Case Study #1: Bang! Bang! You’re Dead!
Sociology: What is it about modern cultural phenomena such as video games that people find so threatening?
This case encourages us to understand moral panics and why they develop. Should we fear these things, or should we rather seek to understand the various ways they impact our society?
Fear and distrust of modern cultural phenomena, including videogames, is not novel. In the 1940s, the moral panic was around horror movies and radio crime stories (Orben, 2020). Newspapers, the automobile, novels, and rock music have all played the role of the bogeyman at one point or another:
Technological advances and the concerns they engender form part of a constant cycle. Nearly identical questions are raised about any new technology that reaches the spotlight of scientific and public attention. These are then addressed by scientists, public commentators, and policymakers until a newer form of technology inspires the cycle of concern to restart.(Orben, 2020)
Panics about modern cultural phenomena, including technological changes and emergences, are useful for various stakeholders in society, including politicians and political institutions. Over the last century, moral panics have been used effectively by US politicians in particular to deflect blame for social conditions that may otherwise have required a legislative or systemic solution: “deflect social reform from the much more difficult issues of racial justice, economic opportunity and educational quality” ( J. A. Anderson, 2008, as cited in Orben, 2020).
Implications for practice: As a new teacher, how will you decide when to challenge your colleagues’ certainties and when to refrain from doing so?
I think that new teachers must tread carefully about challenging their colleagues’ established views. Having a continuing contract, a permanent position, and a few years established in a school district can be deciding. If colleagues’ views are harmful to their students, violate professional ethics, or otherwise necessitate action, a new teacher would be better served by approaching their BCTF representative for guidance.
There can be a place to tactfully challenge colleagues’ views. Offering a different perspective, evidence that they haven’t considered, or asking them questions that they may not have considered, may provoke new ways of thinking without directly confronting outdated or ill-informed views.
Case Study #2: This Suit’s for Wearing
Sociological: In what ways do Morris Dyer’s evidence-based teaching practices advantage or disadvantage certain learners in his classroom?
Practices are not neutral. They are inherently biased, and we need to understand in what ways they advantage or disadvantage learners. We also need to ensure that we aren’t locked into a single view point or practice because the diversity of our approaches strengthens our ability to reach everyone in our classroom.
Morris Dyer’s evidence-based teaching practices advantage those students who have been born into and raised in the dominant hegemony. Those students who are not part of that hegemonic culture, whether due to immigration, class, ethnicity, or linguistic group membership, are disadvantaged. These practices often lack flexibility in both teaching methods and assessment practices, being overly rigid and poorly able to adapt to diverse learners. Students come to education from a variety of backgrounds and with a variety of knowledge. Evidence-based and data-driven practices often assume that there is a normal, or average, learner, which doesn’t actually exist in reality.
Implications for practice: Whether we like to admit it or not, the myth of the normal child affects our students. How will you challenge this myth in your own practice?
This myth of the normal learner can be harmful because it assumes all students learn in the same way, at the same pace, and in the same context, when in reality, learning is a deeply individual process that varies widely across students. The belief in a “normal” learner often leads to educational practices that favour certain learning styles, abilities, or behaviours, while ignoring or stigmatizing others.
Combating the myth of normal is a central principle of Universal Design for Learning. While designers of curricula and education methodologies have tended to create benchmarks and strategies for the ‘normal learner,’ the reality is that no learner profile is within the realm of normal for all benchmarks. Rather, we need to be able to reach students through multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression.