Monthly Archives: February 2016

PFP #4: Technology Use in Classrooms

 

As a life-long student who learned the concept of “edutainment” in United States, I have pretty ambivalent feelings about using technology in the classrooms. I believe, as educators and current professors, we need to be mindful about the purpose of using technology in the classrooms.

I recently facilitated a conversation session at the Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy (CIDER), on the use of technology in the classrooms, in which as the educators we discussed the pros and cons, and brainstormed for ideas for a “digitally informed and productive” classrooms.

The upcoming ideas from the conversation session was similar to most of the research findings: Yes, the students do like to use technological devices in classrooms, but the effectiveness of this practice is still questionable (Bullen et al., 2008; Cuban, 2001Rutherford, 2004; Tan, 2013).

There is still a need for a comprehensive pedagogical models with regard to effective use of technology in the classrooms. Here is an iconographic on the possible ways to use social media in classrooms

—-

social media teachers

hsp #4: Liberations

What are plausible intellectual precedents of the sexual liberation movements in 1920s?

According to the authors, in late 1890s and early 1900s, Freud’s work highlighting sexuality, the research done by sexologist Havelock Ellis, the books by Carpenter, influenced the paradigm regarding sexuality in America. Freud’s work suggesting that sexuality is an essential aspect of living and is present starting from the very beginning of infancy, and the (sexual) energy condensing on different body parts all through the ages made a huge impact. Freud was the one who introduced the idea that, sexuality is a normal process of living beings, and functioning for the well-being of the individuals.

Similarly, Ellis’s work was a huge attempt in normalizing sexuality. He wrote masturbation to be “autoerotic forms of relaxation”, and sexuality should be characterized with “not more restraint, but more passion”.

Not because I am a psychoanalytically trained person, but because Freud’s work was revolutionary and he was (and still has been) harshly criticized by many for different reasons, in my reality-construction, I give most of the credit to Freud’s work. His new-perception (well, he has the precedents for sure,, but he was the one who put things clearly) of sexuality as a normal process, present from birth to death, triggered a paradigm shift. Sexuality, started to be perceived as a normal bodily function, rather than a tool for reproduction.

Along these intellectual pursuits, in 1920s the sexual liberation movements started to mushroom in here and there. People started to express their thoughts/feelings in a more liberated fashion. Similarly, the shift in body-politics reflected itself with regard to perceptions about contraception. Women started to say “It is my body, it is my decision”

What factors make the birth control movement significant?

First, as mentioned above, birth control movement reflects the paradigm shift with regard to sexuality. People started to perceive sexuality as a natural experience of their bodies and to own their experience. Second, as happens right after the paradigm shifts, protesting the reproduction-focused sexuality discourse, naturally created the discourse of contraception. Third, owning the body via birth control gradually lead to a paradigm shift regarding perception of marriage. “If we will not have babies, why we have to be married?” idea started to mushroom, and more and more people started to cohabitate, rather than getting married. Also, the birth control movement gradually shifted the perception of womanhood as well.

I believe, birth control is one of the worst things happened to patriarchy. If I was a proponent of patriarchy, I would definitely damn curse birth control (as the religious communities already do ahahah), because it does not only gives women a power to decide on their bodies (not to withdrawal of their hubbies or whatever) or to remain abstinent (and thus stayin away from the pleasure of a bodily function), but also to control their paths in the society. Birth control frees women from the idea of “fate” which is deadly enough from a religious/patriarchal point of view :o)

PFP #3: Ethics

Here is a new funding opportunity for conferences and workshops, designed to stimulate ethical research:

http://www.grants.gov/custom/viewOppDetails.jsp?oppId=280981 

Description: In accordance with 42 C.F.R. Part 93, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) seeks to support conferences to develop multi-disciplinary networks to build upon existing evidence-based research and stimulate innovative approaches to preventing research misconduct and promoting research integrity. ORI is especially interested in supporting conferences that lead to extramural grant applications on research on research integrity and peer-reviewed publications. Conferences or workshops must be designed to provide a forum for discussion and produce tangible outcomes related to at least one of the following themes: 1) responsible conduct of research training; 2) fostering an environment that promotes research integrity; 3) prevention of research misconduct; 4) handling of research misconduct allegations; 5) whistleblowing; 6) international issues in research integrity; or, 7) other topics clearly linked to research integrity and compliance with 42 C.F.R. Part 93.

Glad to see that research integrity is taken very seriously, and aimed to be highlighted through various funding campaigns.

PFP #2: Open Access Journals

The journal I found is named as “Clinical and Experimental Psychology”

http://www.omicsonline.org/clinical-experimental-psychology.php

Here is the information about the journal:

“• The main aim of the Clinical and Experimental Psychology(CEP) is to publish high quality research works and provide Open Access to the articles using this platform. The Journal offers a rapid and time bound review and publication that freely disseminates research findings related to Clinical Psychology research. CEP caters to the requirements of the medical practitioners, behavior therapists, researchers, lab professionals, students, academicians, and industry that are involved in Medical and Pharmaceutical studies. No matter how prestigious or popular; it increases the visibility and impact of published work. It increases convenience, reach, and retrieval power. Free online literature software facilitates full-text searching, indexing, mining, summarizing, translating, querying, linking, recommending, alerting, “mash-ups” and other forms of processing and analysis.

The Editorial Board is composed of members from a variety of universities including Uppsala University (Sweden), University of California (US), and The University of Auckland (New Zealand).

The journal’s statement regarding open access is as following:

“• All works published by OMICS International are under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This permits anyone to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt the work provided the original work and source is appropriately cited. CEP strongly supports the Open Access initiative. All published articles will be assigned DOI provided by Cross Ref. CEP will keep up-to- date with latest advances in the field of Clinical Psychology Research. Abstracts and full texts (HTML, PDF and XML format) of all articles published by CEP are freely accessible to everyone immediately after publication. CEP supports the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing.”

Personally, I am supportive of open access movement. As the university students, we are not experiencing the challenges of the “subscribed” journals, since the university provides many opportunities for us. However, the situation is pretty challenging for the individuals outside of academia. Most of the clinicians for instance, has to confine themselves to the google-based info which can be misleading many of the times. Open access would provide the “real” (at least more accurate) information to be on circulation.

hsp#2: Queerism vs Mass Destruction

I have many issues with this week’s readings. Especially the one on dildos, by Das (2014) is a really problematic one to me, but I will not go into detail here. Overall, I do think that the scholars identifying themselves as Queer, have one thing in common: prioritizing the process of becoming one’s own self — while practicing a critical stance to the roles and rules of the society.

I recently listened a talk by Michael Foucault’s genealogical work on the “Culture of Self”, here:

http://www.openculture.com/2014/08/michel-foucaults-lecture-the-culture-of-the-self.html

Foucault describes the practice of “becoming” a person in detail, highlighting the relationality, and continuous critical (and development-focused) attitude towards the process of “becoming”. What I get from the theorists identifying themselves as queer is similar to these terms.

My discussion question lies to the practicality of this ideal though. Honestly, some of the “critical” papers of the “queer” theorists sound too much of an ill-luck to me, including the Das (2014) article. S/he lost me in many quotes, references, attributions s/he made. For instance, her attitude of representing dildos as a form  of patriarchy is a total re-creating a reality to me, and I am not sure if this is a healthy form of “critical”ness.

Especially, her argumentation on penetration to be a form of patriarchy is just blew my mind. A part of me wants to challenge her by dissecting sexual acts into tiny details, but prefer not to. Just a simple question: I wonder how she would explain the process of patriarchy in the french kiss practice between two lesbian partners. So, what is the patriarchal role of the tongue of partner A’s “penetrating” the mouth of partner B?

To me, these are all talking for the sake of talking, not necessarily a critical attitude.

While writing on this post, youtube brought me a master piece from Faithless, that fits pretty much the picture.

Mass Destruction

Whether long range weapon or suicide bomber
Wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction
Whether you’re soar away sun or BBC 1
Misinformation is a weapon of mass destruction
You could a Caucasian or a poor Asian
Racism is a weapon of mass destruction
Whether inflation or globalization
Fear is a weapon of mass destruction