The Audacity of Anonymity

I recently found myself standing between two large groups of teenage males, hyped up on adrenaline and metaphorically beating their chests and challenging each other to combat. I stepped in between the two groups in an attempt to calm them and to bring an end to the insanity. Although most of the students were from my school, one of the leaders of one group was not. Having the advantage of anonymity, the young man threatened me openly and taunted me, calling me names and ordering me to back away.

The entire incident had escalated through the audacity of anonymity that many students held that evening because they were not from my school. They took pleasure in creating chaos and were bold in being rude and disrespectful. The evening ended without further incident; however and consequently, it has become clearer that there is a trend in our society of affording people the protection of anonymity, which has given people courage to cast insults with impunity. The audacity of anonymity is a blight upon our society, defying reason, responsibility, civility, cooperation, collaboration, and accountability.

Another example where the audacity of anonymity has been disruptive involves what is called "Coffee with the Principal." Originally designed to provide a forum to address concerns that the faculty has regarding the operations of the building, Coffee with the Principal has become mean-spirited and petty. I am convinced that the vulgar nature of many comments is a by-product of the rule that all concerns be submitted anonymously. I doubt that many of the complaints are representative of the whole faculty and are more so the expression of personal vendettas. It was never the intention of the process to become as such. Anonymity has allowed those who otherwise would keep quiet to speak out in rude and disruptive ways and to lower the dignity of the process and the school.

A third place where I see anonymity causing rude boldness is on the Internet. I've visited YouTube sites where people have left vile and offensive remarks, hiding behind pseudonyms and nicknames that make them entirely anonymous.

When I receive a letter at school, I first look to see who signed the letter. If it is anonymous, I throw it away. If a person cannot sign his name to what he has written, then the person knows that it is vile, disgusting, rude, and inappropriate. He does not want to be associated with such behavior, while he engages in the behavior.

One might site examples of people posting anonymous statements that are quite the opposite from being rude and disruptive, statements that are actually respectful and uplifting. Regardless, I still suggest that the cloak of anonymity allows people to be vile and that anonymity should not be encouraged. Instead, people should be encouraged to stand behind what they say. Indeed, people should be proud of their words, whether they are statements of allegiance or cries of protest. And if a person is not proud of his thoughts nor his words, then let him hold his tongue.

Classifying Learning

I am constantly thinking about ways to improve classroom instruction, because I believe that the most important factor affecting student learning is the teacher and the most important characteristic of good teaching is an understanding of methods and strategies that engage students in authentic learning. When considering any process, it is beneficial to classify and differentiate among the various parts of the process.

In How We Think (1910) John Dewey identifies three types of study. The first has to do with the "acquisition of skill in performance;" the second involves the acquisition of knowledge; and the third is concerned with the development of reasoning or "abstract thinking." Many years later, Mortimer Adler wrote about three modes of teaching in his book The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto (1982). The three modes of teaching were differentiated according to the intended goals as "acquisition of organized knowledge," "development of intellectual skills," and "enlarged understandings of ideas and values."

The similarities between the two lists are easily recognizable and worth a moment of consideration. Both authors recognize that learning involves the acquisition of or perhaps the accumulation of knowledge, the development and refinement of skills, as well as the development of reasoning, or what I will call critical thinking. Neither author suggests that one type of study or teaching is better than the other. Neither author suggests that one type of study or teaching should be excluded. Adler does suggest that the development of understanding or reasoning is often neglected in classrooms, but he does not advocate that any of the modes of teaching be sacrificed to make room for more critical thinking.

It is important that teachers understand that there are different types of learning and different modes of teaching designed to meet the needs of the different types of learning. We should not teach only rote memorization, but we should teach some rote memorization. For that reason, I, as an English teacher, required my students to memorize poems and to recite them in front of the class.

We are dealing with whole students; therefore, we should address the whole student in our teaching.

One Thing Wordle

Our school improvement team surveyed the faculty recently. One of the questions was with asked what one thing would they recommend to make the school better. There were many responses, although only about half of the faculty responded to this question. Still, when looking at the responses, I wondered how we might reduce the wordage, allowing us to group responses to get a feel for the one thing that the majority believed would be most beneficial. So, I suggested using Wordle. Wordle creates from the transcript a word cloud, in which the words which appear most often in the transcript are larger. Clearly, Wordle discounts articles and prepositions and such, so the words that appear in the word cloud are the pertinent words from the transcript. Here is the word cloud we created:
from http://www.wordle.net

Unless you have much better eyes than I, many of the words are too small to read. The words also come at you lacking semantic relevance. It is a beautiful thing to look at, but I find myself still wondering what is the one thing that teachers believe will improve our school...Or am I being obtuse?

Is the most important thing "Teachers"?

Plagiarism

My school recently experienced a rash of plagiarism, probably brought on by the pending ending of the grading period. This has prompted me to address plagiarism. There are plenty of books, web sites, and people suggesting that cheating is on the rise in America, so that is not my purpose. Instead, I would like to suggest that there are (at least) two different forms of plagiarism and (at least) two ways to respond to plagiarism.

The two types of plagiarism are "plagiarism of omission" and "plagiarism of commission." A student commits plagiarism of omission when she neglects to provide the proper documentation--fails to place quotation marks around a passage that is clearly taken directly from the source, provides no reference to the source from which the ideas came, or turns in a poorly organized "Works Cited" page. I call these acts plagiarism of omission because the student has left out important information giving credit to the source. Students make these mistakes out of confusion, a lack of understanding, and frustration--a natural part of the learning process.

Plagiarism of commission, on the other hand, is a conscious and deliberate act of deception. When one commits plagiarism, the intent is to deceive, to take advantage of another person's trust and to reap the benefits that may follow, provided that the deception is not detected.

There are generally two responses to plagiarism. The first and perhaps most common (at least at the secondary level of education) is to punish the student by denying credit for the work. In the clear case of plagiarism of commission, this is an appropriate reaction, although I will suggest that the perpetrator knew the risk he was taking and is probably not effected by the punishment. Without some required intervention, the student is likely to plagiarize again, knowing that the next teacher is not likely to catch him.

The second response is to turn the offense into a learning opportunity, allowing the student to correct the errors. A loss of some credit may be warranted--which is up to the teacher--but the student is allowed a chance to redeem her credibility, to learn the proper way to avoid plagiarism, and to develop a trust in her teacher as someone she can turn to for guidance in her learning. I suggest that this response is more appropriate when a student is suspected of plagiarism of omission.

Real learning is about taking chances, making mistakes, and correcting those mistakes. Certainly, a part of learning involves the decisions one makes to document correctly the information one includes in an essay and the consequences of those decisions. However, dropping the hammer of justice on every student who plagiarizes may inhibit learning. I suggest teachers consider whether a student is guilty of plagiarism of commission or of plagiarism of omission before passing sentence, and that teachers not allow a teachable moment to slip away because of righteousness.

One final thought: The information teachers present to their classes in handouts, PowerPoint presentations, and such are often taken from a variety of supplemental sources. To what extent does the teacher demonstrate a responsibility to document correctly the sources he or she uses? If we want our students to be responsible and to adhere to the rules protecting copyright, then we must be sure to demonstrate that responsibility at all times.

Okay...so here's a humorous look at plagiarism that I found on TeacherTube...