American Studies Day and Junior Theme Reflection

As I was thinking about American Studies Day (which was awesome), and doing our reflections in class, I thought about Maria Finitzo's work and how it relates to ours, specifically with junior theme. Our junior themes, which we recently finished and turned in, required us to invest a topic we found ... interesting. I know for me, the huge freedom we were given in choosing a topic put more pressure on me to find one I was actually curious/excited about. But I did, and ended up researching genetic engineering, a topic I had previously no knowledge about. We had to come up with a why question and investigate our topic through a variety of sources, without taking a side on the current issue (as many of the topics people chose had sides and controversies). After our discussion with Ms. Finitzo, I realized the process she went through in creating her documentary on stem cell research was very very similar to what we went through, like it was her own "junior theme". Her task was to illustrate stem cell controversy and how it effects us today, without showing her bias and by incorporating many different voices. Just from what we saw on thursday, she had 2 personal stories intertwined together and she interviewed a Catholic bishop. What really impressed me though, was the dedication that Maria Finitzo took to submerge herself in her topic, research and understand it, so that she was sort of an "expert" on stem cell research, just as we were on our topics after completing our junior themes. Ms. Finitzo was extremely knowledgeable on stem cells and a lot of the science, and was able to answer everyone's questions during the discussion. The work that Maria Finitzo does to create intriguing documentaries mirrors what we are taught to do in American Studies, in the regards to thinking critically about the world around us, asking probing questions, and investigating issues that are important to us.

Overall, I really enjoyed American Studies day, especially the Slam Poets at the end of the day. They were exciting and engaging and really wrapped up the day nicely. I think its cool that the day showcased a variety of talents - a journalist, a film maker, slam poets, and student/teacher panels.

Facebook...for first graders

I recently stumbled across an article on Yahoo, "For Children, a Social Network With Training Wheels" (from the New York Times), about a new social networking site intended for children age 6-10 and their parents. The site, Togetherville, was created by Mandeep Singh Dhillon and according to the article, aims to " "keep children safe from cyberbullying and other online dangers while allowing them to become comfortable with online interaction". Dhillon designed the site so that it is very safe and parent/children friendly. Parents can create social circles of their friends and friends of their children, and choose which applications (games, art projects) that their children can do. Furthermore, kids can comment on their peers posts using preselected phrases.

Mr. Dhillon believes that it is important for children to develop these online social skills at an early age, as our world is becoming more and more technologically advanced. In "The Future Brain", Ray Kurzweil argues that technology is increasing exponentially, and in class, we have discussed our society as becoming more and more data driven and influenced by the media.

But is social networking for first graders appropriate and or necessary?

In the article I read, Vicky Rideout, who studied children's media use for the Kaiser Family Foundation, states, "I'm not sure what the benefit is. Believe me, kids will learn how to use technology and media when the time comes". But has the time come? At 6 years old is it important to develop online relationships and learn how to post pictures and communicate successfully on the web? After all, one could argue that it is just preparing them for Facebook and Twitter, but in a manner that is safe and controlled. But personally, I think that children should be learning how to foster real relationships with people, because interacting with humans in real life is an important skill that will be useful and needed in all aspects of a humans development. It just seems healthier for me for kids to be having playdates, playing outside in the backyard or going to the park, as opposed to sitting inside "interacting" with people online.

Image from: http://wiredpen.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fb_togetherville_05a.png

Junior Theme update 2

As I am trying to edit and revise my paper, I am realizing how hard it is to cut things. In the beginning, I found it extremely hard to condense all of my information and pick the best quotes and support to prove my point. Now, going back, I am trying to make my paper to the point and sharp. I cut out one paragraph that strayed too far from my thesis and the goal of my paper, but I am still worried that within the nine pages-ish that the reader will get lost, so I am trying to make my thesis map as clear as possible and keep everything on track.

It was also difficult to choose the best order for my paragraphs to go in. I wanted it to be logical and flow well so I played around with switching some paragraphs. I also realized how many sources I have, and still others that I didn't get a chance to use in my paper, but still helped guide me throughout the research process.

Jt update

So far I think the hardest part about junior theme has been coming up with a direction/focus of my paper and my thesis idea. I have been finding lots of articles and at first I was a little overwhelemed about all the information I had and how to narrow it and make connections with all of it. I have found lots of articles about the history of eugenics in the US, but I am still looking for more articles about genetic engineering in our society today. I am also reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, which is very pertinent to my topic. It is fairly disturbing but really good!
The question my paper is centered on is why are we trying to engineer the composition of American society? And my tentative answer to that question is: While historically the American goverment has tried to shape the characteristics of society in order to maintain a certain image of America, today engineering (need a different word there) is occuring on an individual basis because we strive for perfection. I know that this is a little wordy right now and there are some words I need to change to make it a little clearer. I want my paper to reflect the fact that, in the past, the government set in place certain laws and restrictions because they were trying to control how are country looked - they wanted it to be "white", "intelligent", and "American". The laws were all set in place for the improvement of society as a whole. Now however, most people would agree that using eugenics to shape society such as allowing all humans to design their children, would not be a good idea for society and could possibly reflect a distopia (like in Brave New World). Yet, on an individual basis, parents are competitive. And they want what's best for their child. They strive to create the best baby they can, and if technologies could make their baby prettier, smarter, more athletic... why wouldn't they?

Junior Theme

After much switching around, I finally found a topic that I am interested in researching and writing about. I started off thinking that I was going to do my junior theme on alternative medicine and how it has increasingly become a part of healthcare in the US. However, there were some complications with that topic so I moved on to healthcare and the new reform. After thinking about it and beginning to do some research, I decided that topic was not interesting enough for me, but now I have my final topic/idea. I am going to focus on the image we have in American of the "perfect" or "ideal" American family and how new science technologies -- like choosing genes and designing babies -- is changing the way we view the American family. I do not have a why question yet, though. However, I really find the topics of eugenics and designer babies extremely interesting!

Recess... with rules and a teacher

According to an article I read, in an elementary school in Newark, recess is no longer a break for the students - instead they spend the 30 minutes under the control of a recess coach, who, with a whistle around her neck, makes all of the kids participate in organized activities. No sitting, no relaxing, no "just talking with friends". Under this new program, implemented at Broadway Elementary School, injuries, bullying, and disciplinary referals are occurring less, as the children are no longer left alone to be excessively wild, hog equiptment, or fight. Supporters of the program advocate that it is helping children stay healthy and be social. Yet when I read this article, I didn't really think about these positive aspects of giving up recess for a more gym-like class. Instead, I feel like the definition of recess goes against the structure provided by the school's new program. Kids have to sit still all day, learn, and demonstrate appropriate behavior. They need time to relax without having to continue to participate under rules, in a structured recess period. What do you think? Do the benefits of this new program out way the negatives?

I thought about this idea of structure and how it applies to New Trier. I know that there are students here who go without lunch periods, take early bird classes and then fill their schedules to the brim with classes. New Trier even permits students to skip lunch (although they do not recommend it). I think that our school and our culture value structure, because it seems to equate with productivity. And not that its a bad thing - we absolutely need structure in our lives in order to function and thrive. But I also believe that people can be productive during brief unstructured periods, or breaks. Do you think this is true as it applies to our school and culture?

Picture: http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2001_Recess:_School%27s_Out/recess_school%27s_out_013.jpg

Everyone's doing it

It seems like teen pregnancy is becoming more and more apparent in the media - with the Secret Life of the American Teenager, The Pregnancy Pact, MTV's 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom, the once taboo subject of teenage pregnancy is now making itself comfortable in our American culture. Celebrities too, such as Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin, are also taking teen pregnancy public. For the most part, shows such as the Secret Life and 16 and Pregnant show the heart break and struggles with such challenges at a young age. These shows claim to work to educate other adolescent girls so they can make smarter, more informed decisions, and not limit themselves. Yet, by focusing so much on the issue, are we making something rare and inconvenient seem commonplace and normal? Or are these TV shows sending the message that 'yep, I can survive with a baby in highschool and If Ican do it, so can you'? I personally think it's good that we have gotten the issue out in the open, so it is easier for parents to have conversations with their daughters about the realities of sex and babies in highschool. And the fact that these series' show the messier and heartbreaking sides to the story is beneficial. But what I wonder if other people get the same message that I do.

Picture: http://posting.mtv.co.nz/gsp/Music_Entertainment/Shows/16-and-pregnant-logo-281x211.jpg