BLOG #7

I can’t believe I’m sitting down writing my last blog for this course. The Lifelong Learning Processes course has both challenged and inspired me in so many ways.  While I’ve enjoyed our assigned readings and class discussions, I must say the learning process of creating and contributing to a blog for this term has been the most influential part of the class. It has been such a great learning experience reading everyone’s insightful and creative blogs. Looking back at my own blog posts I have tried to write about topics I simply wanted to learn more about or seemed relevant to my professional and personal interests. I even took the opportunity to reflect on my past experiences as a student, a proud member of a community of practice, and now given our recent discussions around identity and self-analysis, I feel compelled to reflect on how I came to be in this class.           

When I applied for the Master of Education in Lifelong Learning program my primary goal was to become a better educator in my field of diabetes education. It can be quite the challenge to motivate, inspire, and in some cases, persuade people to want to learn the knowledge and skills they need to better manage their diabetes and improve their overall health.  I believed that in pursuing my Master of Education in Lifelong Learning I would be able to learn effective teaching practices and methods that would enhance the learning experience of my clients. I was seeking practical, hands-on examples and learning opportunities that I could incorporate into my everyday practice. To be honest, I questioned whether this Master’s program was the right fit for me.  

However, when I was reading Bracher’s book, “Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation”, he introduced a chapter with a quote by Parker Palmer that really stood out for me:  

“Good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher”

At our next class, Dr. Plumb reiterated the meaning behind this quote and I had my A-ha moment!  Will I achieve my intended goal of becoming a better educator as a graduate of the Master of Education in Lifelong Learning program? My answer is absolutely. Without any hesitation, I believe I am where I’m supposed to be. The difference is what I believed the learning process should be versus what it needs to be. I realize now that I can only achieve my goal if I am willing to learn, understand, analyze, and apply the underlying theories and practices of lifelong learning to develop and support my own pedagogical aims and practices rooted in a deeper understanding of my own identity needs and the identity needs of my clients.  

Bracher (2006) tells us that as educators we need to be open to questioning our own identity and teaching practices to allow us to embrace alternatives that can provide important identity benefits for students while considering the fundamental aims of education. He implies the most effective way to achieve this is through “a process of self-analysis” (p. 135) proposed by Lacan.  In Chapter 10, he encourages us to engage in a form of free-writing responding to several questions, identifying who we seek recognition from, and prompting us to examine various experiences where we felt satisfaction and dissatisfaction in our teaching.

Even though I am not a teacher in the traditional sense of the word, I could easily relate my teaching experiences over the past ten years to the activities outlined in the chapter. While I can’t share all of my answers as this is a blog and not a short story, I can offer a summary of what I was able to take away from this exercise.

As a diabetes educator, the identity-bearing signifiers that are important to me would include, “intelligent”, “good listener”, “empathetic”, “non-judgemental”, “practical”, and “dedicated”. My main reason for wanting to pursue a career in diabetes education was to help people like my best friend who has had Type 1 diabetes since she was 10 years old and at a young age is already experiencing serious complications related to her diabetes. I hope that by taking the time to really listen and acknowledge the challenges people face in managing their diabetes I can use my expertise and practical nature to work collaboratively with them to develop a plan of action that not only fits clinical practice guidelines but meets their learning needs. I am reminded on a daily basis of the impact you can make in someone’s lives through their success stories and simple gestures of praise and recognition such as a hug or a sincere thank you. In my career, I am committed to being a lifelong learner, respected and reputable educator, and advocate for change in funding, program development and teaching practices.   

Everything we learn from our readings, class discussions, conversations, and blogs brings us closer to our individual and collective goals as current and future educators. I want to thank everyone for making this such a great class. I feel like I’ve gotten to know each of you through your blogs.

To the graduates….congratulations! To the rest of the class, I look forward to learning along with you in other classes. To conclude, I would like to share a quote that I will remember as I continue on my journey in the lifelong learning program:

“The only person who is educated is the one who has

learned how to learn…and change”

 -Carl Rogers

References

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation. New York:  Palgrave Macmillan.

                                                                                   

BLOG #6 - Exploring Our Identity

“Perhaps it's impossible to wear an identity without becoming what you pretend to be.”
-Orson Scott Card

When reading Bracher’s book, Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation, you can’t help but question your own identity.  Is your identity simply who you are and what you believe yourself to be? According to Bracher (2006), identity is “the sense of oneself as a force that matters in the world that involves the experience of several distinct qualities, including continuity, consistency, agency, distinction, belonging, and meaning” (p. 6). It is believed by some psychologists that each of these qualities is the prime motivator of human behaviour and if we can only achieve some of these qualities our identity will be compromised. Bracher (2006) believes that the most basic human need that underlies all of our behaviour is maintaining one’s identity.  Our behaviour is motivated by a continuous need to verify or receive feedback that we are the type of person we believe ourselves to be. We strive for recognition by others. “The most fundamental identity need is the need for recognition; the need to have one’s being appreciated and validated” (Bracher, 2006, p. 7). If we feel that our identity is being threatened we will do everything in our power to support and protect it.

My question is, what happens when we do not get the self-verification and recognition that we need or we simply do not like who we are? Some people are stable and strong enough to reflect on their lives and identify who they are or who they want to be and make changes to support their identity needs. On the other hand, some people may become depressed, socially isolated, or in some cases even attempt to recreate their identity in hopes of receiving the recognition they desire. The latter represents a very tempting and surprisingly increasing trend in the era of social media. The concept of creating false identities to escape the reality of who we are and to become someone we would like to be is something I thought would be very interesting to discuss in my blog. I watched a movie a few months ago that represents an excellent example of this concept and how far some people will go to maintain and support this new identity.  

In the documentary-thriller, “Catfish”, love and identity become twisted across lines of the internet. This documentary from filmmakers Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman follows the peculiar relationship that unfolds between Ariel’s younger brother, Nev, and a promising 8 year old artist and members of her family. 

  

Yaniv “Nev” Schulman, a 24 year old New York City photographer, receives an email one day from an 8 year old girl named Abby from Michigan. She wanted permission to paint one of his photographs that was published in a magazine. He gives his approval to paint the picture which she later sends him in the mail. She appears to be an artistic prodigy who intrigues him and he befriends Abby on Facebook. His fraternal relationship with Abby leads to a warm rapport with her mother, Angela, and he eventually becomes involved in an online relationship with Abby’s sexy older sister, Megan. The story of the film moves from Nev and Abby to the story of Nev and Megan, who he finds himself falling in love with.  They post messages to each other on Facebook, exchange intimate text messages, and talk on the phone. He is obsessed with this beautiful girl who is also a talented dancer and musician. She personifies his “dream girl” but the only problem is he has never met her.  

       So, Nev decides to travel to Michigan to meet Megan in person and this is where the story takes an unbelievable twist that borders on creepy. When he arrives at Megan’s house, he meets Angela (the mother) and Abby (the young artist) but unfortunately Angela says that Megan is not able to meet Nev because she has checked into a rehab facility. She has never mentioned any issues with drugs or alcohol and the truth quickly reveals itself.  The girl of his dreams that he was falling in love does not actually exist. Angela, does have an older daughter named Megan, but they are estranged and the Megan portrayed on Facebook is actually a model from Vancouver that Angela has never met. You would think that Nev would lash out at Angela for luring him into an online relationship full of lies and deception but instead he spends some time getting to know who the real Angela is.   

FACEBOOK MEGAN
(Megan Faccio)

THE REAL MEGAN
(Angela Wesselman)

Angela Wesselman’s true identity is revealed as a troubled housewife who spends her days caring for her two severely handicapped stepsons and her husband, Vince. She is an aspiring artist who posted her paintings online hoping for some praise and recognition of her work but instead was met with criticism. When she decided to create a new identity and post her paintings under her daughter Abby’s name she went from being considered a decent painter to an exceptionally talented painter.  However, her brief escape from reality would ultimately spiral out of control as her relationship started with Nev. She went on to create 21 online profiles of friends and relatives to complete Megan’s social circle.  To bring these personas to life, Angela assumed all of their identities posting messages on Facebook in the voice of Abby, Megan, their brother and friends, switching minute by minute.

I think Bracher would attempt to explain Angela’s behaviour by claiming that because people have different developmental experiences and endowments people have different vitality affects at the core of their identity. Angela is one of those “people that feel most alive when they are in a state of tension brought on by pressure or even danger. No matter what one’s identity-supporting vitality affects may be, every individual is constantly operating in such a way as to reproduce those affective-physiological states and their activation contours” (p. 31). In one of the final scenes of the movie, Angela’s husband Vince offers his interpretation of his wife’s behaviour through a story that gives the film its name. He claims that when live cod were shipped to Asia from North America, the fish's inactivity in their tanks resulted in mushy flesh in the Asian markets. Eventually, the fishermen discovered that putting catfish in the tanks with the cod kept them active. He goes on to say that “he feels people like Angela are catfish who keep us on our toes, keep you guessing, keep you thinking and fresh. And, uh, I thank God for the catfish, because we’d be droll, boring, and dull if we didn’t have someone nipping at our fin.”

While writing this blog, I found some alarming statistics about people creating false identities on Facebook. Nyberg (2010) reports that the user base of Facebook has reached a level that represents 37% of the total world population and along with this huge user base, the fake user base has risen to 27% of the total Facebook users.  What does this mean? This means for every 10 friendship requests you get, only 7 or 8 are real and the rest are fake.  While many of you are probably thinking I only add friends that I work with, know from school, socialize with, etc. there are many people in this world that use Facebook and other social media outlets such as MySpace to meet new people. To those people I ask, do you REALLY know who your friends are?   

**Even though I gave away all the spoilers for the movie. It’s still worth seeing. haha

Interview with Nev and the filmmakers on Ellen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loesprlsvng

Interview with Angela Wesselman on 20/20

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/catfishs-angela-wesselman-speaks-romance-fantasy-computer-11836656  

References

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation. New York:  Palgrave Macmillan.

Nyberg, S (2010). Fake accounts in Facebook – How to counter it. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from http://ezinearticles.com/?Fake-Accounts-in-Facebook—How-to-Counter-It&id=3703889

Scott, O.A. (2010, September 16). The World Where You Aren’t What You Post. The New York Times. Retrieved March 15 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/movies/17catfish.html?scp=1&sq=catfish%20movie%202010&st=cse

 

Blog #5 - A self-reflection and analysis of one of my communities of practice

Since we are more than half way through the course now I wanted to say how much I am enjoying reading everyone’s blogs. It provides us with a unique opportunity to get to know one another as we relate our personal experiences and stories to what we are learning in class. Being able to take some concepts and theories from the readings and attempting to describe them within a different context related to our jobs (teachers, administrative staff), interests (autism, collaborative learning, parenting), and talents (dancing, acting), has made the learning experience more relevant, meaningful, and ongoing.

As we finish Wenger’s book, “Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity”, I thought I would also share an example of a community of practice that has represented the most challenging and rewarding experience of my life. As a diabetes consultant working in First Nations communities where diabetes was becoming an epidemic, I wanted to do something that would inspire my community members and co-workers to achieve a healthier lifestyle to reduce their risk of developing diabetes. So, I I decided to embark on a personal journey for a worthy cause and became a member of Team Diabetes. Wenger (2002) says that we all participate in communities of practice for different reasons. It could be because of an opportunity to improve skills, a personal connection, or something that directly provides value. As a member of Team Diabetes, I would not only be challenging my running skills by training for a full marathon but improving my organizational, time-management, problem-solving, interpersonal, and communication skills by taking on fundraising thousands of dollars. For someone who was too shy to sell candy bars in school and too proud to ask anyone for help this was going to be a huge undertaking to raise so much money and commit myself to training for a 42km run. The support from my Team diabetes members, First Nations communities, co-workers, friends, and family was overwhelming boosting my self-confidence and determination to achieve my goals to help all people living with diabetes and to prove to myself that I could do this.

Team Diabetes is a national activity fundraising program for the Canadian Diabetes Association. The members of Team Diabetes raise money to support diabetes education, research, advocacy, and services while promoting a healthy and active lifestyle by committing to run, bike, hike, or walk in races around the world. As members of the team, we support and learn from each other by engaging in collaborative fundraising and training events, sharing past and present experiences, volunteering to recruit new members and promote the program at local expos and tradeshows. While all members of the team are working together for a common goal to raise money to help the millions of Canadians living with diabetes, they participate at different levels at any given time. Within your local team, members will be training for various events (run, walk, or hike) at different destinations (local or international), have different fundraising goals depending on where they are going, and are at various stages in achieving their goals. Members of the team have different levels of participation as newcomers, recurring members, or peripheral members. You might be fundraising and training for your upcoming event or alumni volunteering your time at events and sharing your own personal story to inspire new members to join.

Upon reflecting on my participation with Team Diabetes, I thought of my previous blog looking at what communities of practice look like and started to question the word “team” as part of my community of practice. Was being a member of Team Diabetes more characteristic of a community of practice or a “team”? How were they different?

When I think of the word “team” I think of a cooperative group of individuals each bringing to the table their unique knowledge and skills working together to achieve a common goal which is very similar to what happens in a community of practice. However, one of the main differences I see between a “team” and a community of practice is that sometimes members of a team, especially within the context of an institution or business, may be forced or instructed that they are going to be working with a team. Within communities of practice and as a member of Team Diabetes, participation is completely voluntary. Wenger (2006) notes that “a community of practice is different from a team in that the shared learning and interest of its members are what keep it together. It is defined by knowledge rather than by task, and exists because participation has value to its members.” You choose to become a member of Team Diabetes because you have a passion for helping people with diabetes and you’re motivated to become a part of something bigger than you could ever achieve on your own. By actively engaging in the opportunities to collaborate with team members at events and meetings, you are able to learn from each other’s experiences giving you the strength and confidence to continue to work on your personal goals as well as achieving the community’s goals. Wenger (2006) also goes on to say that the life cycle of a community of practice depends on the value it provides to its members and that teams are often short lived and cease to exist once the task or project is completed. Team Diabetes has been going strong for 12 years now with a continuous flow of new members, race destinations, leaders, and fundraising ideas.

Wenger (2006) describes how communities develop their practice through a variety of activities. The table below outlines these activities along with examples related to Team Diabetes as a community of practice:

Problem solving	“Can we have a meeting to discuss some possible fundraising ideas? I’m not sure what to do.”
Requests for information	“How can people pledge me online?”
Seeking experience	“What event helped you raise the most money last year?” or “How many days a week should I be training for my run?”
Reusing assets	“I have different letter templates that I used to send out to businesses, employers, friends, and family that I could share with you to help you get started.”
Coordination and synergy	“Can we plan a fundraising event, like a garage sale and BBQ, for the whole team?”
Discussing developments	“What do you think of the new website? Do you think it is easy to navigate?” or “Do you find the new energy gels easier to digest when you’re running?”
Documentation projects	“Let’s put together a list of what fundraising events worked well and what didn’t for the information package for new members.”
Visits	“Come visit our Team Diabetes information booth at the local fitness expo.”
Mapping knowledge and identifying gaps	“Who can we connect with to better promote the program? Should we contact local radio stations, diabetes centers, fitness centers, etc.?”

I have answered my questions and would consider being a member of Team Diabetes as more than being part of a team. I value my experience within this community of practice as being one of the most meaningful and exciting things I have done in my life so far. While I have not fundraised and trained for another international event in a few years, I continue to support local Team Diabetes events in Halifax, volunteer my time to promote the program at local fitness and wellness expos as needed, and you will see me at the Bluenose this year helping out our Team Diabetes runners. :-)

Decked out in my Team Diabetes gear after completing my first marathon in Athens, Greece - November 2009

References

Wenger, E. (1999). Community of practices: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York,NY: Cambridge University Press

Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of Practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/

Team Diabetes Website: http://www.diabetes.ca/get-involved/supporting-us/team-diabetes/

Athens Marathon Website: http://www.athensmarathon.com/marathon/history.html

BLOG #4 - What does a community of practice look like?

Communities of practice are all around us as we engage in our daily lives at home, work, school, and in our hobbies. Most of us belong to several communities of practice that both occur simultaneously and change throughout our lives.  Wenger (2006) describes communities of practice as groups of people engaging in a process of collective learning who share a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. While there are many different forms a community of practice can take, they all have a basic structure that allow us to distinguish a community of practice from other groups and communities.  In researching the essential characteristics that help us identify a community of practice, I found the concept to be more clearly represented in Wenger’s book, “Cultivating Communities of Practice: A guide to managing knowledge” (2002).  

According to Wenger (2002), the structural characteristics of a community of a practice consist of:

1)      The domain – is the area of knowledge that interests the community. It’s what brings people together creating a common ground where they are inspired to participate. It guides their learning and gives meaning to their actions.

2)      The community – the people who care enough to take the time to pursue their interest in the domain. They engage in joint activities and discussions, form relationships built on mutual respect and trust enabling them to help one another and learn from each other.  

3)      The practice – a shared repertoire of resources such as knowledge, experiences, ideas, tools, stories, ways of addressing recurring problems, etc. the community develops, shares, and maintains to further their goals related to their domain.

Now that we are able to identify what a community of practice should look like I would like to take this opportunity to share an inspiring example of a local community of practice that evolved over the last few years at the North End Community Health Centre in Halifax.   What started as an idea to promote healthy food choices and boost a community’s pride by starting a community vegetable and herb garden has resulted in a life-changing experience for more than 50 youth and 14 families participating in the North End Community Garden project. Not only did this community work together to grow nutritious foods for their families and community, their commitment and motivation to build a better future for themselves and make a difference in their community, has led to them starting a registered charity and business - “Hope Blooms” salad dressings.  The youth, aged 8-12, grow and harvest the herbs, measure the ingredients for the dressings, then label the bottles and pack them.  The older kids work as food production supervisors and do the quality control. These chef-inspired salad dressings with flavours like basil pesto and maple sage balsamic are sold at the local farmers market. The proceeds from the sales of the salad dressings go back into the cost of sustaining the garden and making the herb dressings as well as a scholarship fund for inner-city youth involved in the project.  With over 2000 bottles of dressing sold already, they have been able to add a grassroots philanthropy component to their program, where a dollar from every bottle will go to a community initiative or project the youth want to contribute to such as a school lunch program.   

The learning that is taking place within this community of practice is shaping the future of all of its members.  The youth are learning much more than basic life and business skills; they are developing a sense of identity, belonging, empowerment, and self-worth fueling both their belief and desire that they can achieve their dreams.  They now aspire to become doctors, engineers, business owners, etc. that may have seen out of reach before becoming a member of the North End Community Garden project. This project fits well with Wenger’s (1999) statement, “as a locus of engagement in action, interpersonal relations, shared knowledge, and negotiation of enterprises, such communities hold the key to real transformation – the kind that has real effects on people’s lives”(p. 85).

Wenger (2002) explains that given the voluntary nature of communities of practice their success relies on their ability to generate enough excitement, relevance, and value to attract and engage members. Therefore, the North End Community Garden Project/”Hope Blooms” salad dressing business as a community of practice will continue to be a success as they move beyond their boundaries forming partnerships with community organizations and agencies to secure funding for the development of a greenhouse for long-term sustainment of their garden and business. This will enable them to grow their vegetables and herbs and produce their Hope Blooms salad dressings all year long. As their project and business grows, more members will be able to join this community of practice, more revenue will be generated to continue to support their scholarship fund and philanthropy projects, while expanding their role to provide education workshops to teach locals how to grow their own vegetables and herbs.

The North End Community Garden Project that blossomed into the charity and business venture “Hope Blooms” salad dressings exemplifies all of the characteristics, theories, and elements of communities of practice we are learning about from Wenger’s work. When you go to the farmer’s market be sure to look for the table with young and energetic entrepreneurs selling their “Hope Blooms” salad dressings. My personal favorite is basil pesto…delicious!

Below is a picture of Craig Cain selling Hope Blooms salad dressing he helped make at the Halifax Farmers Market featured in a local newspaper.

References

Spurr, B. (2011, November 19). Salad dressings use herbs grown by kids in north-end Halifax Park. The Chronicle Herald. Retrieved from: http://thechronicleherald.ca/artslife/34598-hope-blooms-inner-city-youth-business

Davis, Charlene. (2010, November, 5). Kids Shake it Up in Halifax’s North End. The Dominion.

Retrieved from: http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3714

Wenger, E. (1999). Community of practices: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A, & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Retrieved from: http://books.google.ca/books?id=m1xZuNq9RygC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of Practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/

  

BLOG #3

“We learn because we want to learn, because it’s important to us, because it’s natural, and because it’s impossible to live in the world and not learn. Then along comes school to mess up a beautiful thing.” Peggy Pirro

Whether we’re discussing the optimal learning environment for a child’s social and cognitive development, exploring the concept of social and collaborative learning, or imagining the “ideal” learning environment within a community of practice, our conversations in class can often lead us back to how children learn in the public school system.   There has been some very insightful and thought-provoking dialogue as a class and amongst each other about the pitfalls of our public school system drawing from our own experiences and those of our children.  Most of us in class agreed that there was a necessary shift that needs to take place from a conformist learning environment that stifles creativity and original thought to a more meaningful, social and collaborative learning environment rooted in active participation in “hands-on” learning experiences. This made me think about my own personal experience in the public school system and how it might differ from today.

As a young child I loved to read, solve puzzles, and explore outside for hours in all degrees of weather.  My mom always said I had a vivid imagination and I learned something new every day.   I remember when I started school, I would get in trouble if I was talking to my classmates, asking a question without raising my hand, taking too many trips to the bathroom, being late for class, and the list goes on.  I learned pretty quick what was considered “good behaviour” while at the same time slowly losing my exuberant nature as a young child and becoming shy, passive, obedient, and eager to please with good grades.  In the public school system, I guess I would be considered a good student but despite getting good grades and having great friends, I always hated school.  My view of learning was synonymous with teachers, classrooms, textbooks, tests, homework and grades, and most importantly, being told what to do in every aspect of my education.  It wasn’t until university that I was able to choose what I wanted to learn about, was tested on my ability to understand what I was learning vs. what I could memorize from class, and was introduced to collaborative learning through group projects and class discussions.  This learning environment was more conducive to my personality and was changing my perception of the school environment and the process of learning.  Now as a mature student in the lifelong learning program, my perspective of learning has broadened to include all aspects of everyday life. I’m able to relate what I learn in the program to my personal experiences, beliefs, values, and interests.  This class, in particular, has been the most interesting and challenging learning experience so far. I was surprised that we would not be receiving a grade until the end of class and our grade would be a reflection of our learning throughout the course. We are able to apply what we learn in our readings, our class discussions, and our own research to create our own unique blogs enabling us a group to collectively learn from each other in an open, honest, and collaborative format that is proving to be more meaningful than anything else.  

After reflecting on my past experiences, I was determined to find some promising evidence that the education system is open to change to ensure our children receive the education they deserve. Some teachers might have heard of the “What did you learn in school today?” research and development initiative in Canada but this was news to me.  It was designed to collect qualitative data on student’s experiences that could be used to generate new ideas for enhancing the learning experiences of students in classrooms and schools.  Since 2007, administrators, teachers, and students in over 150 schools in Canada are now working within a multi-dimensional framework for understanding student engagement that builds on the established concepts of social and academic engagement while advancing the newer concept of intellectual engagement. The concept of intellectual engagement considers the kinds of learning experiences young people require to develop important competencies for learning and life. This can be achieved by providing students with diverse learning experiences that engage them in thinking, doing, and feeling, further enhancing their conceptual understanding about what they are learning (Dunleavy & Milton, 2012).

This still emerging 21^st century learning agenda challenges the school system to advance new processes and outcomes for learning which will affect all aspects of teaching from certification to curriculum development. This is a promising start that will take a long time to reach all schools across Canada. In the meantime, we can acknowledge and celebrate the continuous strides the school system has made to enhance the education of our children. What positive changes have you noticed or heard about in the public school system? I’m confident my future children will have a much more positive experience and greater opportunities for learning and personal growth than I had growing up.

References

Dunleavy, J., & Milton, P. (2012). Sorting Students Into Learning. Retrieved from Canadian Education Association website: http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/sorting-students-learning.

BLOG #2 - The "Ratchet Effect" and Food

Since I’ve started this class and created this blog, I realize I’m reading and looking at things differently and trying to relate it to what I’ve learned in Tomasello’s book. I’m always thinking to myself, “This could be my next blog topic!”  I’m sure many of you can relate to my new found inquisitive nature.

I’m enjoying the process of reflecting on what I’ve learned in my life up to this point, what I continue to learn everyday, and the different learning environments I find myself emerged in pulling me in different directions about what I want to write about. This week I’ve had the opportunity to spend some time with my extended family in Ontario. Sometimes when an event in life brings a family close together you find yourself reminiscing about the past through shared stories and pictures. When my cousins and I were looking at old family pictures we found ourselves comparing the old floor model TV’s to our sleek flat screens, the polaroid cameras with our digital cameras and smartphones, Atari vs. Wii and Xbox, and the list goes on. While everyone else was laughing I was thinking to myself I just found my next blog topic!  All of these cultural artifacts and tools have been modified by individuals and groups from one generation to the next resulting in more elaborate and complex cultural artifacts and tools. Tomasello refers to this process as cumulative cultural evolution through the “ratchet effect”.

Tomasello (1999) explains this “ratchet effect” in more detail in the first chapter of his book:  

Some individual or group of individuals first invented a primitive version of the artifact or practice, and then some later user or users made a modification, an “improvement”, that others then adopted perhaps without change for many generations, at which point some other individual or group of individuals made another modification, which was then learned and used by others, and so on over historical time. (p. 5)

The modern advances in technology, medicine, communication, food production, etc. are all examples of the ratchet effect. In the definition, I don’t necessarily agree with Tomasello’s use of the word “improvement”.  Some of the advances in our human culture might have improved cultural practices or artifacts in terms of things like efficiency, communication, reduced-cost, accessibility, etc. but there have also been some detrimental consequences to our physical and social environments and in some cases, to our health. For example, let’s take a look at how our food has changed over the last 100 years. 

Our food is continually evolving to meet the needs of consumer demands in an ever-changing, fast-paced society. As our lives become more hectic, the underlying theme is that there is less time available for preparing and cooking meals. This has resulted in a multi-billion dollar industry of convenience foods, such as fast food and ready-to-eat pre-packaged foods.  This might be considered an “improvement” as the food industry is coming up with innovative technologies to produce these foods meeting consumer demands but the overconsumption of these foods is negatively impacting our environment and contributing to the growing rates of diseases in our country. It is now culturally acceptable and justifiable for many people to rely heavily on these convenience foods because there is no time in our busy schedules to prepare nutritious meals and the cost of healthy food is expensive. The problem is that these foods that are supposed to make our lives easier can shorten our lifespan as they are often higher in fat, sodium, and calories, thus increasing our risk of many chronic diseases such as heart disease and diabetes. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for people to rely exclusively on convenience foods to feed their families. If children grow up eating these foods and don’t learn from their parents about healthy eating and how to prepare meals, as adults they will lack a necessary life skill to prepare nutritious food for themselves and their families. More importantly, over the last few years it is becoming common knowledge that as a result of childhood obesity this is the first time in history parents will outlive their children.   

Some of my best childhood memories were pulling up a chair to help my grandmother and mother in the kitchen. What kind of learning opportunities and memories are children in today’s society missing out on? With respect to the “ratchet effect” on food, I worry what the future holds as I see young children with Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. It’s not just about the choices we make, it’s about the evolution of food production and how it affects the food we put into our bodies. With the steady rise in diseases, the ratchet effect is seen in advances in modern medicine to help us fight these diseases. It seems like a vicious cycle. When does it end? Will food production practices continue to reduce the quality of our food to meet consumer demands? As a society, we will continue to move away from our traditional cultural practices of preparing our own meals and rely more on convenience foods? And, will obesity continue to affect the lifespan of future generations?

 

Some food for thought………..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az-7Qb7tDy0

Jaime Oliver's  Processed Food Reality Check

References

Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Formatting

Ok....so I'm trying to learn how to format things on this blog. It will look perfect and than I publish the post and the words and pictures are all out of whack. It will get better as I go. Sorry! haha

BLOG #1 - Impaired Cognitive Development in Severely Neglected Childen

In Tomasello’s book, “The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition”, we learn that all species are designed to function within a particular environment. More specifically, human infants and young children require exposure to a particular kind of social environment or culture to support their social and cognitive development. Parents need to raise their children in a nurturing environment in order to facilitate their cultural learning. Human infants and young children are born completely dependent on their parents. A child’s experiences will be based solely on the practices of the family they are born into.

Tomasello (1999) looks at the way in which these human cultural environments shape our children’s cognitive development:

       The particular habitus into which a child is born determines the kinds of social innteractions she will have, the kinds of physical objects she will have available, the kinds of learning experiences and opportunities she will encounter, and the kinds of inferences she will draw about the way of life of those around her. The habitus thus has direct effects on cognitive development in terms of the “raw material” with which the child has to work. (p.79)

This concept led me to think about the children who are deprived of these “raw materials” and not raised in a nurturing environment conducive to their cultural learning. I was curious to learn more about the severe cases if neglect seen in feral or isolated children. I was baffled that these children could survive in such horrific conditions and in disbelief that their own parents were the ones who not only denied their own babies the basic necessities of life but the love and affection every child deserves. What impact did this social isolation have on their cognitive development and what was their capacity for learning after they were found and introduced to a world they have not had the opportunity to learn from?

During my research, I came across a very interesting concept proposed by Eric Lenneberg (1967) called the “Critical Period Hypothesis”. This hypothesis states “there are maturational constraints on the time a first language can be acquired. First language acquisition relies on neuroplasticity. If language acquisition does not occur by puberty (around age 12), some aspects of language can be learnt but full mastery cannot be achieved” (p. 180).  Because this hypothesis cannot be ethically tested on humans and animals lack the capacity to acquire language, cases of feral or isolated children have been studied to support or refute this hypothesis

I would like to introduce you to two of the most well-known and documented cases of feral/isolated children.                                                   

GENIE

Genie was born Susan Wiley in Arcadia, California in 1957. Her father suffering from depression decided that she was retarded. He felt he needed to “protect” her from the outside world so he kept her locked up in a dark room strapped to a potty chair until for most of her life. She was discovered at the age of 13 in diapers barely able to walk or talk, and unable to chew or swallow food.   She was found to have a vocabulary of about 20 words, most of which were negative, leading scientists to believe she was abused for making noise but despite making some progress in acquiring some new words she was never able to function as a “normal” adult.                                                     

Genie and her mother at her foster home in California in 1989

       

Video: "Secret of the Wild Child" Part 1                                                                                                                                                                                                            DANI

Dani was born Danielle Crockett in 1998 and lived with her mother in Florida. Despite numerous attempts from neighbours calling the child abuse hotline to report about the “The Girl in the Window” who has never been seen              outside     of her home, it took three years before a case worker and police officer came to the house. In July of 2005, Danielle was found locked in a filthy, roach infested room curled up on a soiled mattress in an overflowing diaper, her body full of insect bites and sores. She was severely malnourished, unable to speak or make eye contact, and was found to have the mental and physical capacities of an infant. Danielle was taken to hospital and put in foster care and adopted by a loving family 2 years later. Her new adoptive family called her Dani. With an incredible amount of love and support from her family and workers she continues to show progress. While it has been reported that Danielle will never be a “normal child” she is now responsive to affection, riding horses, swimming, walking, communicating with non-verbal cues, and doing Pre-K work in school.

Article printed in 2005 when she was discovered:       

http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article750838.ece    

                                            “The Girl in the Window” You tube video

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



 

 

 

Dani with her new adoptive parents, Bernie and Diane Lierow, and her stepbrother, William 



This is a recent picture of Dani in her new home.

Check out Dani's Blog to see the progress she has made:

http://www.danisstory.org/

While it is unclear the extent to which their abusive upbringing might have contributed to their severely impaired cognitive function, I still think these cases support the “critical period hypothesis” through their inability to learn the language skills considered “normal” for their age group. Aside from their ability to learn language, I found it very interesting to compare their overall progress based on their environments they were exposed to after they were found. I think Dani’s adoption into a loving, supportive, and culturally rich learning environment definitely contributed to her progress while Genie was the object of experiments for years and lived in adult foster homes. Genie was making some

progress but her environment caused her to regress again when she was abused in one of the foster homes and she never found her way back. It is amazing to see the progress Dani is making and I will continue beyond this post to stay tuned into her own blog site I posted earlier.

References Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.