Across the Curriculum
at Albuquerque TVI Community College
Archive of Teaching Ideas: Teaching tip for July 5-9, 1999
Featured on this webpage:
Rick Randolph's idea
Send your feedback on Rick's teaching idea
Share your ideas for thoughtful learning
Featured on this website:
Discussion
Forum
Rick Randolph, DADE English instructor, offers the following exericises which, he says, "involve putting models of reality on the board and then asking students to extrapolate possible consequences based on them. Sometimes I offer opposing models and ask students to judge each one’s merits. After presenting each model, I have students freewrite for five minutes how they feel about the models. They then share these ideas with the class on a volunteer basis, and we discuss them. Students like this very much and often ask to do more of it; therefore I have often started classes, for the first fifteen minutes or so, with these types of exercises.
- Model One: Love/Like/Dislike/Hate
- Model Two: Spaceship vs. Liftboat Ethics
- Model Three: I'm Ok; You're OK
Model One: Love/Like/Dislike/Hate
For centuries, most people believed in romantic love. Romantic love involved Cupid
shooting an arrow; love was instantaneous, as two young people's eyes met from across the
room. In the twentieth century, most of us have come to believe this view is naïve and
silly. Now we teach young people that romantic love is an extension of liking. You like
someone, you get to know him or her, and eventually your feelings build to romantic love.
That is, our feelings move along a continuum. This model looks something like this (I put
this on the board):
[Hate---------------Dislike---------------Like---------------Love]
Our feelings slide smoothly from one category to the next. If we like someone, and we learn something new about him or her, our feelings may slide to love or dislike, but rarely jump to hate.
However, what if that's not the way the world works? Maybe there are some people who create strong feelings in us. These people we either love or hate, and perhaps there are other people who simply do not create strong emotions: these people we can either like or dislike. The model looks something like this:
Love
xx|xxxFor
people we feel strongly about
Hate
Like
xx|xxxFor
people who do not strongly affect us emotionally
Dislike
This model would explain why so many divorces end not in liking, or even disliking, but move quickly from love to hate. The person one loved passionately last week is now equally passionately hated. It also would explain how difficult it is to move someone you like into the category of someone you love and point out the futility of attempting to build meaningful "love" relationships through friendships.
(Freewrite for five or ten minutes on what’s right or wrong with this new model.)
Another explanation for this might be that liking and disliking have to do with rational decisions based on respect, admiration, etc. whereas love and hate are strong emotional responses that have more to do with sexual attraction, etc. That is, we rationally decide who we like or dislike but we "feel" who we hate or love. (Freewrite on the value of this distinction between reasoned and emotional judgments for five minutes)
Model Two: Spaceship versus Lifeboat Ethics
Here are two arguments by analogy that lead to two very different conclusions about our moral responsibilities. The first, spaceship ethics, compares the earth to a spaceship traveling through vast, seemingly limitless nothingness on an unknown mission. There is no life anywhere except on a very thin layer between the earth's crust and the outer atmosphere. This is the only known place that can sustain life. Therefore, by contrast to the lifelessness around us, all life is precious and we are all joined together by our common plight. The model looks something like this:
[Actually, the model looks nothing like this; Rick's drawing--a spaceship with the earth inside it, outer space all around the spaceship and "Life" encircling the earlth--didn't make it into the computer version of this exercise. In the interest of speed, the drawing wasn't scanned.]
(Five minute freewrite on the validity of this model and then have volunteers read from their freewriting.)
(Another five minute freewriting on the ramifications of this model to our responsibility to help others, poorer countries based on this model. Again, afterward, ask volunteers to read from their freewriting.)
The second model, lifeboat ethics, compares the earth to a hostile ocean filled with frigid water and sharks, in which there are a few life rafts (advanced countries) that have enough supplies to be self-sustaining for the few people lucky enough to be in them. However, most people, in poorly developed countries are simply floating in the water and calling for assistance. They are not self-sustaining and may well die without assistance. (You might think of the end of the movie Titanic here.) The model looks something like this:
[Again, this clip art is nothing like Rick's drawing of stick people in a
rubber life raft;in the water, stick people with their heads above the waves call
"Help!" while sharks swim beneath them.]
(Five minute freewrite on the validity of this model and then have volunteers read from their freewriting.)
[Another five minute freewriting on the ramifications of this model to our (America's) responsibilities to help poorer countries.]
(Another five minute freewrite comparing the two models and suggesting which is more accurate)
Model Three: I'm Ok; You're OK.
In the 1970’s a psychologist (Dr. Harris, I’m OK; You’re Ok) categorized three basic types of communication styles. The first type is "adult" communication in which the person both listens and gives advice. That is, communication is a two way street and the speakers are seen as equals. Communication between two "adult" speakers would look like this:
Adult<--<----------------->-->Adult
The second type of communication is "parent" communication in which the person gives advice but does not seriously listen of take advice from the other person, who is assumed to be a child.
Communication looks like this:
Parent ----->--->--->--->--->-Child
The third type of communication is "child" communication" in which the person wants advice but doesn’t feel qualified to share his or her ideas. Communication looks like this:
Child-<---<---<---<---<------Parent
Despite the categories, the labels are not determined according to age. A teenager could communicate in "adult" style and an "adult" could communicate in "child" or "parent" style.
The psychologist goes on to describe many problems that occur when people’s communication modes conflict. For example, perhaps teenagers often are in conflict with their parents because while the parents are communicating in "parent" style the teenagers now want to communicate adult to adult, so their ideas and advice are listened to as well. The resulting communication is then between parent and adult. The result is the "parent" communicator does not listen and is annoyed that his or her advice is not more freely taken, whereas the teenager feels ignored and belittled.
(Freewrite for five or ten minutes on whether or not this communication difference leads to problems between parents and their children. Afterward, have students volunteer to read some of their responses.)
Now, if the conflict between teenagers and parents is often about communication differences, how might we help transform parent/child communication into adult/adult communication without the conflicts that are so often involved? (Freewrite for five or ten minutes.)
Sometimes teachers need to give students information; what model do you feel best represents this type of communication? (Five minute freewrite)
Sometimes teachers want to have class discussions in which students (and the teacher) share ideas; what model of communication best represents that type of communication? (Five minute freewrite and discussion)
Sometimes, when I see my mechanic or my doctor for example, I wish he or she would just treat me like a child and not bother explaining what he or she is doing. I don’t care and don’t feel knowledgeable enough to enter into the decision-making process. Are there ever times in which adults want to be communicated with in the parent/child mode? (Assign five minute freewrite, and then read and discuss students’ ideas.)
Obviously, you could extend this indefinitely, depending on how interested the class is. These models are easy to create and are good for generating ideas, making students think critically and enjoy writing, and getting active class discussions.
(P.S. Two caveats: First, I haven’t read I'm Okay; You're okay since the mid 1970’s so this may not do justice to the ideas in the book, but that’s not really the point. Second, often the students’ freewriting will generate new models that you can use.)
If you try this teaching idea, please send us your feedback on its effectiveness in your classroom. Did you adapt this idea? How did it result in thoughtful learning? Suggestions for adapting, assessing or improving it?
Or if you prefer, send your comments directly to Rick.
|
|
| . | |
| . | |
| ""...two arguments by analogy that lead to two very different conclusions about our moral responsibilities" become apparent in the spaceship and the lifeboat ethics metaphors." |