primarily because they offer so many great benefits. According to Veletsianos et al., “pedagogical agents can (a) increase motivation, (b) increase perceptions of comfort, (c) stimulate learning, (d) enhance information and communication flow, (e) fulfill personal connection to learning, and (f) enhance problem solving processes” (293). Though not every student will benefit from the use of pedagogical agents, I feel that they are a great tool that can enhance learning. If teachers or professors are really worried about “avatar abuse,” then they always have the option of creating a gender-neutral avatar (although I would bet that students will still be curious enough to find new ways to push boundaries).

I think that the anonymity of comments in both of the readings for this week is another monumental factor. If you want to curb inappropriate comments fielded by avatars, simply track the comments back to the students. Problem solved. I know that this would deter the majority of students from “testing the waters” in this way. The readings remind us that “the Internet lowers human inhibitions…especially when anonymity is involved” (294).

So my thoughts boil down to the fact that I am definitely an advocate of avatar use in the classroom. Though there are some downsides such as avatar abuse according to some, the pros outweigh the cons, in my opinion. In fact, if the teacher is planning on creating an avatar of him/herself, I think that a great way to decrease “avatar abuse” would be to have students create avatars of themselves. If they are involved with the process to a greater extent, perhaps they will be more aware of the capabilities of the technology, thus curbing many of the risqué comments that are simply meant to test the limits of this technology. If the students are involved in the process of creating avatars for a class, then media literacy and engagement will be increased anyway, which should be an important goal for any teacher.