Teaching

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mssjap_ixdGZ3xWhKuMZpRlEZOr3Y3yEsTqEcfm9hr4/edit?usp=sharing

Empower

When I began learning about and teaching art I was graced with the opportunity to spend an amazing amount of time with students who were in Special Education classes or schools completely devoted to students with disabilities. One of those places was Schreiber Pediatric Center in Lancaster, PA. I was somewhat family with Schreiber because of a friend that I had in High School. She had a brother who she dearly loved and cared for along with the rest of the family, but that also had Downs Syndrome. When I went over to house as a 16 year old I would hear bits and pieces about the center and the therapies he went through. It seemed very reasonable to me then when as a freshman in college we were given an assignment to create a lesson that we could teach to any student ranging from age K-6 with limited or refined mobility at Schreiber.

However, I was no longer just a 16 year old observer. I realized that my role of student teacher opened up a whole new perspective on the center. Many questions that I had never considered before raced into my head and into the students around me, "how will we be able to accommodate tools?", "Will we have enough time for each student to actually complete the craft?", and "How do we create a lesson for a student that we don't even know?". There was so much stress, and yet when the craft night came I remember standing behind my table, wringing my hands with the other students in anxiety. Then, this line of children come rushing through the door with huge smiles on their faces, wearing oversized t-shirts already covered in paint, eager to make. At the end of the night I realized that I had gone about planning my lesson all wrong. I was so concerned about accommodating for what the students could NOT do, that I forgot to even consider what the students COULD do.

I agree with Dr. Carrie Sandahl in her video "The American with Disabilities Act and the Arts: A celebration of Inclusion. (Or Unreasonable Accommodations)." (2011) when she said that inclusion actually excludes so many of our students. When I was student teaching at the Elementary level I asked if I could be placed in a school where I would be able to teach Special Education art classes. I was granted this wish and was able to teach an Autistic Support class and a Learning Support class. I was excited to challenge myself to connect with these students and give them something meaningful to experience in their day. What I didn't expect was that my most meaningful experience wouldn't be in one of the classes focused just on these students but in a General classroom full of 6th grade students. In this class of 25 - 30 "able" students there was one girl who was deaf. When she came into class she had an interpreter with her to make instructions easier. In the beginning of class the interpreter would sign out what my cooperating teacher said and then she would watch the demonstration for the rest of instruction. The interpreter was very clear to all staff that she was NOT an aide. Her job was simply to translate, not help the student complete her work in any way. However, the interpreter spent so much time with the student during the over the years that I can only imagine that she would have been the best teacher.

During my first interaction with the student who was deaf we were learning about organic vs. geometric shapes and cutting them out of paper. I saw that the student had her head down at her table and wasn't working. I went over and gently tapped the table to get her attention and she lifted her head after feeling the vibration. I asked what was wrong and the student said, "I can't do it." I looked at her a bit confused. I knew that her IEP said that she was deaf, but it didn't say anything about fine motor issues. I picked up the crayon in front of her and just said one word, "Try". The student looked a bit frustrated but she took the crayon and drew a heart on the paper. She assumed that this was sufficient effort and then put her head back down. I tapped the table again, she picked her head and I held my hand up showing her 4, meaning she had to draw at least 4 shapes. She grumbled a bit but picked up her crayon anyway and the rest of the project without prompting. I saw her later getting help from someone at the table with gluing, and then again lifting up her Mattise collage and showing someone else. At the end of class the interpreter stuck around and came up to me personally. She said to me, "I just want to tell you that you did a fantastic job. Most teachers don't take the time to prompt her and just let her sit with her head down. They want to avoid any large distractions, or so they say. She thinks she can't do anything anymore. Today she said she actually felt like part of the class" The compliment and realization deeply moved me. I felt proud because I had empowered a student and enabled her not only to learn but to feel like a part of the larger community. Yet, I felt sad because I realized that she was in 6th grade and had only internalized that invisibility was the best option.

I also agree with the ideas put forth by Sami Schalk in "Metaphorically speaking: Ableist Metaphors in Feminist writing" (2013). The language surrounding disabilities has become every day language used to describe a difference in behavior by using words like "paralyzed", "deaf", "blind", "crazy", etc. in a way context that is almost synonymous with loss, lack, problems, or negation. This realization made me consider the vocabulary we use to describe students who join a homeroom's class from the autistic support classes. When we describe this, teachers normally say that these students are "pushed into" the class. The vocabulary sounds like it isn't by anyone's desire or excitement to learn that they are joining the class but by sheer force.


When I graduated college, I thought that I wanted to focus on Art in Special Education. However, after a year in an Emotional Support setting and two years in an alternative program for at risk youth I found myself exhausted. I found that to fully immerse myself in the community every day drained my brain and my emotions. When I started my job teaching in a public school to mostly "Regular Ed" classes I was relieved to reenergize. This year is my third year in and finally experienced the joy I originally felt teaching these special students. Every day, we had two students join us from the Autistic support class. One was semi verbal but very physically abled, while the other was mostly non verbal with many fine motor issues. This was the first time the students were introduced to the class and I made sure that two other students sat with them so that they weren't excluded. However, I went along my normal lessons with the rest of the class and did completely different projects with these two students. We made crazy sculptures from air dry clay and bendy straws, wrapped found objects in yarn and painted with tempera cakes. I would place them on the counter at the end of the class and the rest of the kids would walk by the projects and poke and prod and whisper to each other. I was worried at first until I walked closer to the kids and they suddenly turned to me and asked, "Why don't we get to do this?" and suddenly I had 25 kids nodding and looking at me with what I realized was a very legitimate question. Why was I teaching two completely different projects every day?

So, the following Friday I decided that the class would be devoted to making puppets. I always thought that my "regular ed" students would find these projects boring and elementary but they tore right into it. They suddenly transformed from their 6th grade selves into a younger and more free version. Then I asked one of the students to show their puppet to one of the autistic support students who was non verbal. I thought her puppet was unique because it had a tongue under the flap. When she walked over to him, she open and closed the mouth a few times and the student just lit up, laughed and immediately stuck out his tongue and pointed. Suddenly the tension that I didn't realize existed between my two groups of students broke and the class became one. More of the students came over and showed their puppets and soon the Autistic support student were walking around to each of the tables showing off their own creations. The students were giving them thumbs up and nodding their heads. It was an empowering moment for everyone.  This moment reminded me of the video, "Because Who Is Perfect? Get Closer" where mannequins were created to reflect the bodies of people who do not fit the idealized physical form. It struck me not when they were created, but when the clothes were put onto the pieces. The viewers were not only struck by the difference in the body height or shape, but by the way that the clothes fit tightly or uncomfortably. I feel that moment inspired the view to have compassion and understanding of the discomfort and the unease that they must experience in just the smallest, every day act of putting on clothes. I feel that the most empowering thing that art can do is encourage compassion, empathy and acceptance.

The American with Disabilities Act and the Arts: A Celebration of Inclusion. [Or Unreasonable Accommodations]. 2011. Illinois Arts Alliance. Dr. Carrie Sandahl .http://vimeo.com/24992332

Schalk, Sami (2013) titled Metaphorically speaking: Ableist metaphors in feminist writing in Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(4) retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3874/3410

Because who is perfect? Get Closer. 2013, 4:28 min. at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8umFV69fNg

Diversity

I think that one of the strongest parts of this study guide is that it begins by stating the expectations students are to meet in their communication. As a teacher, I think about how the lesson plan would reflect the content provided. I have learned over the years that whatever information you present first, or in the introduction to your lesson plan, the students will always consider this central to their learning. Through looking at this lesson as an example of culturally relevant pedagogy, I can conclude that this praxis places the connection and relationships that students, teachers and staff are creating in the class at top priority.

The feminism survey seems like a useful tool for two reasons. One, because it is a way to collect quantitative data and two because it provides both students and teachers a firm foundation for sharing differing perspectives. This survey allows the minds of students to begin thinking and considering. Thusly, it achieves one of the goals of culturally relevant pedagogy by asking students to reflect on their own viewpoints. This same goal is achieved through the journal prompts.

Both the provided advertisements and the assignment "Create Your Own Magazine" takes the theoretical issues and forces students to apply and demonstrate their knowledge. I find that it asks students not just to reflect but ultimately redefine.

I found it interesting to read these study guides back to back. I think that the first study guide is a much stronger tool when considering what culturally relevant pedagogy looks like. This guide provides students with the main points of each main point of the video. I think, as an educator it would be more beneficial to have students write their own notes and main points as they watch the video. I think that this is important because it allows students to direct the conversation instead of the instructor. Student led conversation leads learners not only to analyze what they just heard, but also consider how it resonates with them personally. 

However, I do think that one of the strong parts of this guide is it asking students not only to create the magazine, but to "write up a set of basic principles that will guide all editorial decisions you make about the content of your magazine and the kinds of ideas and ideals your magazine will convey about gender." This prompt forces the creator to consider not only how they would create the final concrete product, but also how the larger audience would receive it. 

I think that this guide uses the strategy of repetition in a grand way. Culturally relevant pedagogy not only points out the stereotypes and generalization, but it uses them to inform students. The repetition of seeing, hearing and feeling the video advertisement is just what happens to us in every day life. We are bombarded with the same stigma's reenforced in magazines in the store, on billboards on the side of buildings, on television, on the internet, etc. The only difference is that when it happens outside of the classroom we are subconsciously absorbing it. This strategy teaching students to use their senses to become aware. 

I also think that one of the common aspects of culturally responsive pedagogy is that it asks student to consider not only what they can collectively see or hear but also what they feel individually. This prompt encourages students to be vulnerable, authentic and brave. To share feelings with a group of students who you may know or not know is a huge undertaking. However, that step forward into sharing might provide students to understand that feelings are also collective. 

This guide demonstrates another key point in cultural pedagogy which that one theme is never isolated. The questions that prompt students to consider what it means to be a lesbian in today's world also prompts students to consider what it means to be a female in today's world. Gender, sexuality, race are all woven together and presented to students as a universal issue. 

This guide brought a new realization to this course that I had not considered before. I feel that culturally responsive pedagogy is meant to stir social change and diminish the amount of people who are blind to social stereotypes that are reenforced. When I began reading about the work that produced more gay visibility, my reaction was to look at the guide as a way to show how the pedagogy could work. Instead, I realized that the praxis was also questioning the perspectives of what I thought to be positive products. This told me that no matter what the argument or perspective is, there is a part that is always influenced by some sort of bias. This pedagogy encourages us to question everything. It creates meaningful and authentic learning experiences through inquiry. 

Difference

In 2014, hip hop artist, singer and dancer Rihanna put out a cologne for men. The cologne was called "Rogue Man". In the advertisement we see Rihanna and a man together. Rihanna is located behind the man with her arms wrapped around him. She leans in towards his neck, maybe about to plant a kiss on his skin or whisper something in his ear. Her eyes are either closed or directed downward towards where her lips are seemingly guiding her. Her entire body language seems to suggest that her focus is only on him. In contrast, the man sits starring out into the audience. His head tilted to the right as if he were about to move away from her. He sits with his legs spread and arms jutting to the sides which highlights his many tattoos. His hands are locked together. His fingers woven between each other in a very closed display. It is as if he doesn't even know the woman is there. Off to the right, there is an image of the cologne, hovering above the name repeated a second time. Even further below the repeated title the text, "by Rihanna" is centered in smaller and darker lettering. The whole image is entirely black and white with high contrast between highlight and shadows.The body language of both models is used to communicate or signify a message: Wear this cologne and women will want you. Wear this cologne and be a man.

But what if we changed a few things......

This advertisement is directed towards men, the consumer. In doing so, the designer uses placement and posing to deemphasize and weaken the presence and importance of the female. In "Codes of Gender" the theories of Erving Goffman are described focussing on the concept of "gender displays". This is the idea that gender, unlike biological sex, is something that we learn and perform. One of the common displays is the "ritualization of subordination". This is when the pose of the woman is presented in a way that demonstrates that men are dominate. Women are often seen lying down, in very condensed positions and viewed from above. In this photograph, the woman is presented as submissive as she stands behind the man, holding but not grasping his body. In "Killing Us Softly" this submissive coding is described as synonymous with objectification. The video describes the body language not just as submissive but passive and vulnerable. In doing so, it undermines the female gender and essentially dehumanizes them.

In my first edit, I chose to spotlight the underlying message by further emphasizing the dehumanization of the woman using empty space. In photoshop, I removed the face of the woman leaving her arms around the man, suggesting that all that matters is that the man is desired by something, or someone, but it doesn't really matter by who. On the right hand side, I also eliminated the image of the cologne bottle and all other text except the word "MAN". I copied this word and pasted it over and over again. These combined edits change the coding entirely for the male gender. It forces them to consider their relationship with females and their own definition of masculinity. 

In my next edit, I focussed on how they portrayed race/ethnicity. The music star was born "Robyn Rihanna Fenty in Saint Michael, Barbados on February 20, 1988. Of her parents, her mother, Monica Braithwaite, a retired accountant, is a mix of African and Guyanese. (Guyana is located on the northern coast of South America). Her father, Ronald Fenty, was a warehouse supervisor. He is of Barbadian and Irish ancestry." ( Ben Arogundade. [Mar.18.2016] http://www.arogundade.com/what-race-and-ethnicity-is-rihanna-black-white-mixed-race-american-british-or-jamaican-her-background-nationality-parents.html). If you were to look at her in the advertisement, you can see none of her heritage. Her naturally black, wavy hair has been made to look straight and almost blonde. The contrast in the photo gives hint to some areas of skin that might be dark but mostly, looks like she is caucasian. In "What Girls Want" the young women interviewed repeated the same idea over and over again, media only cares about the exterior, men/boys don't care about your personality, they only care about your looks. When we looks at advertisements we believe that what we see is "the norm". In "Killing Us Softly" that norm is described as a skinny, young, caucasian female. Modern technology has allowed us to begin to alter and edit every model to fit this standard. In doing so, any race that identifies as something other than Caucasian/European is subconsciously being told that the way that they look, the way that they authentically are, is wrong. 

Searching the internet, I found an image of Rihanna to create an overlay on the right side of the image. This image shows Rihanna as she usually presents herself. Her hair is dark and wavy, her skin is light but caramel brown and lastly she is covered in more than 18 tattoos. In addition, I copied the small type "by Rihanna" and pasted it right in the middle to emphasize that both of these images are considered to be an extension of who Rihanna presents herself to be. This contextualization redefines the meaning of the advertisement for anyone who identifies as something other than Caucasian by showing a female who exists outside of "the norm" and saying, it's okay. In addition, it redefines the context for female viewers, or any female who has tattoos. In comparison to the soft female body that is shown as being the complete opposite of rogue, it shows women that they can be just the same and take ownership of their bodies in the same way. 

As my interest turned towards the tattoos on the male models arms, I thought about my last edit. In this edit I questioned what codes permeated the advertisement in the form of text. Looking at the name of the cologne, I wondered what made these two models interacting with one another an expression of "Rogue". In the video "Killing us Softly" it describes that men are taught to be the exact opposite of women. They are encouraged to be insensitive, rational, and aggressive. They then argue that be emphasizing the segregation between masculine and feminine it not only devalues one category over the other but also gives the other permission to be violent. If men are absorbing the subconscious message through advertising that it is okay to treat women as objects, then reacting violently towards them will suffer no consequence. This advertisement encourages the same idea by enticing men to go "rogue" or be "rogue". The imagery in the advertisement implies that even if you are a rogue male, a woman will still desire you.

I wanted to think like a man and rationally consider the meaning provided in the advertisement. So I went to dictionary.com and looked up the literal definition of the word "rogue". It showed me two definitions:

noun: rogue; plural noun: rogues

1. 1.

   a dishonest or unprincipled man.

   
   

   "you are a rogue and an embezzler"

   
   

   synonyms:

   scoundrel, villain, miscreant, reprobate, rascal, good-for-nothing, ne'er-do-well, wretch;More

   • a person whose behavior one disapproves of but who is nonetheless likable or attractive (often used as a playful term of reproof).

     
     

     "Cenzo, you old rogue!"

     
     

     synonyms:

     rascal, imp, devil, monkey;

In one, it describes "rogue" as almost synonymous with "unethical".  In the second it says that while "rogue" isn't a way to describe someone who is doing anything approvable, they are "nonetheless likable or attractive".  These two definitions perfectly demonstrated how the advertisement chose one perspective over the other.  While a woman might sway towards the first definition, a man would most likely lean towards the second. In my concluding edit, I copied the first definition and inserted it as an overlay above the original text. This design decision was meant to elevate the female definition over the males and change the way not only the man in the ad was labeled, but how the word itself is defined.

Looking at this single ad with the new knowledge provided to me by the three video's I watched made me aware of how gender and racial expectations are pushed into us in ways that we don't even realize. I agree with the speaker in "Killing Us Softly". These issues are not just social issues but matters of public health. It will take awareness, education and brave individuals to make any change possible. The most important part to change is not being afraid to question "the norm" and push ourselves to live our lives in the most authentic way possible.

What a Girl Wants
2001, 33 min. http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/41595
Hodgson, K., & Earp, J. Study guide for What a girl wants. Available online from the Media Education Foundation: http://www.mediaed.org/

Codes of Gender (Abridged Version)
2009, 47 min.  http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/83572

Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising's Image of Women
2010, 46 min.
http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/41635

Cultural Artifact

Every day we are faced with observations. If we are gifted with the privilege of sight, then we cannot help but be confronted by the absorption of every day visuals. Objects surround us in every space that we enter and with those objects we have thoughts, assumptions, and reactions. Some of these objects could be defined as cultural artifacts.  A cultural artifact is any object that carries a meaning for a group of people that is derived from the symbolic power of the object and the individual experiences of the group. For this assignment I will be analyzing the condom as one of these artifacts.

When we look at a condom, the first thought that springs to mind is “sex”. We see a condom and our mind defines the object as the tool to discovering oneself and the key to experiencing pleasure. The condom links itself to the image of two youthful, inexperienced lovers who have decided to “give themselves” to one another. Simultaneously gaining the experience of transforming from children to adults while losing their perceived innocence.  This meaning is taught to use through observation and society in the American world. Almost every student in school dreads the day that they need to sit down and listen to “The Talk.” The discussion of how our male and female bodies work is described to us through scientific terms in video. Part of that discussion is focused on birth control, specifically the condom. In the contemporary world of film, the image that is presented to us is someone sliding a condom onto a fruit or vegetable like a banana or a zucchini.

If you separate the term and consider the meanings associated with the word “birth” and then compare them to the meanings of “control” one might find that in reality, we are attaching a lack of trust to the meaning of the condom. To control the act of conception is like man playing God. Even outside of the context of religion, the condom is still a tool of mistrust. When you meet someone new and sleep with them for the first time, the expectation is that you will use a condom because even if they say that they are clean, trust hasn’t been established and you must literally shield yourself from the possibility that your partner might be lying. Contemporary culture tells us that a condom means protection and safety. We are told in commercials and by our parents that we must be responsible when being intimate. Thusly, when we think of what a condom means we attach the fear of getting pregnant, contracting an STI/STD or possibly having to get an abortion. When you walk into a clinic, you are always confronted with the juxtaposition of a jar full of condoms and a poster on the wall about herpes or HIV. A condom carries a contradictory meaning, protection but also disease. However, in my personal experience I have observed that a condom references physical intimacy and a connection between two people that either results from or leads to love.

As a woman I was interested in hearing how a man defined the object as well. One of the responses I gathered for this cultural artifact was from a 38 year old man who was raised in Bangladesh. He said, “A condom means work. When I look at it I remember walking across pedestrian bridges and looking down and seeing the litter of used condoms. It means prostitution and money for sex.” This reflection comes as no surprise as Bangladesh is one of the only places that legalized and organized prostitution. 

Throughout the country there are large brothels that house full time female sex workers. Many of the workers are as young as 12 years old. After researching, it was made clear to me that there are some women who are trafficked to the brothels by pimps both female and male, but some of them are there because they don’t know of any other job that they can get. It allows a poverty stricken population to make enough money to eat. The image below shows the doorstep outside of one of the largest brothels in Tangail called The Kandapara. The condoms take on a completely negative context as they sit in the muddy water on the stone steps. Most likely tossed aside by a man who paid a few dollars not to experience love but to experience his own satisfaction through the direct exploitation of another human being.

Visit this website to explore more stories from inside the brothels

The second response that I gathered was from the perspective of a 20 year old lesbian female. She said, “Condoms are for men. It means male domination. For women it means vulnerability. For Lesbian’s it means nothing.” Her interpretation brings up a valid point. The structure and the design of the artifact that I chose is marketed directly to men. It fails to consider a relationship structure of a two women. While there is no fear of pregnancy when two women have sex, there is still the same amount of danger of contracting a STD/STI. The condom stops representing protection and starts representing frustration and bias as soon as you identify as someone with a different sexual orientation. As someone who has multiple partners, I find that the safest way to have sex is with the trust of negative test results. The only form of disease prevention that works for Lesbians should be what works for everyone, consistent STD/STI screening. 

Visit this website for more information on the health risk of oral sex

The last response I collected was from a 67 year old man who grew up in a very rural part of my hometown. His reaction to the image was, “The condom was power, new, freedom. Growing up in the middle of the woods meant that when I went into the city, everything was different. I remember walking into a bar on my 21^st birthday and all along the bar there were glass jars full of condoms. I took one and slipped it into my wallet. When I went back home, I felt like a new person. It mean opportunity. I didn’t realize that it was because HIV and AID’s was killing people left and right. I was just happy to have bragging rights.” This response reminds us that the condom is actually a newer invention. It didn’t start being mass produced until the 1960’s. 

Not that long after, the HIV/AID’s crisis occurred and the condom became a life saver and a tool for homosexual’s who thought that using a condom was shameful and embarrassing. Even today, the notion of asking someone before, or even during a sexual interaction means ruining the mood and risking the answer of “no.” and completely forfeiting the experience or still agreeing to do so while unprotected.

Visit this website to see other posters 

In the end, as a feminist I believe that the condom fails to consider the female body and experience. It’s shape and design is meant to protect the man while leaving the woman vulnerable. Men feel empowered and free while women often feel that a condom provokes negative thoughts the inspire fear. The meaning of the condom has changed over time. The wonderful thing is that they have become more accessible to those who want to  use them. The object itself has nothing but good intentions. I believe that culture takes the object and redefines it’s true nature.