What Do I Need To Know About American Universities? Webquest

Developed by Joshua Durey
josh.durey@gmail.com
http://www.atueli.blogspot.com

Overview

Students will develop an understanding of academic culture in American universities with regards to acceptable behavior, student-teacher relationships, and required responsibilities of an American university student.



Entering Freshmen in the English Language Institute at Arkansas Tech



The student will:

Analyze and evaluate information found on the internet
Extract information relevant to their situation as a university student
Contrast their findings with those of other students
Create a group PowerPoint presentation on academic culture in American universities
Use other media, including the whiteboard or an easel
Write an individual essay paper discussing their findings


Introduction

American universities can be difficult to understand! If you want to be the best student possible, you should ask yourself these questions:



1. How can I make the most of my first year at college?
2. What are good study habits and I how can I practice them?
3. Where do the professor’s responsibilities end and the students’ responsibilities begin?


What are the answers to these questions with regards to most universities in your home country? How do the two academic cultures differ?


What would you recommend to a new international student based on what you learn from this Inquiry?


Each team will be assigned one question. In your groups, brainstorm what you already know (or think you know) about the question, and think of at least two smaller questions that are related.


Investigation

Collected Web Sites:


http://www.foreign-student-union.com/

Tips for international students here in America, geared to each country!


http://www.collegefreshmen.net/issues.html

Gives lots of great advice on how to deal with being a freshman (“The most difficult year”), roommates, professors, and more.


http://www.smu.edu/alec/whyhighschool.html

Excellent advice for all college students: How College is different from High School.




Information on Cultural Perspective

Which areas of information surprised you? What will you do to become a “good student?”


Using the information you have found, conduct a search for information on how these new ideas are different from those most widely-held in your home country.


Writing Activity


Be sure that you are taking good notes as you research this information. You will be required to write a two-to-three page essay paper based on your findings. You may choose to first post your information to a blog or Web site.



Jigsaw

Once you have finished your research, prepare your presentation for your group. Decide who will be responsible for the following:



Charts
Graphic organizer
Flowcharts
PowerPoint presentation


Consensus: The group decides if more research is needed or organizes the information for the class presentation.


Gathering and Sorting

Gathering:

List and annotate Web sites that further explain the essential question and the questions you asked.



Sorting:

Sort through the information you have collected and organize it into categories. Information that will be helpful in the group presentation is separated and made ready.



Identification of other resources that may be used to complete the task(s):

Other resources may include:



Any URL links provided in this section
Classroom encyclopedias
Color printer
Periodicals
Library books


Evaluation

You should provide enough information so that your classmates will understand your topic even if they know nothing about it.



You may choose to present your information using the following:



Flowcharts
Web pages
Summary tables
Concept maps
Venn diagrams


To see how you will be graded for your presentations (your group’s grade),click on the following link:



http://edWeb.sdsu.edu/triton/tidepoolunit/Rubrics/collrubric.html

Discourse, transgredience, etc.

Hall discusses discourse markers relevant to certain interactions in chapter 7. She mentions the markers “ok” and “now” as “formulaic devices characteristic of teacher talk” (138) as one example of interactional discourse. I have taught these markers to upper-level students as words that signal a change of topic or a review. The Taiwanese students then proceeded to count how many times I said either of these, but at least they were paying attention.

Hall also illustrates a “structuring web” (143) known as I-R-E, in which the teacher asks a question, the student answers the question, and the teacher then evaluates the answer. This seems practical when reviewing material or checking comprehension, but doesn’t appear to fit well with the Communicative Approach to language teaching. After all, in how many “conversations” will the students be involved where the listener is constantly evaluating their competence in such an overt manner?

Another thing I found interesting in this chapter was the process of “transgredience” (144). Living in a foreign culture, one could not help but to notice interactions “from a vantage point outside of (an) event and not as a member within it” (ibid.) on every relevant occasion. This is why I believe it is necessary for any ESL/EFL professional to spend time abroad, so they can begin to practice transgredience in their home culture, since we can’t teach what we don’t know. After all, Judd says that “…what people say they do with a language and what they actually do are not always the same, because language use is beyond the level of conscious analysis” (156). This is not only true of the pragmatic functions of language, but with stress and intonation patterns as well. In my experience, it’s often difficult when teaching pronunciation to recreate an accurate representation of stress patterns or intonation from daily life.

One issue I have with Judd stems from the following assertion: “…we cannot, and should not, require ESL students to adopt native speech acts any more than we should require our students to assimilate culturally” (160). If teaching the function of apologizing, students need to know what to say and how to apologize depending on the circumstances, the people involved, and the extent of the action for which the apology is required. The same goes for other language functions, or “speech acts” such as expressing sympathy, declining an invitation, and disagreeing. This is not cultural assimilation, rather the skills necessary for cultural competence.

Response to "Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning" by Eli Hinkel

In chapter 6, Representing culture in the ESL writing classroom, Harklau says that instead of dichotomizing our culture and that of our students, we should acquaint them with facets of American culture that are relevant to everyone living in America. She also wants us to make a distinction between long-term U.S. residents and newly arrived immigrants. I found it enlightening that asking students to constantly compare and contrast their culture with ours is self-defeating and marginalizing.

I did have a few questions about the reading, though. For example, Harklau says that “Many of these students arrive in the United States in late elementary or secondary school and enter college…” (110) I wonder how someone could arrive in America as a young child and still lack the English proficiency required to function at college-level. I believe that the students are not to blame, but rather, the public school system, their family’s encouragement or lack thereof, or socioeconomic factors. All of these influences are present with native English speakers as well.

Harklau followed the same students from their last semester of high school through their first semester of college. All of those students were placed in ESL writing courses. I’m puzzled as to why Harklau didn’t feel it necessary to include the students’ English scores from either the SAT or the ACT. Also, she talks about a Vietnamese girl, Claudia, who had moved to America in second grade. What surprised me was the fact that Claudia was still required to take an ESL writing class even though she had lived in America for over a decade (which is more than enough time to become academically proficient in a foreign language). It seems that her English shouldn’t have been any worse than entering freshmen who scored bellow 19 on the ACT.

I’m also at odds with the attitudes of the staff at Lakeland Community College and State University: “…instructors…felt that they needed to protect students from mainstream courses that would not serve them as well as ESL.” (124) I would agree that mainstream courses would be less useful to students who are at intermediate proficiency or below. However, in the context of academic culture, the best way for international students to learn (in my opinion) is to immerse themselves in said academic culture, which would require taking mainstream university classes with native-speaking students.

Going back to the topic of teaching culture in the ESL writing class, I wholeheartedly agree that it’s best to use “topics (which) invite students to address issues that all participants in U.S. culture face, and to weigh in with their own opinions and ideas.” (127) It is much better to ask “What do you think of the right to bear arms” than “What’s gun control like in your country?” This was the main idea I got out of this chapter, and one which I intend to put into practice.

Varying degrees of politeness

Disagreeing:
1. But what about...,
2. Shouldn’t we consider...
3. Don’t you think it would be better...
4. I'd prefer...
5. I'm afraid I don't agree...
6. I don't think that...
7. I don't agree.
8. The truth of the matter is...
9. Frankly, I doubt if...
10. Let's face it,
11. The problem with your point of view is that...

Variations 1-3 would be most acceptable with people, regardless of social status, gender, or age. These phrases signal mutual respect, and would most likely be used by a subordinate. #4 is actually stating a preference, which is a little more assertive, but still shows deference towards the listener. #’s 5 and 6 would be acceptable (and respectable) for those of equal social status, without regard to gender or age. It would probably not be acceptable to use these phrases with a superior unless a good relationship has been established beforehand. #7 is ok across the board if the speaker can provide sound reasoning for their disagreement. #’s 8-11 would most likely be used by a superior speaking to subordinates, or in an adversarial situation, such as a negotiation.

On the “More Polite” end of the spectrum, the speaker uses softer phrases, which emphasize the need to work together and to consider alternatives. Moving towards the middle, the speaker is showing respect for the other person’s opinion, but is becoming more assertive, stressing the need to consider the opinions of each other, rather than to work towards a common goal. Towards the “Rude” end, the speaker is making it known that his opinion is the only one of value, stressing the listener’s incompetence/lack of understanding.

Regarding "Teaching English Overseas: An Introduction " by Sandra Lee McKay

In Teaching English Overseas: An Introduction, McKay introduces two perspectives used in studying culture: “emic,” which states that culture should be studied from the viewpoint of the members of the culture in question; and “etic,” referring to the study of cultures from an external perspective. She goes on to discuss the implications of teaching EFL using an etic perspective, and notes that “The idea of teaching English through the exposure of second language learners to English culture should be abandoned.” (57) I understand that certain concepts or objects may be completely alien to people in some parts of the world, for example, a refrigerator or keeping shoes in a closet. However, I believe it’s nearly impossible to teach a language without teaching the culture associated with it. For example, when teaching American English, one cannot help but introduce concepts such as euphemisms, directness, and competitiveness. In addition, it is necessary that one teach the social conventions associated with the language being taught. It’s unacceptable, for example, for an American to speak ill of the dead. It’s also common courtesy not to ask someone how much money they make or how old they are.

McKay does redeem herself by noting that it is the teacher’s responsibility to discover (through a needs analysis or Q&A session) the reasons behind the students’ desire to learn English. For example, when preparing Japanese businessmen to travel abroad for a meeting, it’s not necessary to teach prepositions of place by asking the question “Where do we keep our shoes?” Rather, they need to know how to politely introduce themselves, how to make small talk, proper greetings, and perhaps language associated with giving a presentation or negotiating. It would also be of utmost importance that the businessman would need to know which topics to avoid in conversation. This is where McKay fails us—she doesn’t seem to show any respect for the expat teacher’s home culture. She merely makes suggestions as to ways to acclimate oneself once abroad. Surely she could’ve recommended that teachers ask the students about their cultural norms, then explain how, for example, American cultural norms are the same or different.

I do agree that EFL teachers need to learn as much as they can about their host country. When teaching in China, it’s crucial that EFL teachers not broach the “Three T’s:” Tianmen, Taiwan, and Tibet. To do so could get you fired, deported, or arrested. Of course, teachers are usually told what to avoid prior to signing an employment contract.

McKay says that the three steps of Pragmatic Ethnography are inquiry (studying assumptions about classroom behavior), reflection (considering one’s own values), and application (using one’s findings to develop appropriate materials and lesson plans). (64) It should be noted that many schools that employ foreign teachers have their own curriculum for teachers to follow. Some are quite strict regarding adhering to their set of standards. Other schools, particularly universities, of course allow the teacher much more leeway in this regard. I believe it is here that EFL teachers should take Pragmatic Ethnography to heart, as the teacher in Japan did when she discovered that Japanese students felt it was necessary to respond in silence.

However, in the case of Japanese university students, the teacher did in fact impose a “Western” approach to classroom participation by informing her students “that they needed speak English to learn it.” (65) So while the teacher did go through the first two steps of Pragmatic Ethnography, she did little more than expect American behavior from her students for the third step. By putting the students into groups and requiring that students ask for clarification and participate, she merely employed the Communicative Approach to language teaching.

To summarize, it is very important that EFL teachers become aware of student and teacher expectations, taboo topics, foreign concepts, and acceptable behaviors of their host country. It’s also critical that teachers know the reasons why their students want to learn English, whether for conversational, business, academic, or vocational purposes. The foreign classroom should be a place of cultural exchange, with respect given to etic and emic views alike. This is the only way in which real learning can take place.

Reactions to "Look at Me When I Talk to You: ESL Learners in Non-ESL Classrooms" by Sylvia Helmer, Catherine Eddy

Helmer and Eddy address several issues of culture’s place in language learning. In chapter 1, they outline five stages of culture shock that teachers need to be aware of in order to be more understanding of their students and what those students are going through. Having moved to two countries far removed from my own culture, I can say firsthand that this outline is accurate. However, after moving to the second country, I spent less time in the initial stages and moved straight into the later stage of “Superficial Adjustment.” The authors also talk about different cultural behaviors and their possible misinterpretations by Western teachers, including eye contact, working with others, and answering questions. Again, I have personally experienced these cultural attributes. For example, many students are reluctant to work with other students upon first arriving at Tech from their home countries. However, once given explicit instruction in the manner in which American university classes are conducted, they appear to be more comfortable working together.

In the chapter on Awareness of Culture, the authors stress that in order to understand other cultures, we must first become aware of our own culture. We’ve discussed this idea before, and the example given of an anthropological perspective on brushing teeth paints a clear picture of what it must be like for foreigners who are not familiar with our culture. They also mention that immigrants are largely unfamiliar with proper behavior in certain situations, for example, when meeting someone or introducing someone for the first time. I believe that it is the failure to behave appropriately in situations such as these that causes foreigners to move into stage 4 of culture shock: Frustration and Depression. This is why it is critical to instruct newcomers in social etiquette, and we can’t provide that instruction if we ourselves are not aware of such etiquette.

In the third chapter, culture is compared to an iceberg, with the visual aspects (“above-water”) comprised of food, art, and language; and the invisible components (“below water”) including communication style, values, perceptions, and beliefs. I presume that communication style would include paralinguistic features such as intonation and volume, as well as body language. I see this in my classrooms when students are not aware that their intonation sounds extremely rude! This chapter also brings up the point that each of us belongs to several cultural groups at any given time, these groups being influenced by our heritage, lifestyle, age group, and other factors. It is because of this assumption that the authors suggest pairing a new student with someone of a similar culture. They caution, however, that even though two students speak the same language, they may be worlds apart in terms of their backgrounds, interests, and values. Also, differences in gender or age would not make pairing one ELL with another desirable; in fact, it may be counterproductive. The authors say “Assign buddies, by all means, but use this strategy with care.” (29) I disagree that we should assign buddies from the same ethnic/cultural group, as the new students will likely seek out these “buddies” on their own. Rather, we should assign a buddy (a “mainstream” student) that is familiar with what will be required of the new student, and is understanding or enthusiastic towards helping new students. This would also facilitate the use of English (if indeed any is known), or at least, help the newcomer become acclimated to routines without feeling pressured to become friends with someone from the same linguistic background. The pairing of a newcomer with someone of the same ethnic background may also stigmatize both students in the process.

Chapter 4 addresses the many facets of communication: coverbal, which includes voice modification in speaking and listening (“Wow!” “Uh huh” et. al.); nonverbal, or body language, including silence and time; kinesics, which includes posture, gestures, and eye contact; proxemics, or personal space limits; and haptics, or touch.

The authors suggest that “…we must be very conscious of how we use tone to convey meaning in the classroom.” (39) I’m not sure if they are proposing that we try to make out intonation as flat as possible, or if we should just do our best to avoid sounding condescending. In my experience, most ELLs don’t always pick up on the subtleties of tone or stress. In fact, when I try to teach this aspect of communicating, my students have a very hard time understanding the concept.

Responses to "Other People's Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom" by Lisa Delpit

Delpit’s book so far has been an eye-opener. In the second chapter, she proposes that teachers should stop focusing on fluency in black learners and begin focusing on skills. She further states that these skills must be taught/learned “within the context of critical and creative thinking.” (19) She also makes a case against the Process approach to literacy development, referring to it as “the white folks’ project.” (17)

I’m not completely clear on the differences between a writing-process approach and a skills-oriented program. Perhaps in this case (as in many cases) an integrated approach would be most suitable. I hope you touch on the differences between these approaches tonight!

In the third chapter, Delpit talks about the “silent dialogue” (21) between white and minority educators. She makes the distinction between listening and hearing, and says that white educators don’t usually hear their black colleagues. She also presents a discussion on power, and among the five aspects of power she mentions, the following stands out:

5. Those with power are frequently least aware of—or at least willing to acknowledge—its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence. (24)

This goes back to Howard’s discussion of the “Luxury of Ignorance,” so apparently there is some credibility to this concept. This is not only a race issue; this is true in many realms, from academia to the corporate world.

This chapter also deals with the codal differences between races—that black teachers are more direct, and may even seem “authoritarian” (33) to white teachers, while white teachers ask questions more indirectly, which may confuse black children.

When Delpit brings up the point that educators act as gatekeepers (in particular, for admittance into teacher education programs), she draws a conclusion that I have a hard time agreeing with:

“We cannot justifiably enlist exclusionary standards when the reason this student lacked the skills demanded was poor teaching at best and institutionalized racism at worst.”(38)

The above places no responsibility on the student to learn the material necessary to gain admittance to this program. Furthermore, one may infer from this that anytime a minority student fails, the blame lies with the teacher. True, institutions may at times be racially/culturally biased, but there is a standard that everyone is expected to live up to, and we can’t lower those standards based on racial performance.

However, I agree with the following statement Delpit makes on page 38:
A white applicant who exhibits problems is an individual with problems. A person of color who exhibits problems immediately becomes a representative of her cultural group.

This again goes back to what Howard was saying in the previous book, about certain people being labeled “A credit to your race.”

In the chapter on language diversity and learning, Delpit makes a statement that I don’t really understand:

“While form is important, particularly in the context of social success, it is considerably less important when concern is lodged instead in the area of cognitive development.” (49)

I understand that it is important for children of all cultures to be able to use Standard English. I don’t understand why Standard English shouldn’t be a part of a learner’s cognitive development.

However, this chapter was the most informative in terms of my profession. I was fascinated by reading that as long as a child understands the concept of what he’s reading, the way he says it isn’t so important, for example, when a black child read the word “brother” as “bruvver,” and when the child responded to “How are you?” with “I be’s fine.” In both cases, the children understood the situation and what was required of them, but they maintained their cultural norms—the maintenance of which is supposed to be a huge factor in removing (or at least weakening) the affective filter. I especially agree with the notion that educators should not “confuse dialect intervention with reading instruction” (as in the case of the Ph. D. candidates and “the language of Atlantis”). (60)

Delpit suggests that “all we can do is provide students with the exposure to an alternate form…” (54) Is she saying that children should not receive explicit instruction in Standard English? This time she places the responsibility on the learner to decide when and if to use the “alternate form.” It also seems that calling this “book language” (67) is misleading, because the name implies that this form is not spoken.

My question is, if a learner chooses not to use Standard English in a situation that requires it (say, for admittance into a teacher education program) is it then the fault of institutional racism, or does the student at this point have to take responsibility for their own misuse of form?

In part two of Delpit’s book, she primarily focuses on multicultural perspectives, both from abroad and from students and teachers of color in the states. She recounts at length her experiences in Papua New Guinea, in which there was controversy regarding the teaching (and requirement) of English in the school system there. One school, the Vilis Tokples Pri Skul, set a good example by allowing its students to learn about their customs in traditions, and by teaching students to first become literate in their own language, before moving on to English. This concept of L1 literacy before L2 acquisition was discussed in our Methods class last semester.

However, one parent from the village states that “it is more important to teach them to be proud of themselves, and of us” than to teach children to read and write. (89) I would agree that it is important to be proud of one’s heritage, but how would a white teacher teach black pride? Surely black students would dismiss or ignore any white educator’s attempt to teach them about their culture, and why they should be proud of who they are. Delpit recounts that in the school in Papua New Guinea, educators were mostly concerned with social and moral education. I think this is great, because there doesn’t seem to be room in American schools for this type of education.

In the next chapter, Delpit writes that “Literacy can be a tool of liberation, but equally, it can be a means of control.”(94) She does like to be negative, doesn’t she? Literacy, in my opinion, opens more doors than it closes. She also says “The practice of literacy, typically a solitary endeavor…can also promote alienation in communities…Growing up, I remember being admonished to ‘put that book down and go outside and play with your friends.’” (94) I wasn’t aware that in many communities, reading is viewed as detrimental to one’s social health. She stresses that in order to understand the context in which reading is taught, it’s more important for people to interact “with people rather than with books.” (95) This further supports her idea of connectedness. Perhaps this is why many children at the Tokples School didn’t enter primary school until age seven.

In the chapter on Teacher’s Voices, she includes several personal narratives from minority teachers and education students. This is a bit tedious, as they all said basically the same thing: That they couldn’t identify with educators who were not of the same ethnic background, and that they had a hard time understanding why their white colleagues were so attached to teaching from the book. It’s noteworthy that the most current of these stories is from 1985, with the majority coming from 20-30 years ago. Times have changed a lot since then! While I agree that teachers should not be “married” to their texts, it is necessary (due to state guidelines and standardized testing) to complete a certain amount of material each semester/year. I’m sure many teachers would like to throw the book out the window, but this just isn’t practical. One extreme example of this is when I was teaching in China. Parents paid a lot of money for their children to come to our school to study English, and if we didn’t finish the textbook they had to buy, we teachers caught hell from disgruntled parents: “I paid for 12 lessons and you only taught 10!” was often heard in the hallways.

In the final chapter in part two, she writes that the vast majority of minority teachers do not cite external sources of knowledge as a basis for their own teaching. Many remember the way they learned, and teach to their own learning style. Some consider their own concerns and decide what to teach based on those. Delpit suggests that most white teachers think about a teacher that inspired them (or some other external source), and aspire to that level of greatness. I don’t believe either way is better or worse. In fact, there are many different learning styles, and just because you are a visual learner does not mean you should teach that way—you’d be leaving a large portion of your students out in the cold!

One complaint of minority teachers is that some feel “threatened by…words, all those uppity words.” (122) This is part of Standard English at a professional or academic level. I’m sorry if some teachers feel threatened when they hear unfamiliar vocabulary, but as educators, it’s our job to learn new “words” and not to complain or be irritated simply because we don’t use those “words” at home.

Delpit finishes by suggesting that we establish “special, institutionalized mentoring relationships between university professors and students of color.” (123) I’m concerned however, that if professors begin to cater more to their minority students than to their white students, the non-minority students may feel slighted, which is what Delpit is trying to prevent (granted, in students of color). She does however go on to add that we need to cater to all students. Another surprising suggestion she makes is “reducing isolation (by) organizing students into cohorts, teams or support groups.” (123)

This sounds a lot like segregation, which is what civil rights activists fought so hard to end all those years ago. I believe that such action may actually be detrimental to students by lowering the standards to their instruction.

One example of this is the graduate cohort students here at Tech (the Taiwanese). The notes they receive from their professors are simplified, and instruction is dumbed down. If one or more of them lacks sufficient English to complete a task, there’s no problem because the other students can do his work for him. In this case, the poor student will never improve his spoken English, and the students as a whole will not learn proper note-taking skills or how to follow a lecture. They need to be held to the same standards as mainstream grad students if they are to gain the maximum benefit of earning a degree here.

Notes on "We Can't Teach What We Don't Know: White Teachers, Multiracial Schools

Ch. 1

Howard gives further details of his past, chief among them his “baptism by fire,” in which parts of his neighborhood caught on fire during rioting in the 1960s.He talks of his associations with activists, including the Black Panthers. He also talks about his immersion experience with aborigines in Australia.

Ch. 2

This is where Howard finally starts to discuss tangible, detailed theory, though this chapter fails to give us any practical applications. He introduces four aspects of the issue of Social Dominance: the Minimal Group Paradigm, which suggest that humans tend to favor their own group and find something wrong with other groups; Social Positionality, which includes subjective dimensions (“how I see myself/how others see me”) and objective dimensions (social position is terms of observable measures, including income, education, and job title); Social Dominance, with the following four assumptions:
1. In social systems, hegemonic groups are at the top and negative reference groups are at the bottom
2. These groups at the top are disproportionately male
3. Oppression is linked to these hierarchies
4. Social hierarchies are a survival strategy,

and “Privilege and Penalty,” which says that dominant groups often receive certain privileges, which aren’t usually earned.

Howard also brings to light all of the horrible things that Europeans have done to marginalized groups in the past, including spreading disease, starting wars, and using missionaries to destroy cultures by way of spreading the gospel.

Ch. 3

Howard goes on to give examples of hegemonic groups and the reasons they do what they do. He says that dominant groups are the architects of their own reality, and that three major processes are included in dominance: the assumption of rightness, the luxury of ignorance, and the legacy of privilege.
I’m confused by Howard’s assertion that “the actual deficiency (of students’ misbehavior or failure to contribute in class) lay more with us educators than with either American Indian students or their families.” I don’t agree that the problem with students’ motivation lies 100% with the teachers. Also, Howard makes this claim, yet does nothing to offer pragmatic suggestions as to how we as educators are supposed to correct this “deficiency.”

Howard also says “…we too often attribute failure to the culture and characteristics of the child rather than to the inherent structure of dominance in the larger society.” This may be true in many cases, but what about the failure of some white children to excel in their studies?

I do, however, agree with Howard in chapter 3, when he states that “Hegemonic groups tend to construct reality in ways that reinforce, protect, and legitimize their position of dominance.” This is especially true of American politicians today, with the war in Iraq and the actions the Administration are performing which call into question the extent of our civil liberties.

It’s also interesting in chapter 2 when the author recounts that European Christians in the 1500s labeled all of those outside of their religion as “infidels,” which is what Muslim extremists are calling us Americans today.

Ch. 4
Howard gives a long-winded analogy between navigating the Colorado River and teaching in a multicultural society. He proposes that we as White educators must contribute “honesty, empathy, advocacy, and action” to the education process.

He then recounts personal narratives for each of the aforementioned contributions. Howard also reiterates the notion of “White privilege,” and that we must continuously be aware of it. Perhaps most valuable in Chapter 4 is Howard’s Five Key Areas of Learning:
1. To know who we are racially and culturally
2. To learn about and value cultures different from our own
3. To view social reality through the lens of multicultural perspectives
4. To understand the history and dynamics of dominance
5. To nurture in ourselves and our students a passion for justice and the skills for social action
(Howard, 81)

Ch. 5
Howard notes that most of us do not see ourselves as being White. Chapter five is devoted to the stages of black racial identity development, as well as the stages of white racial identity development. He gives more time to the latter, as we can see here:

The Stages of Black racial identity development:
1. Preencounter—distance from own racial identity
2. Encounter—exposure to racism
3. Immersion/Emersion—anger towards Whites or anything White
4. Internalization—“pro-black” attitude; less defensive
5. Internalization-Commitment—securely-rooted in one’s Black identity
(Howard, 86-87)
The Stages of White racial identity development consists of three developmental tasks:

1. Acknowledging the reality of White racism
2. Engaging in resistance to racism’s many forms
3. Developing a positive connection to White racial/cultural identity

Six Stages in developing White racial identity:

1. Contact—initial contact with other races
2. Disintegration—acknowledgement of our Whiteness
3. Reintegration—embracing the notion of White superiority
4. Pseudo-Independence—questioning the justifiability of racism
5. Immersion-Emersion—moving away from wanting to help others and moving towards changing oneself and his fellow Whites in a positive way
6. Autonomy—race is no longer a threat
(Howard, 87-94)

Ch. 6
Howard and his wife construct a model of multicultural growth. The crux of this model is the three White identity orientations:

1. Fundamentalist—Places the individual within the first three stages of developing a White racial identity.
2. Integrationist—Which places the individual at stages four and five of developing a White racial identity
3. Transformationist—Placing the individual at stage six of developing a White racial identity
(Howard, 100)

Howard breaks each of these orientations down to affective and cognitive properties, which to be honest, was a bit tedious.
Ch. 7
Howard finishes the book by using doubletalk and making clichéd analogies. He again asks that White educators strive for change in order to “shift the tide of racial dominance.” (Howard, 116) He seems to want us all to become activists, as though anyone has the time for that.


Personal Notes
I wasn’t really confused by anything in the readings this time. However, I walked away from this book with very little. I can appreciate that we must be aware of having special, almost invisible privileges, and that is something I hadn’t considered prior to reading this.

To summarize my feelings on this book:

Racism cannot be broken down into diagrams and stages so easily. Many of the points the author presented (about being empathetic, or to question racism) are nothing new. What may be noteworthy is that Howard attempts to present his cause to educators, rather than to mainstream society. This is wise because we as teachers are on the front lines of the battlefield that is racism and intolerance.

Howard may have found his niche in the education market, because most uneducated people wouldn’t be prepared to lend an ear to his message: That we must embrace cultural differences and question the superiority of our own culture.