note: some links still to be implemented

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1.A.i
---------
Seminar in Critical Thinking: Science in Society
CCT611 Spring 1999

Course description
Critical thinking about the diverse influences shaping the life sciences. Topics include evolution and natural selection; heredity, development and genetic determinism; biotechnology and reproductive interventions. We interpret episodes in science, past and present, in light of scientists' historical location, economic and political interests, use of language, and ideas about causality and responsibility. You address the course material on a number of levels: as an opportunity to learn the science and interpretive approaches; as models for your own teaching; and as a basis for discussions about practices and philosophies of education, construed broadly as a project of stimulating greater citizen involvement in scientific debates.

Overview of course themes
This seminar explores how to engage students and citizens in science by socially contextualizing it, that is, by examining specifically how scientists as practicing social and intellectual agents build diverse aspects of their "sociality" into the particular ways they know the world and practice their science. It is also a course in critical thinking in the following sense: Theories and practices that have been accepted or taken for granted can be better understood by placing them in tension with what else could be, or could have been, e.g., contrasting models of inborn intelligence with models of multiple intelligences developed over time through a variety of social interactions. Two contrasting, yet complementary frameworks are used for illuminating "society in science in society":
1. Heterogeneous construction & intersecting processes: "Construction" here connotes:
i) many elements are linked together over time ->
ii) things have multiple contributing causes ->
iii) there are multiple points of engagement or intervention (points at which the courses of construction could be changed).
Heterogeneous construction emphasizes the diversity of kinds of elements, so we examine the diverse resources scientists harness--from funding opportunities to metaphors, from status hierarchies in their field to available sources of data. A corresponding range of practical interventions, not just conceptual shifts, are (or would have been) needed to modify the development of the episode of science under consideration. Another way of expressing heterogeneous construction is that processes of different kinds and scales, involving heterogeneous elements, intersect in the production of any outcome and in their own on-going transformation.
2. Angles of illumination & critical heuristics: Simpler, general interpretive themes are easier to convey and receive more notice than more faithful but complicated accounts of causes. Recognizing this, each week introduces one or more themes for interpretation, which I call angles of illumination or critical heuristics. Heuristics are propositions that stimulate, orient, or guide our inquiries, yet break down when applied too widely, and critical heuristics are ones that place established facts, theories, and practices in tension with alternatives.
The course's different case studies and activities--accessible to non-specialists--will be drawn primarily from the life sciences. They will allow us to examine scientists' historical location, economic and political interests, use of language, and ideas about causality and responsibility and tease out the diverse linguistic, intellectual, and practical resources harnessed in scientific work. This approach to critical thinking about the diverse influences shaping biological sciences and thought more generally illustrates and promotes dialog among the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. You will address the course material simultaneously on a number of levels: as an opportunity to learn the subject yourselves; as providing models for your own future teaching; and as a basis for discussions about educational practice and philosophy, construed broadly as a project of stimulating greater citizen involvement in scientific debates.
The course also explores two other, complementary features of teaching science in its social context:
* Reciprocal animation: Close examination of conceptual developments within the sciences can lead to questions about the social influences shaping scientists' work or its application, which, in turn, can lead to new questions and awareness of alternative approaches in those sciences. For example, although agricultural researchers traditionally claim to work for the benefit of society and humanity, what happens when this rhetoric is eclipsed by the necessity of a profit incentive?
* On-going pedagogical development: There are few models for teaching critical thinking about science. In any case, teachers of critical thinking cannot learn by following instructions. Teachers, like their students, have to experiment, take risks, and through experience have built up a set of tools that work for them. Moreover, teachers have to adapt these teaching tools to cope with the different ways that students in each class respond when invited to address alternatives, uncertainty, and taking more responsibility for learning. An emphasis on critical thinking tends to imply, even in large classes, an individualized model of teacher-student interaction. Students' corresponding raised expectations are difficult to fulfill, and their responses are sometimes emotionally intense, especially in the case of science students. This makes sense when we recall that their success in science has depended on learning what others already have discovered and systematized. For all these reasons, pedagogical development must be on-going.

Schedule Of Classes
Class 1 (2/1)
Frame-setting
Introduction to key terms, Angles of Illumination (a.k.a. Critical Heuristic) and Intersecting Processes, and to the tension between them.
Activities: Cause(s) of flu; Autobiographical Intersecting Processes; Critical Incident Questionnaire

Class 2 (2/8)
A. The course as a teaching/learning community
Activities: Establishing base support group processes/procedures; Freewriting & sharing on possible individual projects
B. Language I: Biological stories and their structure
Case: How did we get here?--Origin stories
Activity: Plot the structure of Genesis, chapter 1, or Hrdy, "An Initial Inequality."

Class 3 (2/22)
Language II: Categories destabilized by scientific developments
Case: What is a mother?
Activities: Reports on gender bias in biology texts; Unstable language in newspaper clippings

Class 4 (3/1)
Language III: Changes in meanings of key words in relation to changes in society
Case: What is nature/natural?--Changes in meanings of "nature" in relation to changes in society.
Activities: interpretation of biological similies for society in newspaper clippings; interpretation of slides of images of society and nature in the West since the middle ages; interpretation of Gary Larson "far side" cartoons

Class 5 (3/8)
Multiple layers of a scientific theory (argument, analogy, metaphor, and defences)
Case: How did Darwin try to convince people of Natural selection as the mechanism of evolution? --
Activity: Close reading and reconstruction of Darwin's exposition of his theory of natural selection.

Class 6 (3/22)
Styles of causal explanation & their relation to ideas about social action
Case: What causes a disease?--the consequences of hereditarianism in the case of pellagra
Activities: Interpreting parent-offspring height patterns.

Class 7 (3/29)
Causes & social action II: Metaphors of control and co-ordination
Case: How are characters produced (Transmission vs. development) and development organized?
Activities: Game of development.

Class 8 (4/5)
Causes & social action III: Determinist vs. constructionist explanations of intelligence
Case: To whom is this plausible that genes could determine characters like intelligence?
Activities: Construction exercise

Class 9 (4/12)
Causes & social action IV: selectionist vs. constructionist explanations of evolutionary/ historical processes
Case: Social messages using natural selection
Activities: Analysis of textbook natural selection; Interpretation of video clip(s).

Class 10 (4/26)
Work-in-progress Presentations on Student Projects

Class 11 (5/3)
Scientists working within a field of economics, politics & moral responsibility
Case: The breeding of hybrid corn
Activity: Publicly funded research and private gains

Class 12 (5/10)
The "directed autonomy" of science with respect to social influences
Case: The rise of biotechnology
Activity: Diagramming intersecting processes

Class 13 (5/17)
Taking Stock of Course: Where have we come and where do we go from here?
(Historical Scan and other activities)

Exhibit 1.B.ii
---------
Hardin's (1968) idea of the "tragedy of the commons" is widely invoked in discussions of conservation and natural resource management. In a hypothetical common pasture each herder in the community follows the same logic: "I will receive the benefit in the short run from increasing my herd by one animal; everyone will share any eventual cost of diminished pasture per animal; therefore I will add another animal to my herd." Overstocking and pasture degradation is thus inevitable. The same model has been applied to a range of environmental and social resources, from CO2 emissions to library books (Berkes et al. 1989).
Many environmental studies teachers use class simulations to introduce students to the "tragedy of the commons" and its implications. In the simulation I have designed students are herders, each of whom begins with a herd of the same size and with the same amount of cash. Each year they have an opportunity to buy cows to add to their herd, and they receive income from the sale of milk and excess calves. The herders tally their own individual accounts, while I sum up everyone's purchases and then announce the income per cow that I calculate everyone earned during the year from milk and calves. This income declines once the combined herd on the common pasture exceeds some threshold and the pasture becomes overgrazed. The only other stipulation is that on my own I make no more rules. Herders have to decide whether they want additional rules and how to get them implemented in their community..."
I invented this simulation after I analyzed computer modeling of a purported instance of the "tragedy of the commons" among nomadic pastoralists in sub-Saharan Africa ("Re/constructing socio-ecologies" 1992). This teaching, in turn led to a presentation at a workshop in 1994 that became an an article ("How does the commons become tragic" 1998; see attached p/reprints), a research visit in 1996 to a research center at Indiana University that focuses on the study of common property, and subsequently to my more recent presentations and writing, both in Environmental Studies ("What can agents do?" 1999; see attached p/reprints) and in teaching ES and STS together ("Critical tensions and non-standard lessons").

Exhibit 1.C.i (Limits and TOC) not yet included on the website

Exhibit 1.C.ib
---------
"In their work, people build on the current terms, tools, and subject matter of their field. At the same time, they use heuristics, often based on analogies and metaphors, to guide them beyond what is known and what has been done. The Limits emphasizes the second dimension of inquiry over the first, hoping to stimulate and contribute to work that might overcome the limitations in "natural and social scientific ways of knowing." The audience I have in mind consists of readers who are prepared to follow several interwoven arguments, explore with me in principle problems, be guided by heuristics, and have an appetite for open ends. For such readers the value of connecting a range of fields will, I believe, become clear; their particular inquiries will be enriched and given more coherence by the exploratory style and the transgression of disciplinary boundaries advocated in this book.
The Limits also aims to reach readers who emphasize the first dimension, but in a less direct manner. Many people, when confronted by claims that much of what had been taken for granted in their field should be questioned and approached differently, invoke the virtue of having specific hypotheses that can be readily tested or given empirical support. They tend to withhold their interest from abstract or unfamiliar ideas until someone has shown that the ideas can be put into practice in their field. This response favors incremental change in a field, but makes good pragmatic sense; it fits with my thesis that the acceptance of ideas is related to the actions those ideas facilitate. In practice, however, the first dimension never stands alone. Among any intellectual agent's web of resources, there are always some drawn from exploratory or metaphorical theorizing. Such theorizing is, moreover, a source of ideas about what else could be, about alternatives that can be placed in tension with established facts, theories, and practices--my definition of critical thinking. People's creativity, I believe, grows in proportion to the range of alternative themes and practices they can entertain. Work ready for deeper development results; tensions between what is now established and further alternatives can be explored. The Limits aims to mimic this iterative process of critical thinking and creativity, and to engender the same in its readers.

Exhibit 1.D.i
---------
Attachment-Provisional list of cases for the proposed text Peter Taylor
INTRODUCTION: READING & WRITING BIOLOGY
1. How did we get here? I -- Narratives of human origins
2. How many genders make up mankind? -- Bias in accounts of fertilization and sexual reproduction
3. What is a mother? -- Categories destabilized by scientific developments.
4. How did we get here? II -- Structural themes used in interpreting the record of life.
5. What is nature? -- Historical changes in meanings of "nature" in relation to changes in society.
EVOLUTION
6. How did Darwin try to convince people of Natural selection as the mechanism of evolution? -- Multiple layers of a scientific theory
7. Why does evolution matter in thinking about society? I: Darwin as a social darwinist and sociobiologist.
HEREDITY & DEVELOPMENT (subtheme: causes & their relation to favored views of social action)
8. Why are people so concerned about heredity? -- Galton, regression to the mean & eugenics
9. What causes a disease? -- the consequences of hereditarianism in the case of pellagra
10. How did genetics become synonymous with heredity? -- Multiple accounts of heredity in early 20C.
11. How are characters produced? -- Transmission vs. development.
12. How can development be organized? -- Metaphors of control and co-ordination.
13. How can development be modified? -- The social origins of depression.
14. Can genes determine characters like intelligence? To whom is this plausible? -- IQ & inheritance.
EVOLUTION REVISITED
15. Does Nature select? -- Selectionist vs. constructionist explanations of evolution.
16. Why does evolution matter in thinking about society? II: Social messages
REPRODUCTIVE INTERVENTIONS (subtheme: scientists working within a field of economics, politics & moral responsibility)
17. Who benefits from scientific progress? I: The breeding of hybrid corn
18. Who benefits from scientific progress? II: The green revolution
19. How autonomous can science be from social influences? -- The rise of biotechnology
20-23. Who sets limits on the engineering of human reproduction? -- Gene therapy & pre-natal diagnosis & intervention (incl. histories of Down syndrome as the mother's problem, and of PKU screening and treatment).
ECOLOGICAL and ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
24. For whom is population growth the problem? -- Attention to the dynamics among unequal groups can qualitatively change one's analysis of environmental problems
25. When are resources held in common degraded "tragically"? -- The hidden complexity in simple formulations
26. How do we know "we" have "global" environmental problems? -- Causes proposed & their relation to favored views of social action
27 and 28. How can we discipline, without suppressing the complexities of environmental, scientific, and social change? -- Political ecological analyses of environmental degradation and conservation projects.

Exhibit 1.D.ii not yet included on the website

Exhibit 1.E.ii not yet included on the website

Exhibit 1.E.V, flyer not yet included on the website, but see Changing Life webpage

Exhibit 2.A.i
---------
Before, during, and after class--Critical thinking about course readings and discussions

CCT courses aim to help students become reflective practitioners (or "practicing reflectors"). We want you to questions actively what you are reading and doing--not just during class time, but all the time. In this spirit, the class meetings are designed assuming that you will have already done quite a bit of thinking, formulated questions, and connected the week's topics to previous week's topics and to your own interests and projects. Furthermore, after class you are expected to reflect on the class and integrate new perspectives into your notes, preparation for subsequent classes, and your developing projects. This style of teaching/learning may differ from previous courses, but we trust you can get into the swing of it.
Various components of the course are intended to contribute to this reflection/critical thinking:

1. Weekly Questions. Weekly handouts contain background notes and questions to guide your reading and preparation for class. Sometimes, in addition, questions are included for reflection after the class. Indeed, sometimes you might get more from a reading after experiencing the activities during the class.

2. A Journal with responses to and notes on readings, class discussions, clippings, and weekly questions. Through writing in your journal, you will be better able to weave the course material into your own thinking and practice, and to bring your own thinking into class activities. In preparation for class, you might write in your journal a commentary on readings, or, after class, review the readings and the class activities. In either case explore, when appropriate, the relationship between your work/interests and the readings/activities. We suggest carrying it with you at all times, so you can make entries when ideas come to you.
Journals will be collected for perusal twice during the semester. Bind together pages with post-its or otherwise indicate which bits you do not want us to look at. We want to get an overall impression of your developing process of critical thinking about course readings and discussions.

3. Annotated clippings. To provide grist for your critical thinking, collect clippings and xeroxes of articles from newspapers, magazines, journals, and websites. Use post-its or journal entries to add your own reflections on specific points in the articles you choose, especially where you think critical thinking is needed. Write the full citation on each article, unless it is already included. Submit the clippings twice with the journal. (Some students tape the clippings into their journal and comment on them as they collect them. Others fold and staple them to fit a 3 holed binder.)

4. Submit thoughtpieces at least every two weeks during the semester. The first versions of these may be extracts from your journal, but, depending on the tightness and legibility of your writing, you might revise and type up something you'd been writing more loosely in the journal. We comment on these thoughtpieces, and then you revise and resubmit them in response to our comments. The final result may be structured more like a very short paper....

Exhibit 2.B.i
---------
Learning through dialogue around written work

I try to create a dialogue with each student around written work, that is, around your writing, my responses, and your responses in turn. I am still learning how to engage students in this, given your various backgrounds and dispositions, and my own. Central to this teaching/learning interaction are requests to "Revise and Resubmit." The idea is not that you make changes to please the teacher or to meet some standard, but that as a writer you use the eye of others to develop your own thinking and make it work better on readers. I continue to request revision when I judge that the interaction can still yield significant learning; the request does not mean your (re)submission was "bad." Even when the first submissions of written assignments are excellent, angles for learning through dialogue are always opened up.
In my comments I try to capture where the writer was taking me and make suggestions for how to clarify and extend the impact on readers of what was written. After letting my comments sink in, you may conclude that I have missed the point. In this case, my misreading should stimulate you to revise so as to help readers avoid mistaking the intended point. If you do not understand the directions I saw in your work or those I suggest for the revision, a face-to-face or phone conversation is the obvious next step--written comments have definite limitations when writers and readers want to appreciate and learn from what each other is saying and thinking. Please talk to me immediately if you do not see how you are benefitting from the "Revise and resubmit" process.

I keep carbon copies of my comments, but when you submit revisions, please resubmit the previous version(s) with my marginal notes. Please revise and resubmit promptly. The yield for your learning is lower if you are no longer thinking about what you were at the time you wrote.
A minimum of two in-office or phone conferences are required. I want to reduce the chance that you avoid dialogue around comments on written work. Through such dialogue profound issues are sometimes opened up about one's relationship to audience and influencing others.
Read chapters 3 and 13 of Peter Elbow's Writing With Power for a wealth of insight about the processes of sharing written work and revising with feedback. See also Elbow's SUMMARY OF KINDS OF RESPONSES, included with the readings. The course website also has links to some Notes on writing and revising, including Freewriting suggestions.
I encourage you to make use of class meetings and the list of others students' phone numbers to arrange pair peer sharing and commenting according to whatever terms you pre-arrange. This will enable you to expand the kinds of readers to whom you are responding and to avoid a common trap, namely, writing as if the reader is the professor who knows enough about your topic and thinking to fill in what isn't explicit or clearly stated.
In addition to dialogue around comments, some of the assignments, such as the annotated bibliography or making notes on readings, can be thought of as an active dialogue with others who are not physically present. Such dialogue helps you to think deeply about ways that the information you are reading, listening to, or writing about connects with and perhaps alters your course project and your work more generally.

Rationale for the Assessment system

The rationale for not grading the different assignments and granting an automatic B+ for 80% satisfactory completion* is to keep the focus on your developing through the semester. It allows more space for students and instructor to appreciate and learn from what each other is saying and thinking (see Learning from dialogue above). My goal is to work with everyone to achieve the 80% satisfactory completion level. Students who progress steadily towards that goal during the semester usually end up producing work that meets the criteria for a higher grade than a B+ (see rubric in syllabus).

* Satisfactory completion for written assignments means you must submit the assignment, revise in response to comments, and resubmit it promptly until marked OK/RNR = "OK, Resubmission Not Requested." For the final report to be OK/RNR, you must have revised in response to comments on the draft. I sometimes request revise and resubmit on final reports. If not enough time is left for revisions, I submit an incomplete grade or, if you specifically ask me to do this, calculate and submit a final grade without an OK/RNR for the report.

Exhibit 2.B.ii not yet included on the website

Exhibit 2.C.i not yet included on the website

Exhibit 2.C.ii not yet included on the website

Exhibit 2.C.iii
---------
Practicum CCT 698, Fall '98
Teresa Castro
Research Design

Topic: Grassroots Cultural Production. (Part of my project is to define this term for myself--what follows are some working definitions.)

grass roots n 1: soil at or near the surface 2: society at the local level esp. in rural areas as distinguished from the centers of political leadership <cultural changes occurring at the grass roots -C.A. Buss> 3: the very foundation or source (Webster's, 1977)

grassroots. "A way to influence people's opinions or actions, a way to educate people, and a way to empower community members that is community-driven and centered around people and their needs. Like it sounds, the roots of these efforts germinate in the community and sprout out to involve others who share a concern." (John Leary, Jenny Harvey, research briefing, 4/23/98)

grassroots cultural production: The production and dissemination of art and ideas outside of or in opposition to the mechanisms and practices of corporate/mainstream media (which is produced by 1% of the world population, approx. 10 multinationals) a.k.a. 'mass' media.

Controlling Question: How does grassroots cultural production sustain itself financially, how is it funded?

Project: To learn what 'grassroots cultural production' means in practice. To fine-tune my definition of the term (or develop a more precise term). To connect with other groups or individuals who are trying to create and distribute art outside of the traditional mechanisms of cultural production (esp. the production/dissemination/performance of poetry, storytelling, political theater). To learn how these groups or individuals sustain themselves financially.

Controversy, arguments/sub-arguments: What are the politics surrounding cultural production? What does the term 'mass' media mean? Who are the traditional gatekeepers of culture in our society? How does the current economic climate influence the production of culture in our society? What are the traditional mechanisms of cultural production and why might one seek alternatives to them? What are the texts or informants who can help me with these questions?

Why: I am a member of (and helping to build) an art collective. My research project and questions stem from my desire to enlarge the collective's options for income. One of our challenges right now is to discover how we can fund ourselves without being dependent upon the traditional gatekeepers of culture to publish and distribute our work? We want to learn all the possible funding options available to us and also devise our own funding strategies.

The next 2 1/2 months: What do I want to see happening in my project? Do I want to influence someone to do something? Action proposals? What do I want to accomplish within the next 2 1/2 months?

At the end of this course I want to have a portfolio of funding options for my collective. The options might range from grant sources to revenue producing 'products' which we want to create. Do I want to influence someone to do something? Perhaps part of the portfolio will be a list of organizations or individuals that we want to approach for direct funding.

Foreseeable difficulties: What might block me in the process? (1) I am just one member of a collective so much of what I do must be discussed with everyone else involved. This takes a great deal of time and energy. (2) Also, the rest of our work involves writing and working together to create performances...this work is much more enjoyable so I notice that I tend to spend more time on the art making and less time on the business process (this project). (3) Defining the controversies underlying grassroots cultural production is important to my project but I could see myself spending more time on this aspect because it involves familiar territory (reading, discussing with others, writing) vs. focusing on the funding question which might involve new methods of problem solving.

What can I do about these difficulties: How can I deal with these obstacles? What directions might I need to take? (1) I can do a lot of information gathering alone and bring this back to the collective. We can decide, as a group, what we want to do with the information. We can also brainstorm together on the funding question. (2) I need to remember why I'm thinking about the funding question in the first place-because I love the work we do and I want us to be able to do it on a full-time basis vs. part-time, squeezed in between the other work we do to support ourselves. (3) I want to clearly define what I think the political and economic issues surrounding cultural production are-I need to understand a system or process before I can subvert it. But I've already done a lot of work toward this and can give myself a deadline to keep this part of my research finite. If I can remain in dialogue with my research timetable, I'll have a way to check my progress and revise my process if I get bogged down or stuck.

Research timetable: Achievable steps and schedule with rationale (the why) for each step:

Macro to do's
1. Use argument/sub-argument process (and readings/interviews/past papers I've written) to define the controversy or issue underlying the funding question--the why of the project. If I can articulate this, I will have an easier time organizing the material I gather and also conducting my interviews. (finish by Nov. 1.)
2. Ask the collective if they want to do a mapping exercise on the funding question to brainstorm around the topic. (ask this week)
3. Schedule meeting with first informant. Discuss questions with collective and see if any members want to be in on the conversation. (first week of Nov)
4. Start working through informant/information list (see below). This list is extensive but as I progress through it and gather new information, I can prioritize and revise it.
5. Consolidate work the collective has already done on the issue of funding/income (i.e. lists we've drafted of possible sources, emails such as my alternative press proposal). (by Nov. 1)
6. Keep daily log of progress made-to keep a meta perspective on the overall process/progress of the work. (started 10/12)
7. What is the final document for my project going to look like? Can I write as I go along? What do I want to include? Do I want to report on the entire process of working through my question? If so, the daily log will be a great help. See JHarvey doc. and start to think about where/how all the information I'm gathering can be presented.

Micro to do's
1. Keep/maintain a list of tools that are useful to the problem solving process (tools introduced in Practicum & Creative Thinking course) (already started)
2. Emails: The collective does a lot of its work/discussion via email. Save everything to portfolio file. Print out/organize relevant emails for project workbook. (ongoing)

1/2 way check in (Nov. 10): At this date, I should check on my progress and decide what still needs to be done in order to revise process accordingly.

Informants/Information gathering: Who is currently involved in grassroots cultural production? Who can help me with my funding/income questions?

I've consolidated a list of possible information sources. I'm not sure if every person/organization on this list will be of use to me but this is a first draft of possible leads.
1. MKweeder: This informant does economic advocacy for poor and immigrant women who run their own cooperative businesses. She agreed to talk with the collective about fundraising, and creative forms of income generation.
2. United for a Fair Economy. http://www.stw.org I want to order a text they produced for political theater, "The Activist Cookbook: Creative Actions for a Fair Economy" and also a copy of "Corporate Power and the American Dream" a workbook from the Labor Institute. If I want more information I can speak with Stephen Collins about how they fund themselves. UFE is a good source of information regarding our current economic context--their newsletter alone was an educational experience for me.
3. AWalsh: This informant started an art collective in Somerville this year. She is dealing with a lot of the same questions we are dealing with and it would be useful to share information with her about the process of building a collective and maintaining it.
4. KHall: She promised to email me a list of good 'try out' performance spaces in the Boston area. (Email her for list.)
5. AHannan: Head of ToolBox productions and local performance poet. She produces a weekly/monthly cabaret in the Boston area. (How does she fund her productions? How does she support herself?)
6. Look up the New Society Press url. (lead from PT, publishing info category)
7. Look up the ICA, (see contact info on print outs from PT website)
8. PT website: It has text references and group process info relevant to my project. (download useful info)
9. Professor Gail Dines. A sociologist who analyzes 'mass' media and society from an economic point of view. Can get her contact info. from Prof. Tirrell. I could ask her for information on media activism, i.e. texts, local groups I should know about, etc.
10. Local grant library. Associated Grantmakers of Massachusetts. Boston, MA. (I've been meaning to visit this library for a year and keep putting it off. See if another collective member might come with, schedule a time and GO.)
11. Boston Public Library. The BPL has a grant search section. (same as above).
12. The Center for Women and Enterprise. Boston, MA. (Ask CWeber if this organization would be of any assistance to my project--in terms of information gathering.)
13. Feminist Theory website. http://www.utc.edu/~kswitala/Feminism/ This site contains information on 30 different fields within Feminist Theory, including literature, politics, philosophy, anthropology, aesthetics, etc. It also provides information on feminism in 70 different countries and U.S. ethnic groups. In addition, the site gives the complete biographies of 40 individual feminists.
14. A national listing of current art/education community centers: The Presidential Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, Suite 526, Dept. P, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20506. (Send for this.) 15. IKlein, Jewish Organizing Initiative (JOI): I want to know more about this group and how they got started. (RSVP for their Oct. 29 event, attend with C.S.)

Existing art and/or education collectives with similar philosophies and goals--possible information sources. (Revisit this list when I've clearer idea of what my questions are and how the following might be of assistance.) 1. Bread and Puppet Theatre, VT. 2. The Women's Center, Cambridge, MA. 3. The Women's Educational and Industrial Union, Boston, MA. 4. The Elizabeth Stone House, Jamaica Plain, MA.

Local art centers that provide low cost training, access to equipment and work space in various media--possible information sources. (Same as above.) 1. The Boston Film and Video, Boston, MA. 2. Cambridge Community Access Television, Cambridge, MA. 3. Worchester Crafts Center, Worchester, MA. 4. Brick Bottom, Somerville, MA. 5. Adult Education Centers in Cambridge, Boston, Brookline, MA.

Publications. The following are just few publications through which I can look for like-minded art communities and publicize the collective's work. 1. Fact Sheet 5. This is a directory that evaluates and publicizes zines from all over the country and abroad. 2. Sojourner, Boston, MA. 3. Women of Power, Orleans, MA.

Interviewing: Much of my information will probably come from conversations/interviews vs. texts so I will need a clear, organized set of questions with which to approach each informant (have this by Nov. 1). I'm already feeling a bit scattered just from pulling together my list of informants/information sources. hmm...controlling question? How does grassroots cultural production fund itself? And why am I asking this again? Because I want to develop a portfolio of funding options for my collective.

new foreseeable difficulty: Working through my informant/information list could be a chaotic experience. Organizing information derived from conversation might be more difficult than integrating information derived through texts.

what can I do about it: I can prioritize my list so that I am mixing fact finding interviews with textual research (i.e. grant library, BPL). I can use my daily log to keep focused on my controlling question (and chart progress toward its resolution). As I work through my list I can develop category-lists to organize disparate but linked information (i.e. list of performance spaces in Boston, list of possible grants to pursue, etc). Put category-lists idea in Macro to do's section.

Annotated Bibliography (w/ rationale): My bibliography is still focused on the controversy/argument part of my project. As I work through my informant/information list, I might discover texts relevant to my controlling question (which I can add to my biblio.) but I don't want to get bogged down with a lot of reading since I suspect much of the information I need, I can find through interviews.

Tirrell, Lynne. "Definition and Power: Toward Authority without Privilege." Hypatia vol. 8, no. 4 (Fall 1993). (gives good analysis of how communities of resistance need to tackle social, and not just discursive, practices to create real/lasting social change)

*Tirrell, Lynne. "Language and Power." A Companion to Feminist Philosophy, ed. Alison M. Jaggar and Iris Marion Young. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1998. (a good primer for the feminist philosophy of language, might not be integral to my work right now...peruse and decide)

*Tirrell, Lynne. "Storytelling and Moral Agency." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 48:2 Spring 1990. (strong analysis of discursive strategies of survival for marginalized voices/perspectives)

*Dines, Gail. [The Production and Consumption of Inequality] transcript from talk given Spring '98 at UMass on pornography and hate speech. (look for published copy) (can use but can't quote from...she gives a great economic analysis of how political exclusion works via corporate media)

*Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996. (for concise mainstream, socially oblivious conception of culture, gatekeepers, domains and field experts)

Cull from essays I've already written, relevant information:

1. see paper on politics of truth, feminist critical pedagogy and epistemology (fall '97) 2. see paper on economic injustice (spring'98)-using critiques from liberation theology to analyze imperialism and market capitalism. "the exclusionary laws of the neo-liberal market system" (Tamez, Amnesty of Grace) 3. see research design for collective (spring '98)

* denotes texts I've already read.

Where to go from here: As part of this research design presentation, I used some sense-making protocol (from part 1). If Peter and the class are willing, we could use some of 'part 2' (see week 3 handout) to frame/guide feedback. I'd especially be interested in hearing what aspects of my design need clarification ("I wanted to know more about..., I struggled with..., I would have been helped by..., I think Teresa might consider...").

Where to go from here: Feedback from PT and group. (notes for follow-up)

1) re: being intimidated by the task of talking to lots of people. suggestion: get a live or telephone buddy to check in with you each day until it becomes routine for you to be scheduling and having meetings with informants. (ask Caraway to act as a check-in buddy.)

2) re: keeping on top of the potential chaos of information these informants provide. advice: it won't be as chaotic as it looks at the outset, _provided_ you allow yourself as you go to revise/refine your angle into/on the topic of funding grassroots cultural production. if you feel less secure in this endeavor than synthesizing ideas from published literature, don't retreat into books, but process this with the buddy as well. (discuss w/ Caraway and also Peg. use daily log to revise/refine.)

3) re: funding sources. Look for 'how to' books on the topic of writing grant proposals. (do search, add titles to funding bibliography.)

4) re: networking. Seek out more established, local artists who can describe their funding strategies. (this is already in the design.)

Exhibit 2.D.i not yet included on the website

Exhibit 2.D.ii
---------
Subject: Reply to Mapping and RA/TAing
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:04:34 -0400

Peter,

Thanks for the note about mapping.....for me, I didn't think that the mapping exercise went that well either...... upon reflection:

1) perhaps I wasn't being as "open" to what people were saying as I could have been (too many people spouting too many different ideas for me to process too quickly as well as trying to overcome the mental set of "i know what i'm doing and where i am going") (Even so, I did get some ideas to expand and focus upon)

2) I really didn't understand what a lot of people were saying to me when they were saying it (I believe this is what is meant by feeling "brain-dead").

As I believe you said, this type of mapping exercise allows an individual to expand on possibilities. Input from others is crucial for this to happen........perhaps changing the assignment somewhat might help with the "probing" part.........have each student bring a map to class (with 2 or 3 copies) (student might have to have this map ready before they make a first appointment with you). Then break up into small groups of 3 or 4 (the mapper and 2 or 3 others).....give a 1/2 hour (surely that was almost the amount of time we spent on me) in the small group for each person to present and get feed-back from the other individuals in the group. (I thought the last part of class with individual mapping and feedback was great) You, as the instructor and facillitator might wander from group to group or just listen in casually, to get another, less formal idea of what students are trying to do as well as to add your own input. At the end of the session.......each participant gets one minute to report to the whole group....about anything....

Sincerely,

[xxx]
Exhibit 2.D.ii
---------
CCT Practicum
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:45:05 -0500
To: peter.taylor@umb.edu
From: yyy
Subject: feedback on presentation and course

hi Peter,
In response to your request for feedback on the presentation process I've the following comments. I certainly didn't mean to be so long winded but you bring a great deal of integrity (not to mention time and energy) to the course hence your efforts deserve thoughtful feedback. I send my comments in good faith.

1) First, I think the exercise was really helpful as a clarification process. Initially, I was pretty uncomfortable with the fact that you opened the presentations to a wider audience. But having to explain/describe my work to a mixed audience (some w/ prior knowledge of my project, some w/ none) forced me to start peeling back my own assumptions and tacit 'self-evident' ideas that required further explanation. I didn't really get to a point in the presentation process where I could communicate a clear outline of my work and where it's going, but this is more due to where I am in the overall iterative process. For me the most useful thing about preparing for the presentation was that I discovered where I was in relation to my project goals and what I needed to do to achieve them.

2) Second, I had trouble with the different goals for the presentation exercise. I understood one of the goals to be more clarification for the presenter via the process of describing his/her project and getting feedback from the group. And another goal was to practice trying to get an audience excited about one's project and perhaps persuade them to take a certain action or see an issue in a new way. I understand that these goals can be complementary but because I have no experience presenting my ideas to a formal audience, it was really hard for me to attend to both goals. For me, one major challenge was simply to get up in front of a group of people and speak for 10 minutes. I think the first goal was something I could attend to much more effectively when we practiced presenting in our sub-groups last week. In the sub-group presentation, I got a some really useful feedback in part because I wasn't trying to influence or persuade but simply describe, in an open manner, where I was w/ my project. I don't want to set-up a false dilemma here. As I said, I can see how one could attend to both goals in a presentation but I think I needed more time between our sub-group practice and the more formal presentation exercise. Also, I find it hard to think of persuading an audience with my ideas when the overall framework for my ideas is not yet completely clear to me. (Again, this may be more a result of where I am in the class--I didn't think I was behind but perhaps I am.) I think it would have been easier for me to give a formal presentation of my project after I had written a first full draft of my final report. At that point I would have developed a clear framework for my project but any feedback on the presentation would be of use in clarifying what still needed to more fully articulated in my final draft.

3) I really appreciate the tools and exercises that you introduce to us in class. But/And, when we don't have enough time to fully explore a new tool in class and are expected to integrate it into our iterative process, I start to feel like the tool turns into a drain instead of a resource. When a tool exist primarily on your handout and we don't have enough time to discuss it fully, I find it hard to integrate that tool (which is completely new to me) into my learning process. This wasn't the case with the presentation exercise--relative to some of the other things we've worked through, we spent a goodly amount of time on that. I'm thinking of things like the sense making exercise or the question pyramid or even the nested/connected outline. When I see in the handout that I'm expected to try something new but we haven't discussed it in class, my first assumption is that I must have missed something that everyone else knows about. This is a bit disorienting and frustrating. I know you've said that you don't want us to see the assignments/tools as hoops but you've also said that you want us to try out what you introduce...and this seemed to be something you were looking for when you reviewed our workbooks.

Perhaps what I'm discussing is due to the size of the class and the amount of time we have (or don't have). I think the practicum would be best as a seminar but given the size of the CCT student population and the fact that the practicum is a required course, it's probable that the course will always comprise at least 12 if not more at any given time.

I hope I haven't inundated you with too much critique...and I hope my
comments are of use to you in thinking about how the course can be more
effective and empowering for its participants.
sincerely,
[yyy]

Critical & Creative Thinking 698, Fall 1998
Practicum: Processes of Research & Engagement

In this course students choose a current social or educational issue that concerns them, i.e., they want to know more about it, advocate a change, or design an intervention or engagement. They work through the different stages of research and action--from defining a manageable project to communicating their findings and plans for further work.

Terese Byrne
Developing an instrument to measure fourth grade students' understanding of analogies before and after focused instruction

Lizzie Casanave
Educating for improvement in empathy and communication

Teresa Castro
An intervention to support grassroots cultural production

Ellen Fogarty
A learning style approach to curriculum design

Kelley Freeman
Orchestrating critical and creative thinking in the elementary school curriculum

Alan Goldman
Addressing the inadequacies of information available on the internet: The prospect for technical measures

Jenny Robicheau
A leadership model for higher education: Development training for professionals in student affairs

Elin Schran
Creativity as a tool for teaching skating and helping skaters deal with stress

Catherine Weber
Creativity empowerment for women: developing and delivering life-changing workshops

Barbara Wickwire
Finding voice: Turning fragments into stories. My ongoing journey towards teaching memoir to enhance the journeys of the community college student

Questions for Gallery Walk -- CCT685, Class 1

1. What changes (big & small) are being pursued in teaching, schools, and educational policy?

2. What kinds of experience prepare teachers, administrators, and policy makers to pursue change in constructive ways?

3. What things would tell us that positive educational changes had happened?

4. What do you hope will come from this semester's experience?
insert excerpt from patton briefing

Introduction to Critical Thinking
to do

small group roles to be modeled first, and to include task of getting unprepared students linked in.
splice together new & old manifestos

in future
terms from class 1 on sheets, brought back to future classes (following Tishman model)
question retrospectively obvious

Tishman for teachers, optional for others

Annotate syllabus with a story (see PT's manifesto)
bring in PT's manifesto around week 3 or 4.

restructure course around reliable knowledge with which to do something
then open up alternatives to get at more reliable given allies who are prepared to work with additional thinking

restructure course around cr. th. journey
diane paul as guest re: thinking about risk

/revise CIQ

date for Paul book
and initials of Warren

/learning experience options to include something related to a l.e. in workplace, but do-able by CCT601ers & something that student cal learn from running
assistants: practice run, compiling feedback, giving feedback, sounding board
l.e. -> critical thinking experience for participants, and learning for leader about how to run these

/left out
- as a guide on technical matters of writing scholarly papers: Turabian, K. L. (1996). A Manual For Writers of Term papers, Theses, and Disertations. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Post-class reading, week ??:

how to include Mary Ann Wolff/Saul

/deloresg about CT & empathy & readings
/deloresg & other CCTers about difficulties implementing CT
roy d. -- ideas

foundation for critical thinking via www.sonoma.edu/cthink/

dialogical reasoning

although the course is not about any specific subject, it is about setting up practices that extend CT, incl. meta-practices of getting support for such practices

sex differences CT exercise

!Kung frame of reference exercise

empathy buildup on p. 115 of my notebook

set context for 11a.

refreshments coordinator(s), food ready before the break, clean up afterwards -- with no help from prof (frees us up to talk with students), no eating during class.

/start run throughs earlier to give others a model
/keep the l.e.'s individual, but with assistance

/assistance = did a run through in front of each other, discussed the projects, spoke on the phone, gave suggestions, e.g., relating it to the class
make clearer & less optional in syllabus
schedules & location make it difficult to practice in front of each other, but feedback on each others proposals and class presentations (p'raps by email)
easy to assist because partner was in study group they'd formed (able to accept insights as valuable & helpful)

algorithm for inventing cr. heuristics; separate the two themes, i.e., cr. heuristic + action-knowing

blame, responsibility, cause, sole responsibility (to other= none to oneself), joint+partial responsibility

case study on affirmative action using layers of dworkin's aricle from NYRB fall 98. change merit to qualification. extend from elite schools to all schools. open up resistances of students and public (anticipate alienating some students who would accuse us of PC -- use heuristic that an alternative position will help them understand their own -- nothing much is at stake, b/c we're not changing the world, so it can't hurt for people to sort out ideas -- they're not being forced to accept ours or graded on parrotting ours...)

an activity with less freight -- scallop fishing on georges bank.
--extinction of megafauna in australia
--fear of being connected with gayness

don't hand out my popdialogue until after the crit. heur. class

create links sites for courses

/weave the portfolios into second submission of journal, but with same goals
/encourage all to prepare, not only good students

/require draft on learning experience, but not include this as a separate assignment.

/rubric for B+, A-, A for process & presentation

**Points in response to other issues you raised in your notes:
--different curriculum areas & levels will emerge in the journal entries and learning activities students design, less so in the class activities we are designing.

/--individual conferences: 2 required, one with each of us. Scheduled around weeks 3-4 and around weeks 8-10

--First assignment (journal excerpt) goes to AM if last name begins with A-J and PT if begins L-Z. Same person reads revisions. For subsequent assignments students alternate who it is submitted to. Students keep track of that (as best they can). We both keep a grade sheet and combine them at the end. The 2'ry person in any week notes attendance.

CIQs: 1'ry person reads them first & passes them to the other at the Thurs. meeting. Together we decide what to modify and select what to report to the next class.

EO exercise -- give more prefacing of the EO exercise
From email: If you could distill the actual steps and give us just those in a handout, and present the objectives, method, tips, etc., of the exercise as a spoken preface, I think that would streamline things considerably. (I realize that if I had been at the first class meeting and been prepared for last night's class, perhaps I wouldn't be seeing the situation quite this way.)

/keep the assistant role in CT activity
/clarify that CT activity involves activity (sometimes lecturing is a learning experience, but that's not our emphasis)
keep the form of feedback for CT activity -- students gave affirming & different feedback

from AM: simplify the assessment process and provide more guidance about what is required for A, A-, etc. [address with rubric for A & A-; TA to supervise assignment in/out; list due dates in syllabus]

-----
from written evaluations `99
dissatisfaction with large class size [address class size early & enlist students in taking on the challenge of learning from each other without everything endorsed by profs.]
initial clarification needed of course requirements, expectations, early "ambiguity"
"confusing" [address with: models from previous years; explanation of course build up of processing (by alum of course); exhortation to take risks (confusing = open-ended); insistence on early assignments so dialogue around written work can begin; quotes ("the professors do have aims and goals, be patient while they become clear"); and point to the advantages of students finding their own reconciliation (see Manifestos)]
time needed to bring activities to closure, for more whole group feedback, to wrap up class at the end [address with: TA support, so I'm not involved in set-up, food, assignments in-out & handouts; quicker time for break; fewer activities in a class.]
Gallo reading often mentioned positively [review and work more into class discussion]
readings not addressed explicitly in class/ "too much rigidity in what & how I was allowed to get out of the reading" [mistaken view by student -- address by noting diversity of ways people draw lessons from reading over and above the actual way the activity picks up on reading (which is definitely not the only way to draw from reading), encourage journalling on othere messages from the readings..]
"more focused in class assignments lead to more critical responses" [not all students feel that way. in any case, establishing small group roles/routines early should help
didn't like tension/difference between professors [some of this was to model process, some was us allowing ourselves to learn about working with each other on the job]
"insist on student-centered learning" [for many students there was less prof-directed learning than they were accustomed to, so altho' my long-term goal might be to convert course to PBL, a lot of preparation would be needed to produce a graded set of cases]
didn't like profs. not viewing all the learning experience presentations [address by starting these earlier so as not to have more than two concurrent sessions]
journal requirement (ubiquitous in CCT courses) discriminated against students who don't journal [the student writing this avoided reflection on readings in relation to her own thinking and revision in response to comments. and this showed in the lack of development of her thinking. it looked like she was just fulfilling requirements, as in fact she admitted, and was not inquiring into the rationale of the assignments and activities -- in fact, she also asked for elimination of the extended syllabus material (notes on teaching/learning interactions). but, how to reach out to such difficult students? the student provides a clue in that she really appreciated Diane Moore's Moral Education -- check into the requirements and processes of that course]
class is too late after a day's work [address by inquiring about effectiveness of policy of 2 course slots/ evening in GCOE, especially because it's not uniformly adopted]
(no) grading scheme interpreted by one student as putting quantity before quality, by another student as an incentive to do sloppy work the first time, and (via conversations) by other students as busy work [address explaining early and gently pushing the dialogic goals of the revise & resubmit process. (Keep in mind that some students came to express strong appreciation of the process, and many wrote of valuing the feedback on their work.) ]

re: description
description describes theory behind the course, not the course [i.e., not the experience of class activities -- address with exercise of asking students to write a course description at various points during the course]
didn't know what the goals meant at the beginning
dealt with irrationality, but not error
light on translating into teaching situations [except for learning experience work, lesson plan remodeling. This was in part because we had fewer teachers than previous years]

about evaluation process
difficult to get students to do self-evaluation without more tutoring [address by more tutoring on the day & journalling earlier]
difficult to get students through to synthetic statement [address by returning to the room to coach them through the last stages]
the range of comments, sometimes opposite, but always various, are important -- difficult to summarize & quantitative summaries obscure the range

thoughts from evaluations
put full set of evaluations on reserve for future students
review CIQs from the semester
"difficult" students (see E's & A's evaluations) [address by making time to talk to them early, rather than avoiding them because they're difficult, leave early, don't appreciate course...]

Critical Thinking CrCrTh601 Spring 1999

Course evaluation activity, class 14

Course evaluations have four potential audiences:
The professors -- to guide them in continuing to develop the course
Future students -- to guide them in choosing courses, and knowing what to expect
Current students -- to allow them to take stock of how to get the most from courses and teachers in the future
Colleagues and superiors -- to make decisions about promotions and about support to give to courses

On its own, a course evaluation gives a status report. In conjunction with previous evaluations, it gives a report on the on-going development of the course. (A course that is OK but unchanging is different from course that is OK but the professors are actively involved in improving it.) As a rule of thumb, evaluations work better if they begin with appreciations and then proceed to things that might be developed further/differently. When evaluators begin and focus on critical comments, these are less likely to be heard and addressed.

The following activity is designed to be useful to all four audiences. The final result will be 6-8 synthetic group statements (see 3 below). Given that we haven't used this process before and one of us (PT) is new to teaching the course, the final result will be more of a status report than a report on the on-going development of the course.

1. Individual written self-evaluation and general evaluation (with carbon copy) (10 minutes)

2. Groups of 4 -- discussion (15 minutes)
a. Select facilitator/timer to read out each step, keep the process moving along, and get all to talk.
b. Every person relates high/lowlights that emerged from the writing in 1.
c. General discussion primed by b.
d. Before moving to 3. select a person to synthesize the sentences or phrases that will be produced in 3. The synthesists must commit themselves to i) make a rough draft on the spot (with a carbon copy), submit this tonight, ii) use to carbon copy to type up and submit a neater version later, and iii) stay behind class tonight to complete the GCOE evaluation.

3. Individually and Groups of 4 -- Preparation of synthesis.
a. Individually compose sentences or phrases of a) appreciation and b) things that might be developed further/differently (5-7 minutes). Please make comments both to help us develop the course in the future and to enable colleagues and superiors and future students appreciate the course's strengths and weaknesses. Imagine readers who may not be willing to wade through all the notes from the individual written self- and course evaluations, but are willing to do more than look at numerical averages from the GCOE evaluations. Among other things, you might comment on the overall content and progression of classes, the content and activities of specific classes, and the value of the different teaching/learning processes.
b. Give sentences and phrases to the synthesist.
c. Synthesist composes a synthetic statement (1 or 2 paragraphs) evaluating this course, with carbon copy (10-12 minutes).
d. Others get GCOE evaluation forms and complete these.
e. When the synthesist is finished, someone else reads their draft and comments are made for revision (5-7 minutes).

4. Submit evaluations -- students keep carbon copies
a. GCOE evaluations in one envelope (to be given to GCOE).
b. Top copies of individual written evaluations and draft synthetic statements in the second envelope.
None of these will be read until grades are submitted.

Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
CCT 601 Evaluation of Class from our Small Group

1. Try to limit class size; class size impacts the whole outcome.

2. De-compose the syllabus. Simplify it and donít write a second explanation. Do it once and get it right.

3. Would be better to read less and go into the material in depth.

4. The structure of submitting and receiving papers needs to be clear. The feedback is excellent but the process is messy. Professors look foolish when they lose studentsí materials.

5. Some of us think the journals should have been done earlier on a specific schedule. Others think they wanted to write only when they have something worth saying.

6. We liked the role play; wanted more challenging of the materials.

7. The learning experiences could have had more time.

8. Good things-good dialogues in class. Lots of openness. The food was a social component. Good atmosphere for learning.

9. Card storming was a good activity. Could have done more of that.

10. The feedback was excellent. We know both faculty members are genuinely interested in our learning.

11. You could talk less and listen more to the class.

Other comments
Positive
Professors put in significant effort to make this class work. This was appreciated.
There was good bonding of students.
The effort at making for a good social atmosphere was appreciated, such as name tags.

Negative
Too much information, too little time.
Better organization needed.
More tension needed between ideas.