Rationale
(top)
This unit would work best in a district that has been undergoing controversy revolving around censorship—of hate speech, of books, of the Internet at the public (or school) library. The "War on Terrorism" is resulting in new, vigorous forms of censorship. The Jehovah's Witnesses are now petitioning the Supreme Court for the right to freely solicit religious materials without obtaining special permits. And there are school-related issues, as well. For example, at a local high school, over the course of the fall quarter, a group of concerned citizens attempted to ban Song of Solomon from the curriculum, citing its frank descriptions of sexual activity, and its potentially offensive language. Censorship is an oft-debated and ever-current issue.
Level (top)
High School English / Literature / Writing
Scope (top)
3-4 weeks
Goals (top)
This unit encompasses several goals:
1. It allows students to exercise critical thinking;
2. It exposes them to multiple, often quite contrarian points of view, spanning cultural, religious, ethical, and philosophical perspectives
3. It gives students a chance to critically research the Internet
4. It illuminates a common, current clash in the "culture wars"
5. It provides an opportunity for community interaction
National Standards (top)
(From the National Council of Teachers of English)
7. Students conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by posing problems. They gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from a variety of sources (e.g., print and non-print texts, artifacts, people) to communicate their discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience.
8. Students use a variety of technological and information resources (e.g., libraries, databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge.
EALRs (top)
Reading 1.5.1 (Electronic Media)
Objectives (top)
Through researching, analyzing and critiquing Internet sources related to censorship, students will be able to critically analyze the validity of electronic information.
Best Practices: (183-216) (top)
Integrative units, small-group activities (group investigations), representing-to-learn (semantic webbing), authentic experiences (attending school board meeting, listening to guest speakers, interviewing, primary sources, tangible materials, news and current events), reflective assessment.
Teaching Around
the Wheel (top)
| concrete
experience
the disequilibrating activity (experiencing book-banning first-hand) |
reflective
observation
Art of Inquiry's "I-search"; students generate questions and directions for research |
| active
experimentation
taking concept of critical reading and applying to new context of magazines, TV shows, books, etc.
|
abstract
conceptualization
minilessons / instruction on critically
reading websites
|
Pre-unit Planning (top)
Teacher should be familiar with websites and other resources available—ACLU, the ALA, etc—most of them linked to the "Banned Books page" on the Literature Website. (Students do not have to be limited to this site; general searches on Google for "censorship" or "banned books" will return thousands of hits.) The teacher may also make preparatory phone calls to community contacts, gauging willingness and scheduling time for invited speakers or field trips.
Preassessment (top)
The preassessment, according to the EALR being judged, should measure the students' ability to judge a source of electronic information. Therefore, the proposed model would be:
Students have ten minutes to write an answer to the question:
1. When investigating a website, how do you know what you're reading is accurate? (If your experience on the Web is limited, answer the question in the context of reading a book or watching a TV show. How do you know you can trust what you're reading or seeing?)
Teacher then uses overhead (or digital projector, if available) to display an example of a website—perhaps, for example, a site containing scientific or medical information. It might even be possible to construct a bogus site, creating fake names, and displaying patently false information. Turning their paper over, students rate the site either 1 (don't trust it) to 5 (completely trustworthy), and explain why in 2-3 sentences.
(The site does not have to be excessively difficult, to match even limited English proficiency. A large-print version might be useful for visually-impaired students; the teacher or another student may also read aloud to a student with no visual capacity.)
What the teacher should look for, in the preassessment:
1. What reasons do students list?
Established news source
Academic degree posted (Ph.D.)
Related to a college / university
Information seems accurate according to personal experience
Lots of big words
"Just seems accurate"
"Why shouldn't I trust it?"
2. Compared to the teacher's evaluation, where do students stand? Do most see it as trustworthy, when the site is bogus, or vice versa?
3. Do the students' reasons for trusting or not trusting the actual site vary from their above reasons? If so, how?
Disequilibrating / Introductory Activity (top)
(Before this class period, students should be notified that half the period will comprise silent reading of a book of their choice.)
Students file into the room, sit at their desks, etc. Teacher has students get out books, and begin silent reading. As they read, teacher walks around the room, asking certain students for their books, saying "I'm sorry, but this book is unacceptable according to district policy, and I will have to confiscate it. You may have it back after class." Protests must be politely ignored; the teacher may provide an alternative book so the student can continue reading. (This may not be likely). Teacher should take no more than 1/4 to 1/2 of the books, to make it seem authentic. If protests reach a fever point, disequilibration has been achieved.
After a reasonable amount of time, the teacher calls an end to silent reading.
Teacher then displays a list of commonly-known books on the overhead, and explains: "New district policy has declared the following books unacceptable for classroom use, both by teachers and students."
By this point, students will begin to question and protest. Depending on the students' cultural background or reading experiences, some of the titles might come as a shock. The purpose of this assignment is to get kids "riled up" a bit over censorship... to make them ask the question, "why?" Why would someone ban the Bible or the Qur'an from the classroom? Why is Huckleberry Finn off-limits? What would anyone have against Harry Potter?
At a timely moment, the teacher can let the students "in" on the hoax, admitting that the scenario is fictitious, but not impossible—that all of the books listed were, at one time, and quite possibly currently—banned.
Potential questions that should crop up:
Why do books get banned? What philosophy / ethical / moral / religious / cultural system supports censorship?
What is "censorship"?
Is book-banning the same as censorship? Why or why not?
Have I read any of the books on the list?
Should "immoral" books be allowed in the classroom?
Who has the right to decide what I should be able to read?
How can someone fight censorship?
The Group Process (top)
Making sure research moves forward (after Cohen, "The Group Investigative Method," in Designing Groupwork")
The group research process is suitable for higher-order thinking (analysis, synthesis, evaluation).
According to Cohen, initial topic-generating groups should be different from research groups; students should join research groups based in interests. 2-5 students per group.
Aspects:
Cohen notes that all students may not be suited for groupwork—or for each other. Thus, the teacher's role is to "…work as an intellectual leader and resource person, assisting the groups to develop the more challenging questions and learning tasks, helping the groups with the resources and skills they will need to carry out their tasks, worrying about coordination of different group projects, and paying close attention to what will be the overall intellectual integration of the curriculum unit" (90).
The I-Search (top)
From The Art of Inquiry… (97-100)
1. "Problem Identification"
Students form into chosen groups of 3-5, and brainstorm potential subquestions / topics on a semantic web. (Each group has a large piece of paper that all can write on, branching off others' topics / questions.) Topics that might arise:
Kinds of/ rationales for censorship (Religious, cultural, political, personal, age-related reasons)
Competing definitions of censorship
Competing perspectives on censorship (pro, con, situational)
Laws about censorship and free speech
In-depth analyses of historical examples of censorship (Nazi Germany, the Inquisition, the "Sedition Acts," McCarthyism, Harry Potter, etc.)
Current issues involving censorship or free speech (the "Patriot" act, etc.)
Censorship involving music or art
Famous free-speech Supreme Court cases
After 5-10 minutes of brainstorming, as a group, students choose their topic, write statements about it, and create a list of further questions about the topic.
2. "Information Quest"
With students in "inquiry mode," it is now important to move into further stages of study.
Exploring the Web Page
Necessary materials: computer lab; computer disks (one per group)
Before beginning lesson, teacher models how to cut-and-paste a website address into a file, and save it to a disk. (This should take no more than a couple minutes.) During research, teacher should float amongst groups, answering questions, jotting down notes about progress, making sure students are saving their work as they go.
Students should sit in research groups, and link to the above address (on the Literature website). From there, students can link to pages related to the issue of censorship and book banning. Each group will save a file on their disk that includes:
What do I already know?
What did the sources say?
What did I discover?
The addition to the I-search model, in lieu of the unit goals, would be: Is this information trustworthy? How do we know?
At the end of the session, with five minutes to go, teacher reminds students to save work on disk. The teacher collects disks, and is thus able to track group progress. Teacher may also call things to a halt earlier to have groups report out briefly on the current state of their research—to summarize their progress in a couple sentences.
On subsequent days in the lab, the teacher will give mini-lessons on what to look for in a website to judge its merit:
(A great resource might be Carl Sagan’s "Baloney Detection Kit."
irony of ironies: this link is to "factsource.com," a website "exposing" the Church Universal and Triumphant, a religious group that reportedly stores weapons in underground bunkers in Montana—if you believe certain "cult watch" organizations. It is run by a former CUT member; the site is a lesson plan in itself!)
Formative Assessments (top)
The teacher should be constantly reviewing student work, seeing the breadth and depth of the research, and noting the reasons students are listing for trusting (or not trusting) specific websites.
Further activities for the unit: (top)
Students (or the teacher) may invite community members to speak. Suggestions: city council members, school board members, political activists, lawyers (a local ACLU chapter may be available)
Visiting a library, talking about book-purchasing policies and Internet access regulations
Visiting a publishing company; How does publishing work? What books make the cut? Who can or can't publish? Independent publishing companies versus mass market? What is true "freedom of speech" if you can't afford to market a book?
Each student reads a different "banned book" off the list
Final Project (Crystalization) (top)
Each group is responsible for two things:
Post-Assessment (top)
Individual annotations will be assessed according to a student / teacher-generated rubric.
Students will again attempt to answer the original preassessment question, and critique a new website (with reasons for doing so). Assessments will be judged by usefulness of criteria, and application to specific website.
To complete "the wheel," students should have the opportunity to critically "read" in another context of their choice: a magazine, a TV show, an infomercial, a newspaper, a book, a brochure, etc., and list reasons for its authenticity or lack thereof.
About Special Needs / ESL (top)
Students with limited proficiency in English can be directed to websites in their native language, and prepare annotations in that language and then translate (if they feel more comfortable doing so). They should be placed in groups with students who can help explain sites in English. The teacher may require fewer (but good-quality) annotations; the goal is quality of thinking, not quantity of output.
Students with IEPs must be accommodated according to the provisions of the IEP. This may mean providing more time to finish the project, reading webpage content aloud (or using voice software), providing large-print materials, hard copy of directions and group products (printed out after each session).