Mentoring Project – Mt. Carmel, PA, U.S.A.

As part of my mentorship partnership with Suzie Nestico’s senior Social Studies/Ethics class, I was asked to view and comment on the wikis they had created as part of a unit on propaganda, media bias and interest groups. This was a very interesting experience for me, but also a real teacher dilemma.  I focused on the interest groups created by Ms. Nestico’s second period class, I will post the link at the end of this blogentry, but I found myself in quite the quandary when reading and reviewing these interest group wikis.

Most of the students had put a lot of work and care into their causes.  Two groups addressed the issue of affordable post-secondary education for U.S. students, which is an issue that spans globally, and certainly resonates with me.  With the downturn in the U.S. economy, many families will not be able to send their children on to post secondary education.  Attending college or university in the U.S. is unbelievably expensive – more so if you want to attend a reputable school.  Forbes has a short piece on the cost of post secondary education in the U.S. and other countries you can check out herefor further reading.  I thought the two groups who addressed this issue were very smart in their choice.  This is something many graduating students will face in the coming months, and it is something many student organizations lobby  for day and night.  It is immediate and relevant to their current situation, and I thought the two groups did very well at compiling facts and video to post on their inerest group page.

One group focused on the work of Greenpeace and what Greenpeace is doing to raise awareness of pollution.  In a time where global warming  is to blame for every unpredictable weather fluctuation or hurricane, this strikes me as a very relevant concern for the future leaders of tomorrow.

One group took up the interests and campaigns of PETA, which when taken to the extreme such as these students chose to present, kind of made me cock an eyebrow at the anthropomorphic arguments PETA makes on animals’ behalf.  The group’s wiki came across very much like a long campaign for vegetarianism – which is fine.  It would be rather ironic if you were on the front lines for PETA with a KFC snackwich in your hand.

One group did an absolutely spectacular job of creating an interest group wiki on U.S. immigration reform.  I really enjoyed their presentation style, and their use of bias and strong voice.  They very tactfully used suggestive voice to manipulate thier cause, and made very good use of celebrity endorsers for immigration reform like Ted Nugent.  This group had a great  understanding of how and why interest groups use propaganda to lure new supporters.  The wiki itself was great to look at.  The layout and aesthetics of the site were created with care and much creativity and insight was put into this group effort.

Lastly, there were two groups who had created pro-life interest group wikis.  Both groups worked very hard at understanding and using propaganda techniques like card stacking and fear mongering to scare women away from having an abortion.  Most pro-life groups are irrevocably tied to religious factions of the world, and there was no shortage of zealotry here.  One group was very, very aggressive in their campaign and went so far as to embed a pro-life youtube clip which was a series of very graphic (most often fake) images of late term aborted fetuses.  Mmmmmmmm.

My quandary about viewing these pages is such: 

Am I to believe that these interest groups are based on students own interests and beliefs?  If this is so, how do I as teacher reflect my differing point of view on many of their chosen topics without being critical or negative?  Need I give my point of view?    I struggled the most with the pro-life sites.  I am a liberal artist.  I am a liberal Canadian citizen.  I am a feminist, and I am staunchly pro-choice.  My response to these groups was very much steeped in my own beliefs.  I had to work very hard not to negate their opinions, but to encourage them to further educate themselves about both sides of the arguement,  not just within thier own borders, but across the globe.

I had similar comments for the immigration reform group.  I gave them very positive feedback, which was mostly based on their class rubric for the assignment.  I encouraged them to examine global perspectives on illegal immigration across the globe, and linked them to information about Canada’s immigration policies. 

My question for the world tonight:   How much of yourself do you bring to the classroom?  Is it okay to let your students know your own opinions on hot topics like Roe V. Wade?  Am I liable to get sued or fired for being outspoken?  My goal is to get students to think for themselves in meaty matters such as these, but what happens when there’s a valley between our two opinions? 

You can view the 2nd period class’ interest group wikis here.

~ by K. J. on May 24, 2009.