Liberty to Blog

Areas of Study

The areas I would like to investigate are pedagogy and psychology. Pedagogy is the concepts and theories behind teaching methods. It deals with education as a theoretical concept that can be analyzed through historical precedents and societal norms. Contributions to pedagogy can be applied to teaching methods to further the critical thinking development of students. This is relevant to my topic because the classroom environment is controlled by the instructor/teacher/professor. The impact of the teacher can positively or negatively affect the issue of political bias and its subsequent influence on individual students.

Psychology is the study of the mind and its behavior. This area of study will shed light on the end behavior of the students as a result of political identification or bias through explanations of the concepts driving both the aggressor and the victim. Additionally, it will add empirical evidence to the conversation as it utilizes experimental designs in order to establish relationships between variables.

Specific Keywords

I used the keywords, “Politic* Bia*”, “Class*” “Environment.” These words produced hundreds of results from both psychological journals and pedagogical journals.

Did Tutorials Help?

Yes, the tutorials helped to narrow down the most important words for to help answer my research question. Additionally, it focused the scope of the research areas in order to make the topic more manageable. Originally, I did not expect the branches of each area of study that are involved in the topic. The pedagogical aspect of the conversation addressed colleges, high schools, preschools, kindergartens and middle school. The psychological perspective approached the conversation from behavioral psychology, social psychology, and computer impacts of psychology.

I managed to go through four years of high school without writing an annotated bibliography. Now, though, it is my time to shine. My research question is whether political identity

My research question is whether political identity has an impact on behavior in a classroom. The influence for this question is my major, psychology. Last quarter, my class studied the effect of outside factors on human behavior. In order to approach this political identity and behavior, I need to integrate the concept of teaching–also known as pedagogy–with behavioral and social psychology.

What’s going on up there?

Overloading my brain, and the database, with classroom behavior and political identification through the perspectives of all three fields of study, led me to one article about the very core issue. (If you ever want to feel inept, try reading a multi-paged psychology research report without looking up the words you don’t know.)  It wasn’t a multi-paged research report, but a news article on a website frequented by the academic community about the affect a political event had on a college campus.

The event in question featured a speech by Milo Yiannopolis and resulted in strong resistance from the rest of the student body. The president of the student organization who held the event received threats and hostility from other students and faculty.

Oh Milo…

This arouses questions about the frequency of situations like that on other campuses. How do students in the minority political group feel? Does it affect their behavior in class? All to be answered in time.

This post will be referring back to the importance of secondary, or argument, sources in academic writing.

Another interesting claim made by my classmate is that primary sources lack the biases that exist in secondary sources. While I admit secondary sources are biased, it is by the inherent nature of an argument source to favor a particular side. The entire point of an argument source is to provide a particular perspective to look at a particular topic. The result is an argument that promotes the thesis of the author. Additionally, the argument source provides an opportunity to reinforce your own work through the refutations of the opposing argument. Essentially, argument sources give you a detailed plan of your enemy’s attack plan. Utilizing an argument source like this prevents you from forming a strawman fallacy in your argument.

Bill Nye, THE SCIENCE GUY, says it just the right way.

Would you rather stalk your prey from the bushes, following the trail to find the right moment to strike, or would you scavenge those same bushes collecting any and all objects that are even remotely useful?

These two situations can be applied to research methods I have utilized in my own career as a student. Coming into college, my favorite method arose from the need to fulfill requirements, something I mentioned in an earlier blog. Essentially, I relied purely on my skills as a hunter to find the source(s) capable of receiving a “good” grade. That strategy became the only one I truly understood and therefore the only one I relied on upon to consistently provide me with the information necessary to complete the task.

Klein’s article demonstrated that the alternative offers a more holistic view of a topic. What I mean is that the method of collecting everything and anything remotely useful will provide an idea of the complexities and nuances of an unfamiliar topic. This method becomes an opportunity to raise more questions which (hopefully) fuels a curiosity to pursue the answers to those questions.

In light of this new knowledge about harvesting information (pretty much without prejudice), I realized just how frequently it appears in my daily life. When I stroll through websites such as CNN or Reddit, I find myself surrounded by threads or articles I know nothing about. The lack of familiarity with the topic pushes me to encyclopedias such as Wikipedia to learn more.

The developments, both technological and social, made in the 21st century promote a blend of both “hunters” and “gatherers.” This is the result of a natural curiosity shared by each individual to satisfy the questions developed by exposure to new information. The answer when posed the question, “Are you a hunter or a gatherer?” is the following gif.

The impact of the Cold War has impacted and continues to impact the United States on multiple fronts. By typing in CNN or BBC News into the toolbar on the top of the screen, you will most likely find a reference to it. In order to prevent the spread of Communism, we usurped democratically elected governments in favor for ruthless despots.The ideologies of the Cold War justified the displacement and death of thousands.

The end of a World War resulted in a divided world.

A primary example is the CIA intervention in Guatemala. The intervention of the United States came about as a result of the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz legalizing the communist political party in his country.  As a result of the U.S. led Coup D’etat Castillo Armas, the new dictator, systematically suppressed all opponents to his rule. Then began a campaign resulting in the genocide of the Mayan people. 

The lasting impact of the Cold War brought about the question, “What impact did the Cold War have in institutions for higher education in the United States?”  One of the major issues we studied in class is the importance of different interests manifesting into different types of literacy. Rodriguez talked about his experience with English and how he associated it with a time of anxiety, insecurity, and fear. This resulted in an identification of Spanish as a source of comfort and familiarity. The connection is that the course of an educational institution could be altered by the societal norms of the time. The reduction of Communism, and therefore all socialism, as an un-American evil, had the potential to push colleges and universities to reform their curriculums and educational values in a way that avoided anything un-American. The warrant for this claim is derived from the funding received by academic institutions by the federal and state government. Essentially, if an institution did not appear to align with the values the United States supported then they would lose the funding for research programs.

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics hosts the Dalai Lama

My archival piece, a brochure of an Executive Symposium with the Republic of China, initially argued that the Cold War directly affected institutions for higher education. Essentially, the fear and opposition of the American public to Communism led colleges and universities to uphold capitalistic and American-friendly educational systems in order to prevent criticisms from the public and politicians.

The picture above demonstrates an alternative explanation for hosting the Foreign Minister of Taiwan, a country which the United States supported in lieu of recognizing the Communist China. The alternative explanation for hosting the minister is to create a conversation on a controversial topic to increase awareness and to change perspectives.

Hosting the Dalai Lama as a part of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and the School of Business frames the event as an alternative perspective to ethical business practices. What I mean is that hosting the Dalai Lama does not have to be interpreted as a political act against a foreign power (again, China). Instead, an event with a controversial individual, especially when attached to religious and political importance, creates an alternative view on an issue we don’t usually see. For the most part, I am not exposed to the nuances of Buddhist philosophy and its application in business today. Therefore, introducing the Dalai Lama, like the Taiwanese Foreign Minister, into a conversation about business and ethics forces a different view of a familiar topic.

My class- and roommate Chris Sung wrote about his reliance of primary, aka exhibit, sources in his first post. While I agree that exhibit sources are important, I think they should be used in conjunction with argument sources in order to add greater depth to your own work. What I mean is that exhibit sources ground your argument in the reality of the topic whereas argument sources provide a voice of authority to either support your claim or act as a counter-argument to refute.

Replace “dad” with “Sparknotes Character Analysis.”

In Critical Thinking and Writing I, we established the necessity in using someone with authority on a topic in order to provide your own argument with ethos, or credibility. This persuades the audience, who will recognize that credibility, to agree with you. Let’s take an essay about the bearing of the Bible on stability in the Middle East as an example.

As an example, let’s say I write an essay about the bearing of the Bible on stability in the Middle East. While I may have interesting things to say about the Bible and interesting things to say about current and historical events in the Middle East, I lack an in-depth knowledge of the complexities of the culture in the region and historical context of the text. This is not to say that the connections I make are invalid. Instead, I mean that there are individuals who dedicate their life to this topic and I should utilize their knowledge to support and affirm my own claims.

By power, I mean information. However, if information is power then I guess it is power? Regardless, reading through these articles, Tirabassi and Greene especially, changes the lens for approaching new information in other classes. The ability to sort sources through BEAM and to establish a systematic approach for archives is useful for social sciences and humanities research. Essentially, these subjects rely on the build of information throughout history in order to formulate an argument, which generally relies on precedence to produce alternative perspectives. The new methods of research allow for a place to begin the work.

Before I read about how to properly do research, this was me.

As a psychology major, I appreciate a process to approach and deal with the overload of information at my fingertips. But (we knew this was going to happen) I struggle to find an application of these processes into the “hard” science classes, like chemistry. As you may or may not remember, I am a pre-dental student. As a result, at LEAST half of my classes are based on math or science. My experience, so far, is more based on problem-solving and critical thinking than argument forming.

THIS IS ME! Just kidding, math is awful.

“The Great Research Disaster” reminds me of my own experience with research until this point in my academic career. As a high school student, my main priority was to achieve the highest grades I could to impress colleges. Secondary to that goal, actually learning something was a cool consequence of doing well in school.

Having over a 4.0 meant I knew how to take tests (mostly guessing), complete assignments on time and suck up to my teachers. However, it did not necessarily require me to go the extra mile in any form of education. Brownie points were assigned to those individuals willing to further investigate a subject past the course syllabus, but academic success in high school meant reaching the minimum requirements, and nothing more.

Another difference between high school and college.

Interestingly, my college experience, so far, deviates from high school. Pursuing an understanding beyond expectations is necessary for success in college. College, especially a liberal arts college, require an expansive knowledge on a wide variety of topics. My high school English teacher called a liberal arts education as “knowing at LEAST a little about a lot.” Essentially, the hallmark of a successful college education is to pursue knowledge of a subject to its fullest extent.

Although “The Great Research Disaster” is a guide of what not to do in research, it also points out the difference between success in secondary and higher education. That difference is moving outside of the requirements set for you in order to investigate a topic to its greatest extent.

The first step in my process is to formulate a research question. Formulating a research question frames the topic into something that requires an answer. Next, I try to learn a little about a lot of the topic and its context in order to familiarize myself with it. Essentially, using encyclopedic resources allows me to “kinda know” about the topic.

https://giphy.com/gifs/challenge-imgur-KxhIhXaAmjOVy

Then I search for more specific information that would allow me to answer the question I created earlier. “BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary” demonstrates the different types of materials I use in order to find the answers to the question I pose at the beginning.

It reminds me of the time I was researching an essay regarding the effect of the American Dream on the middle class for my high school English Class. I first used Wikipedia to learn more about the American Dream through different periods of the U.S. History. Then I used this information to look for “Background” through research papers and studies done on the topic. Then I used arguments from scholars on the subject in order to back up my own.

Good research comes from adequate caffeine.

“BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary” reminds me of the types of materials I use throughout my own research in order to properly formulate my point and answer my own questions.