Posts from the ‘Education’ Category

Mar 15

Visual literacy as applied skepticism

For better or worse, we live in a visual era, one in which images are ubiquitous. These images, and their messages and/or arguments, compete for our time and attention. I think of it like this: just as Penelope endeavors to remain faithful to Odysseus and to keep her 108 suitors at bay in the Odyssey, we must fight off the inescapable images that endeavor to distract us.

That’s not to say that all or even most images are worthless, of course. Far from it. We’re surrounded by and bombarded with images, in both the physical and the virtual world. That’s just a fact, not a value judgment. And many of these images make claims of one sort or another. We can “read” them as texts, so to speak. Sometimes these arguments are subtle and nuanced, intended to unconsciously nudge us towards a certain perspective or stance on the issue at hand, while some are heavy-handed in their rhetoric, unmistakeable in their intention to persuade. Arguments made by images appeal not to our reasoning skills or to our intellect, but to our emotions.

The study of the arguments and messages conveyed by images is referred to as visual rhetoric. Each semester, I discuss visual rhetoric in my rhetoric/composition courses and encourage students to “read” images, analyze them, practice skepticism towards them, and to determine their message and/or argument. Whether you greet the visual era with optimism, see it as the downfall of western civilization, or something in-between, it’s difficult to deny the importance and necessity of visual literacy.

Upon first encountering the concept of an image as a text and of ”reading” and/or “uncovering” an image’s implicit meaning and/or argument, I imagine that most of us think of visual advertisements. And while it certainly is important to analyze and practice skepticism towards the claims of advertisements, I think that most people are aware of that and already do so, at least to some extent.

As such, I believe that it’s more important to focus on images that are not advertisements, and to analyze how and why these images attempt to persuade us to feel, think, and/or act in a certain way. Images are symbols to which we ascribe meaning and value (this concept is referred to as “the symbolic perspective” or “the symbolist perspective”). In visual rhetoric, audience is key. The way that we react to images determines both their meaning/argument and the effectiveness of that argument. As Keith Kenney explains in “Building Visual Communication Theory by Borrowing from Rhetoric” (PDF), because of the symbolic nature of visual rhetoric, “understanding the intentions of the communicator is less important because meaning is now the result of an audience’s efforts as much as, if not more than, whoever created the message” (66).

Extending our visual literacy beyond advertisements equips us with the necessary tools to analyze, think critically about, and be skeptical of the claims presented by all sorts of images. In the Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition, William Nothstine and Martha Cooper explain that “the symbolist perspective centers on the notion that all persuasion is really to a significant extent self-persuasion, involving the active participation of an audience” (509). Visual literacy empowers us to decide whether or not we will “buy into” the message or argument presented by an image. When we analyze images and their arguments, we question, we think, we reflect, and we become an “active participant” in our decision making. In other words, we apply skepticism.

Ultimately, viewing images as persuasive “texts” can help us to apply to images the same skepticism that we already apply to written rhetoric and to oratory. Visual literacy is an empowering tool because it is a practical tool. It doesn’t matter whether or not you welcome the increasingly visual nature of our culture, as we must apply skepticism towards the world we have, not the world we wish we had, and visual literacy is one of the easiest and most useful ways to apply that skepticism.

_______________________________________________

Works Cited

Cooper, Martha, and William Nothstine. “Persuasion.” Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age. Ed. Theresa Enos. New York: Garland Pub., 1996. 509. Print.

Kenney, Keith. “Building Visual Communication Theory by Borrowing From Rhetoric.” Journal of Visual Literacy 22.1 (2002): 53–80. Print.

Nov 27

19 Comments

Newt-speak and education

Even though I usually enjoy politics, I haven’t followed the 2012 Republican presidential race very closely. I just can’t muster up much interest in it. Thus, when I read that Newt Gingrich had become a serious contender, I was quite surprised, not only because his political reversal of fortune happened so quickly, but also because, well, it’s Newt Gingrich. Sleazy, ethically bankrupt, thuggish, pompous, painfully unlikeable Newt Gingrich, who, like a whiny pesky phoenix, somehow manages to, again and again, rise from the ashes of his numerous political failures.

I must admit that I (quite begrudgingly) admire one thing about Gingrich: he doesn’t deny that he’s intelligent and highly educated, despite the fact that a large part of the Republican base doesn’t exactly value those traits (to say the least). However, my admiration ends there. One look at his positions on educational issues makes it clear that Gingrich values education only when it benefits him in some way.

Last week, Gingrich illustrated this narcissism once again. At a campaign stop in New Hampshire, he said that, as president, he’d like to teach a free online course about his views and political policies modeled after the online course format used at various for-profit colleges.

Oh, Newt, no. Just no.

In theory, this could be a good idea. For example, teaching a free online course on modern European history (the focus of his PhD) in an attempt to promote learning and disseminate knowledge would be admirable and potentially worthwhile (although I can’t imagine that many Americans are chomping at the bit to hear Gingrich lecture about anything). Teaching (and I use that word very loosely here) an online course about his own political agenda, however, is neither admirable nor worthwhile.

As both his educational policies and his history of ethically questionable educational activities illustrate, Gingrich is far more interested in profiting from education and in furthering his own political ambitions than he is in improving America’s educational system or democratizing educational opportunities, despite his assertions to the contrary. Gingrich is tricky that way: he chooses his words very carefully and uses rhetoric that borders on doublethink to manipulate his audience into thinking that he’s making one claim (in this case, that he values the dissemination of knowledge and the democratization of educational opportunities) while he’s actually asserting the opposite.

I realize that the concerns I’ve discussed in this post will become relevant only if Gingrich wins the presidential race. Before last week, I would have laughed off that possibility. But, now that he has somehow become a serious contender, it’s worth taking a serious look at these issues. And, although Gingrich’s views on education are certainly not the most worrisome part of his platform, they are reactionary, self-serving, and dangerous, and well worth dissecting and discussing.

When it comes to Newt-speak, you have to read between the lines. And what you’ll find there isn’t pretty, to say the least.

Nov 2

43 Comments

John Haught, Jesuit education, and the real-life consequences of Catholic teachings

When an educational institution prioritizes adherence to a religious ideology over rigorous academic inquiry and intellectual development, students suffer. They are not only deprived of the opportunity to develop and utilize critical thinking skills, they are also, to varying degrees, actively discouraged from doing so. True academic and intellectual growth cannot occur in an educational institution in which a specific ideology and its associated tenets are actively protected from questioning and scrutiny.

These arguments are widely-known and widely-accepted. There’s another important aspect of this issue that is rarely discussed, though, and a recent event made me realize that it’s also worth consideration. Like students, some members of the faculty of religious schools, particularly religious universities, are also deprived of the opportunity to engage in legitimate and rigorous academic inquiry and intellectual growth. However, while I feel a great deal of sympathy and empathy for the students who attend these schools, I feel no such compassion for the faculty, particularly those who actively and vociferously discourage both their students and their colleagues from questioning, critiquing, scrutinizing, or applying their critical thinking skills to the ideology in question.

Through their actions, these faculty members create a comfortable, insular, and safe little bubble for themselves, one in which both their religious beliefs and their pedagogical/andragogical/scholarly actions are protected from scrutiny. Jesuit educational institutions are a textbook example of this. Jesuits believe that they are called to educate. And, to be fair, their educational institutions often do a wonderful job of educating students on the subjects that pose no threat to Catholicism. My first-hand experience with Jesuit education was at the high school level. The school I attended is a “preparatory school” for a Jesuit university (most Jesuit universities have one or more affiliated “preparatory” high schools). In many ways, this school provided me with an outstanding education, offering academic opportunities unavailable to students at most public high schools. However, the critical thinking skills and intellectual abilities that I developed in certain courses and areas of study were not welcomed in the (mandatory) courses that focused on Church history, doctrine, tenets, or teachings. This was extremely jarring. It forced me to develop of a particular form of cognitive dissonance and it further reinforced what I had been taught from a very early age: Catholicism must never be questioned.

While the actions of these high school teachers is motivated by a desire to indoctrinate children, professors and other educators at Jesuit universities aren’t as concerned with indoctrination. They don’t have to be: their students are adults who have, most likely, attended Catholic schools and/or participated in Catholic religious activities since they were small children. The indoctrination is done. Free from that responsibility, these professors can instead focus on creating and maintaining that insular academic bubble, one in which they can express their opinions and beliefs without facing scrutiny or rigorous academic inquiry. This bubble is an echo chamber, filled with “yes-men” who are fully committed to a religious ideology that is not only their personal belief system, but also their livelihood. And there is no better example of this phenomenon than a professional theologian, for they are the ones who have the most to lose. A theologian’s primary job is to produce faux-sophisticated nonsensical apologetics intended to distract from the actual teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. Their work is so utterly and transparently meaningless that it cannot stand up to even the mildest of scrutiny.

As long as these theologians remain within their echo chambers, they are safe from criticism. Within their protected bubbles, they never have to acknowledge the true harm done by the Catholic Church. They are coddled, surrounded by yes-men who ensure that they will never have to face true academic scrutiny.

But when they step outside of that comfort zone and are confronted with the teachings of the Catholic Church and the real-world consequences of those teachings, all bets are off. The bubble bursts and their “sophisticated theology” is quickly exposed for the obfuscatory nonsense that it is.

Enter Catholic theologian John Haught of Georgetown University (a Jesuit institution). Long story short: recently, at the University of Kentucky, he debated Jerry Coyne on the question of whether or not science and religion are compatible, a debate in which Haught performed poorly. Then, a few days ago, Dr. Robert Rabel, the head of the institution that sponsored the debate, the Gaines Center for the Humanities, informed Jerry that Haught had demanded that the video recording of the debate not be posted online (Jerry had been eager to post the video on his site). Rabel, for whatever reason, decided to give in to Haught’s demand. Further, Rabel refused Jerry’s request for a copy of the video with Haught’s parts edited out, and, together with Haught, proceeded to deny Jerry’s other reasonable requests. Haught’s reason for refusing to release the video? The debate: “failed to meet what [he] consider[s] to be reasonable standards of fruitful academic exchange”. Back to that in a minute.

Yesterday, Jerry posted about Haught’s refusal and Rabel’s enabling of that refusal. This post received a great deal of attention, put Haught and Rabel under scrutiny, and gave both men a crash-course in “Streisand effect“-ology. After engaging in blackmail of a sort, Haught has apparently now agreed to release the video. Anyway, be sure to read Jerry’s two posts (1, 2) on this for a more detailed explanation of the whole mess.

Haught’s claim that the debate wasn’t a “fruitful academic exchange” is very telling. Although I imagine that it’s primarily an attempt to “save face”, it’s also indicative of Haught’s warped notions of academic standards. Haught’s experiences in the echo chamber of Jesuit higher education have led him to conclude that rigorous academic inquiry is acceptable and “fruitful” if and only if it presents no real challenge to his beliefs or to the career that he has built around those beliefs. Remember, theologians have the most to lose.

He wasn’t prepared. He didn’t realize that Jerry was going to confront him with examples of the real-life harm that the Catholic Church causes. Haught was forced to acknowledge the fact that all Catholics must eventually face: whether or not they personally adhere to the most damaging dogmas and practices of the Catholic Church, their support of the institution makes them at least somewhat complicit in the harm that it causes. And Haught has a lot more to answer for than the average Catholic, for he supports and defends the institution much more publicly and vociferously than most of his fellow laypeople. Haught is angry because Jerry provided a clear explanation of the horrible consequences of various Catholic beliefs and actions. In other words, when Haught claims that the debate “failed to meet what [he] consider[s] to be reasonable standards of fruitful academic exchange”, what he’s really saying is that “Coyne dared to question me. He had the gall to question my Church. I didn’t want to be challenged. I shouldn’t have to be challenged. Such scrutiny is unacceptable”.

Haught’s warped view of what constitutes “fruitful academic exchange” is the direct result of the Jesuit echo chamber in which he and so many other educators reside. The Jesuit motto is Ad maiorem Dei gloriam, “all for the greater glory of God”. And it’s more than just a maxim, for when academic inquiry and Catholicism come into conflict, Catholicism wins every time. In the Jesuit world, God trumps all. Over the past few weeks, Haught has learned the hard way that when he ventures too far outside of his protective bubble, he will be confronted with the dangerous beliefs and actions of the Catholic Church, the institution that he has dedicated his life to promoting and defending. Many of the Church’s actions aren’t pretty, and, until Haught is willing to acknowledge that, he shouldn’t be surprised or angered when he gets thoroughly trounced in a debate.

Oct 9

18 Comments

Yay! I’ve been published in a textbook

Yay! I’ve been published in a textbook. (Sorry about the tiny picture- I can’t find a larger one.) The book is called Opposing Viewpoints: Church and State (publisher’s page, Amazon page, and WorldCat entry), and is part of Greenhaven Press‘s Opposing Viewpoints series, which are used in high school and college courses.

I haven’t yet seen a copy of the book itself, but I found its table of contents (.pdf) this morning, and seeing this made me smile:

(The article was originally published in 2009 as “School voucher programs are both ineffective and dangerous“)

A few months ago, I made a note in my to-do list app reminding me to check and see if the book had been published, but that reminder wasn’t scheduled until next week, so it was a nice surprise to find a check from the publisher waiting in my mailbox when I got home last night.

Although I’ve written quite a few articles/reviews/interviews/etc. for various publications (both print and online) over the past ten years or so, this is the first time that my writing has been part of a book, and I’m pretty excited about that. :)

Sep 15

2 Comments

When profit comes first, students lose

This week, the board of directors of the Coalition for Educational Success, a lobbying group that represents various for-profit colleges and the companies that own them, released a list of optional “Standards of Responsible Conduct and Transparency” (.pdf) for their member colleges. These standards include providing students with “clear and accurate information” about costs, transferability of credits, completion rates, and potential for post-graduation gainful employment. They also prohibit the colleges from providing “bonuses or other incentive compensation… to any admissions or financial aid professional…based on enrollments or starts”. The Coalition claims that the colleges who agree to abide by these standards will be subject to “a rigorous third-party enforcement mechanism” by an “independent audit firm”, but don’t provide any specific information regarding oversight.

The problems here are obvious: 1) self-regulation isn’t sufficient, 2) most of these standards are already required by law, which renders the standards pointless, and 3) they are voluntary.

These problematic standards can be seen as a microcosm of the for-profit educational industry as a whole. The inescapable fact is that these colleges are businesses. Their primary concern is profit, not quality education, accountability, or the success and well-being of students. As in all businesses, profit trumps everything else. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with that in general. When education is privatized, though, the focus on profit devalues all that is important and valuable about education. When profit comes first, students lose. It’s as simple as that.

At least the Coalition is making some sort of effort to address their problems. But their standards are meaningless and impotent without proper oversight and universal enforcement. And let’s be honest: such oversight and accountability will never be implemented in a privatized educational system. This is why I hope that for-profit colleges really are in an irreversible decline fueled by declining enrollment and significant financial losses. I think it’s fair to say that their demise would be an unambiguously good thing for both American college students and higher education in general.