Usuario:Philbartle/Archivos03

English Français Português Archivos 2 Si el entrenador hace las flexiones, El atleta no se hará más fuerte Enlaces Rápidos Archivos 1 Los sermones de Phil What About Controversy? – 2009 November 27 While developing open educational resources (OERs), how do we handle topics where there are deep seated differences of opinion? ◊ Some topics can be very controversial. Even if you try to teach both approaches, telling the students they must make up their own minds, strong advocates from one or the other side will object ferociously, saying there is no room for more than one side in this issue. Alternatively, you may feel there is only one correct choice, but strong advocates from the other side will argue that both sides need to be taught (which may give the learners an impression that there is equivalency between the sides even if there is not). ◊ I am sure that you could come up with more examples. Here are a few for illustration: religion (one path versus many paths), individual versus social responsibilities, single sex versus coeducational classrooms, national radio versus corporation controlled radio, incompatible political ideologies, copyright versus creative commons attribution share-alike, PC versus Mac, Tin Tin versus Asterix. ◊ What about the denial of the holocaust, denial of the existence of global warming, or denial of the truth of evolution? The space race is a product of movie special effects? The earth is flat? It is difficult for me to imagine my believing such. Do they deserve a hearing? ◊ An interesting parallel of irreconcilable differences is the conflict in land usage principles between tillers and herders. This difference apparently goes back to the biblical myth of Cain (the vegetarian) and Abel (the beefeater). It is reflected in the conflict during the European opening of North America, between ranchers and farmers. In Rwanda, 1994 saw a bloody conflict between Hutus (tillers) and Tutsis (herders). Herders need open access and free range, while tillers need finite plots that are fenced for protection. They cannot exist as such side by each. Similarly in various parts of Africa, there is a conflict between societies that do not have chiefs or chieftaincy (acephalous) and others who are hierarchical (and are quite willing to provide chiefs for the former). You can not have both; chiefs and no chiefs. Ultimately, if both are to exist in the same area, one or both must be modified, and that usually means no one is one hundred percent happy. ◊ When children are young, and have not heard of each controversy, they are more open to the idea that both sides have their value. As they become socialized and learn and adopt the values of their families and communities, they are more likely to have the kinds of strong opinions expressed there. ◊ We need to recognize the effect and value of ignorance and indifference. "Don't know = don't care" can be unbiased. Colonial officers in the Gold Coast were highly respected by the local leaders because they were more likely to give fair judgements in land disputes and other conflicts. The reason was that every local leader belonged to one or another side in every dispute. Foreigners such as colonial officers could not care less, as they had no vested interests in one or the other side winning. ◊ The degree of conflict is related to the degree to which the individuals are involved in the issue. Children who have never heard of Asterix or Tin Tin could not care less that there is a strong rivalry between their different readerships. It is all the same to them, even though Asterix is far superior <smile>. ◊ So where does that lead us educators? ◊ Maybe in some school systems we can not teach that evolution is scientific while creationism is not (or so called intelligent design, which is a disguise for creationism) if the community feels strongly about it, and has control over the school board and Ministry of Education. How distasteful to teach something in which we do not believe. ◊ For some, it is something that comes with the job. Some people find handling dead cows distasteful. If they work for McDonalds they have to do it, or find a new job. ◊ Fortunately producing OERs does not have the same limitations. There is no school board to appease over controversial topics. On the down side of working with OERs, other people, as well as ourselves, are not restricted in what they can or can not write. Then we are also sure to see some topics presented in ways to which we strongly object. We can practice tolerance, or look for a new vocation. Or, if we find holocaust deniers, global warming deniers, or others advocating completely unacceptable ideas (if we had an objective way to judge), we might instead lobby to have them barred. ◊ We need to decide, as a community, if we should take a laissez faire approach, or develop a policy. Maybe a loose policy framework? Should this be a topic for a policy work group? ◊ The choice is ours. --Phil Bartle 04:22 28 nov 2009 (UTC) Previous rants: