Category: Reading Response

Posted in Reading Response

School Effectiveness & Possible Improvements

Posted on by Dallie P.

Reading Response #6: “Time in School: How Does the U.S. Compare?”

Jim Hull and Mandy Newport worked together to create a brief entitled “Time in School: How Does the U.S. Compare” which strives to answer the question do United States students spend less time in school than students in other countries? Published by the Center for Public Education, the article examines the claim made by U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan during a congressional hearing which used data to assert that students in India and China attended school twenty-five to thirty percent longer than students in the United States. The claim was made in an effort to prompt a policy decision in favor of raising the minimum number of hours required by schools in the United States.

Hull and Newport’s article utilized data from the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), Education Commission of the States’, and the World Data on Education to develop the briefing. The time measurements were based on the countries’ compulsory hours, or minimum hours of instruction per year, allowing for some discrepancies in what countries consider instructional hours. India and China were considered to directly examine the claims made by U.S. Department of Education Secretary Duncan. Korea, Japan, Finland, Canada, England, France, Germany, and Italy were also examined in order to fully examine whether United States students were required to spend less time in schools than other countries.

The results were overwhelmingly against Secretary Duncan’s claims. India and China required less or about equal to the same number of hours as United States. The other countries repeated this pattern, often requiring less hours. Finland, one of the world’s top performers in education, actually had a minimum number of hours significantly smaller than the United State’s average and still less than Vermont’s minimum, which is the least amount of hours required of any state in the U.S.

The Persistence of Memory – Salvador Dali

As a work in the public sphere, this briefing is a well done response to claims made by a public figure. U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan made a claim, and the authors of this briefing, Jim Hull and Mandy Newport, made a reply in that they looked at Secretary Duncan’s claims and determined more explicitly the veracity of said claims. The briefing remains unbiased, clearly listing the source of its data and the method utilized. It also makes clear the limitations of its findings. The briefing also offers alternative methods to be considered in order to improve student effectiveness that does not include adding more hours to the minimum requirement.

The article is interesting in that it puts the United States public schools on a national scale and makes a comparison. The United States is fairly average in number of instructional hours required of students. Increasing the minimum would not create a more constructive educational system. Making students attend school longer would not make them better students. Instead, policy makers should consider alternative methods to increase effectiveness of students and instruction. The briefing lists a few ways to make the most of school time. I would encourage ways the schools could make the most of the students’ abilities. Mental health issues have been proven to be detrimental to student success, especially when they present as behavioral issues that disrupt entire classrooms. By addressing these concerns through various practices designed to better the current treatment and counseling systems indirectly, students would receive the help they need and their balanced well-beings would result in more effective learning. Students with balanced mental health would be more successful and less distracting, resulting in the improvement of school effectiveness desired by policy makers such as U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Meditation for the Classroom
Mindfulness in the Classroom
Posted in Reading Response

Mind-Body Techniques

Posted on by Dallie P.

Research Blog #2: “Use of Treatment and Counseling Services and Mind-Body Techniques by Students with Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties”

Wasantha Jayawardene, Ryan Erbe, David Lohrmann, and Mohammad Torabi worked together to produce a peer reviewed research article entitled “Use of Treatment and Counseling Services and Mind-Body Techniques by Students with Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties.” Their proclaimed motivation was to study how treatment and counseling services from schools affected the use of mind-body techniques in students with difficulties based on the notion that MBTs can improve children’s health and wellness. All of the findings were based on National Health Interview Survey data. The article came to an interesting conclusion after studying not only the use of treatment and counseling services as well as mind-body techniques, but also the correlation with family-level factors.

The research found that mind-body techniques were more likely to be used in students with emotional and behavioral difficulties in 2007 than in 2012, demonstrating a decrease of its usage. Gender showed a significant difference as girls were much more likely to utilize mind-body techniques than boys. The use of mind-body techniques also increased based on a family with higher educated parents or a member with a limitation. Finally, school only treatment and counselling services were less likely to use mind-body techniques than nonschool only services.

These conclusions are interesting because it suggests that there is truly a stigma involved. An increasing number of school-aged people are experiencing emotional or behavioral difficulties, yet this research indicates that schools are less likely to utilize mind-body techniques, which have been proven to help, than other outside institutions. This is troubling because not only do students spend a vast majority of their days at school, leaving schools with a responsibility to properly care for all factors of their well-being, but their families may be dependent on school assistance to care for their kids.

As a research article in the public sphere, the authors presented their findings as objectively as possible, even sighting the limitations of their results. They detail all the aspects of their work and findings and present it in a logical format. The article was accepted in less than a year, effectively working its way through the public sphere of academia. It is a strong, well-presented article.

It is the information within that is cause for concern to me. Schools hold a responsibility to protect and care for their students. That includes caring for their well-being, mental or otherwise. Mind-body techniques have been shown to work, yet the schools show a tendency to avoid using them. Rather than simply avoiding the hassle, schools should be striving to battle the stigma surrounding the use of mind-body techniques. They are helpful for everyone. It is not something just for girls or those rich families; mind-body techniques are useful way to treat emotional and behavioral difficulties without resorting to medications.

Public schools are equalizers. The economic status of a child’s family plays very little part in the day to day activities within the schools. If schools were to introduce mind-body techniques to all of their grade levels, everyone would be able to get access to help and the stigma would slowly dissolve as more students were exposed to it. The difference between mind-body technique usage would no longer be as vast between parents with higher education and without, or between families with or without a member with limitations. All genders would be exposed to helpful techniques that could help them balance their well-being. This article shows that public schools ought to step up their game and begin introducing mind-body techniques into their treatment and counseling services and, ideally, to their student body as a whole.


Posted in Reading Response

Are We Overmedicating Our Children?

Posted on by Dallie P.

Research Blog #1: “CDC: One in 13 Children Taking Psych Meds”

The New American published an article entitled “CDC: One in 13 Children Taking Psych Meds.” In this article, the argument is made that not only are an increasing number of children in the United States being prescribed psychiatric medication, but a substantial number of those children are being improperly medicated.

The article uses data from the Centers for Disease Control as the basis for their claim that the number of children medicated is growing. According to the article and the referenced data, in 2014, “7.5 percent of children between the ages of six and seventeen” were on psychiatric medication, which is a clear and substantial increase in prescriptions from the previous two decades.

The American Psychiatric Association then provides the data for the articles second claim, which is that children in the United States are being improperly diagnosed and therefore overmedicated. The Association released the information that “five percent of American children have ADHD, but studies reveal more than 11 percent of American children are diagnosed with the condition.”

The article may be short, but it makes hugely concerning claims. The article itself is fairly focused in on ADHD as a so-called epidemic being blown out of proportion and vastly overdiagnosed. However, it hints at larger concerns. If the statistics for diagnosis and prescriptions are so out of proportion for this one issue, how accurate are other diagnosis for similar cases? Is ADHD that difficult to diagnose, or is this article and referenced data revealing a larger issue amongst the prescription and use of psychiatric medications?

The article itself makes a decent, qualified argument. As it is a work intended for the public sphere, it is careful to make its point clear without casting too much doubt and clouding its argument. The data referenced is not embellished and the interpretations by the article’s author includes qualifications that acknowledge the limits of the data. The article remains largely objective, referencing statistics from reliable, well-known sources for the basis of the article. The claim comes from yet another source intended to come across as reliable, leaving the author of the article seemingly objective and just stating the facts. Overall, the article’s claim and reasoning are strong, leaving just hints that the issue could be wider than the provided data specifically states.

The possible number of incorrect diagnosis for our school-aged children is a concerning concept. The overuse of psychiatric medication is even more so. The United States seems to be suffering from a too large reliance on medications. People are becoming reliant on various little pills and syrups to solve their issues without stopping to consider what it is they are injecting into their bodies. The thought that these medications are being offered to children incorrectly makes the problem even more apparent. The medications prescribed can often have lasting effects even when used properly. Dosing our kids up based on quick and inaccurate judgements can have vast and lasting repercussions that so many people fail to consider, leading to data such as that referenced in the article. It is a frightening concept. Our kids don’t need to be drugged to the gills because they’re having a bad day; they need to be taught how to properly care for themselves and others.  We need to enable our children, not hinder them with wrongly prescribed drugs.

Posted in Reading Response

Dear Friend,

Posted on by Dallie P.

A “Focus on Letters” Analysis and Review

Elizabeth Ervin’s chapter six of Public Literacy is entitled “Focus on Letters.” As indicated by the title, the chapter focuses on various types of letters that can be utilized within the public sphere. Ervin identifies four forms of letters to be discussed in detail within her chapter: letters to editors, letters of concern, appeal letters, and open letters.

The majority of the chapter is dedicated to taking a closer look at what each type of letter can be used for and the general appearance it takes. Ervin explains that letters to editors can come in two forms, addressed to the editors or addressed to the editor’s audience, and that letters of concern should generally follow traditional business letter formats. She offers explanations for how a writer’s motivations effect a letter type, as well as an audience’s perceptions.

Ervin’s chapter “Focus on Letters” offers a lot of helpful information for writers who intend to engage in the public sphere through the utilization of letters. While she opens the chapter with the claim that she does not intend this to be a “how-to” guide for writing letters, she does offer up an abundance of information that can assist writers throughout the process. Getting started tends to be the hardest part, but her chapter can be used to determine which type of letter to work with and the form it should take. Overall, her chapter is meant as a really useful tool for writers intending to create a public literacy letter.

Public Literacy is intended to inform potential writers about how to engage in the public sphere with public literacies in all their various forms. While Ervin makes several claims throughout that she is not intending her work to answer specific questions or give step-by-step instructions, she still managed to create a helpful guide that, though it is not a “how-to” guide, offers enough advice and examples that it works to direct potential writers in their missions. Ervin’s chapter, “Focus on Letters,” is just one more form of public literacy that is outlined and explored in Ervin’s book. The sheer volume of public literacies can be overwhelming, but Ervin endeavours to break it down into manageable pieces that can be easily understood and utilized.

While Ervin does an excellent job of breaking down the four types of letters- letters to editors, letters of concern, appeal letters, and open letters- she almost keeps it too simple. For her purposes regarding Public Literacy, it is understandable that she wants to keep her chapters short rather than bogging them and the readers down with extra information that may muddle her point. However, with chapter six, “Focus on Letters,” Ervin makes mention of a letter type that did not make it onto her list of four letters. In her “Letters of Concern” section, Ervin makes brief mention of letters of complaint. She then fails to include any more information about it.

That in itself is not a huge concern, especially considering the amount of information she does manage to pack into her chapter. Nonetheless, it leaves me wondering how many other letter forms she neglects to mention or examine within her “Focus on Letters” chapter. Are there just one or two types that she did not feel were overly relevant, or are there countless that writers could be using within the public sphere that failed to make it onto her “examine closer” list?

Susie, what shall I do – there is’nt room enough; not half enough, to hold what I was going to say. Wont you tell the man who makes sheets of paper, that I hav’nt the slightest respect for him!


Emily Dickinson
Posted in Reading Response

Collaborating Online: The New Frontier?

Posted on by Dallie P.
Spock, incredibly smart, incredibly isolated — Star Trek 2009

Anthony T. Atkins wrote an essay entitled “Collaborating Online: Digital Strategies for Group Work,” which served to outline the various ways electronics and the internet can be of assistance to group work, especially in the college classroom. The essay focuses predominantly on Wiki and Google Docs, the two main platforms at the time of publication in 2010. The essay itself is broken into three sections, which include assessing the project or task, using technology to organize the project, and using technology to present the project.

The essay is directed at college students, offering strategies which serve to work around inflexible schedules, create a more productive atmosphere, and alleviate participation problems. Offering free and easily accessible platforms as resources is one way Atkins effectively acknowledges his intended audience. Another is offering the explanation that the platforms he recommends allows groups to access all media involved in a group project without the tedium of emailing individual resources. Atkin’s final push for utilizing online resources for group work is the ability to police non-contributing group members, effectively addressing the biggest complaint involved with group assignments.

As a piece of work in the public sphere, Atkin’s essay is a good example of how to appeal to a particular audience for a specific purpose. Atkins believes in using technology as a resource for group work in schools. He makes an argument directed at college students who have to participate in group work as part of a class. He assumes various facets of a college students’ personality, like being persuaded by free resources, when he constructs his argument. He makes a claim of policy, arguing that his points are credible and that his audience should utilize his advice.

Beyond the mechanics involved in the essay, the subject of technology being used in a classroom setting introduced by Atkins brings up an interesting debate regarding the changing role of technology within schools. The use of technology within classrooms has been increasing exponentially. Google Classroom and other Google platforms allow for easier access to all school documents and resources, especially when using a school computer. Youtube and Ted Talks are being utilized by teachers as part of their lesson plans. Schools even have their parents sign up on various apps that allow the schools to send out mass text messages. Technology is firmly planting itself within schools.

On one hand, as pointed out by Atkin in his essay, it is incredibly convenient to utilize technology. It allows students to work together or teachers to see progress. It saves paper and gives teacher access to a much broader spectrum of resources. Websites such as GoNoodle are popping up constantly, their main purpose providing teachers with resources to use directly in the classroom, projected on a screen in front of the entire class. Another positive aspect mentioned by Atkins is the decreased pressure for those students who struggle to communicate, an online platform allowing them to participate where they may otherwise hold back.

Technology is not just a tool. It can give learners a voice that they may not have had before.

George Couros

On the other hand, technology is rapidly moving towards a place where face-to-face interactions are a thing of the past. Atkin’s entire essay is dedicated to the idea that group work can now be done without actually being in the same room as each other. Very little direct interaction is even needed once initial plans have been laid, as everyone can simply add their work and see what others have done without conversation. Entire classes are now being held online, sometimes with interactions among students and sometimes only interacting with the program.

Classrooms don’t need tech geeks who can teach; we need teaching geeks who can use tech.

David Geurin

Decreased social interaction is becoming a common and almost expected aspect of adolescents lives. A new stereotype has emerged that considers adolescents incapable of social interactions; awkward and not good with people is the new norm. Certainly, technology is incredibly convenient in a lot of ways, only some of which were pointed out in Atkin’s essay. However, the question has to be asked: Where does it stop? Can we find the line where technology remains helpful and not smothering, or are we destined to live behind a screen forever?

Will it stop before we have to rely on a robot with more social capabilities than us? — Wall-E 2008


Posted in Reading Response

The Art of Subtle Persuasion

Posted on by Dallie P.

Blog Post #1


Sometimes it can be hard for one person to make a difference in big public issues, but these suggestions illustrate how we can assist each other in finding strength in numbers.

– Elizabeth Ervin

The first chapter of Elizabeth Ervin’s “Public Literacy” strives to define public literacy not by establishing a limited definition, but through the examination of various questions and obstacles that once impeded and continue to impede the development of public literacy. Ervin herself stated that she had no desire to define public literacy for her audience in strict terms, but rather desired to start a discussion that prompted her audience to come to their own conclusions regarding what public literacy is and how it could be utilized within writing for the public.

“Defining Public Literacy: Five Dilemmas”

The five dilemmas explored by Ervin make up the bulk of her article. These dilemmas, she claims, are the main reasons why it is so difficult to define public literacy. They also connect back to her opening argument, which stated that “think[ing] about ‘public literacy’ is to plunge into a series of questions that have preoccupied readers, writers, thinkers, and citizens for centuries.”

The first dilemma requires differing between public and civic, the need for which is a fairly recent development. Civic is limited to publications which impact the workings or function of the government. For centuries, anything public, including entertainment, were also considered to play an important role in the development of culture, which impacted the civic. It is only recently that a gap has formed which necessitates the differentiation.

The second and third dilemmas revolve around diversity. Centuries before, it was safe to assume that anyone involved in the public sphere would have similar values and beliefs. Today, the world is so incredibly diverse that it is impossible to recognize a single public sphere. Instead, there are multiple public spheres with individuals often belonging to more than one sphere in order to account for the diversity in values and beliefs held by an incredibly diverse populace. To accommodate the increasing number of public spheres, an increasing number of platforms to publish to have been developed.

Dilemma number four discusses the venn diagram that is public and personal interests for when it comes to participating in the public sphere. Personal interests do not always match public interests, but the two are not mutually exclusive either. The fifth and final dilemma introduced in Ervin’s chapter discusses ownership of intellectual property and the position of public domains.

The Point

The word dilemma can be misleading. It tends to have a negative connotation and basically means there’s a problem. When Ervin calls these points mentioned above dilemmas, she is not arguing that they are wrong. The point of the chapter was to define public literacy. The dilemmas then, are simply points that make defining public literacy difficult. They are not difficulties that need to be swept away. Quite the opposite, in fact. Not everything needs to be for a purpose to the government, as long as the option to be involved with the government remains. Certainly increased diversity in both the number of spheres and the platforms available to them create countless unique conversations that all manage to connect to each other despite the differences. Finally, it is unfortunate that some people favor personal interest to public interest, but the whole point of public writing is to dissuade the notion that those in power are all-powerful and those not directly involved in a situation are powerless.

In other words, by attempting to define public literacy by examining the dilemmas involved with that task, Ervin makes the powerful statement that we have power in numbers. Anybody is capable of change, if only they have the proper tools. To Ervin, those tools include access to the public sphere. Sure, some people will use the public sphere to watch hours of adorable cat videos. The point is that others will use the public sphere to campaign for equal rights for the LGBTQIA community, or to inspire wide scale change in the school systems, or to get Netflix to keep Friends for another season.

The possibilities are endless.

Elizabeth Ervin managed to create a deceptively simple article which appeared to define public literacy by not defining public literacy. Rather than a simple definition, Ervin summed up the history of public spheres in such a way that subtly lobbied for the importance of participation by anyone willing. Her stated goal was to lead her audience to becoming more effective at writing for the public by exposing them to ideas and letting them come to their own conclusions. Well, she did it.

Elizabeth Ervin’s “What is Public Literacy?”Download