Thinking Critically About Society: An Introduction to Sociology Teaching Resource Guide Russell Westhaver Chapter 7 Social Relationships and Human Culture Learning Outcomes “Social Relationships, Differences, and Commonality”: students should be able to describe how the major concepts of social status position (Chapter 5) and social institution (Chapter 6) emphasize differences but not commonality. “Human Culture: Ideas, Things, and Transformation”: students should be able to define the term “culture.” “Ways of Thinking about Human Culture and Transformation”: students should be able to describe the differences between these two approaches and explain why it is not necessary to choose between the two. “Human Culture and Its Contributions to Sociological Thinking”: students should be able explain how the concept of culture helps us think about differences as much as about commonalities and about our relationship to the natural world. “Human Culture, the Sociological Imagination, and Critical Thinking”: students should be able to explain how culture contributes to the sociological imagination as well as explain how using culture to think about the sociological imagination is an expression of critical thinking. 1/2. Social Relationships, Differences, and Commonality/Human Culture: Ideas, Things, and Transformation In the first section of this chapter students are given an opportunity to identify how some major sociological concepts emphasize difference as they account for the human experience while other major sociological concepts emphasize commonalities. Those instructors who drew on Adams’ (1993) kinship diagram exercise (introduced in chapter 5) can return to this teaching tool to help students understand this distinction. The crux of Adams’ (1993) exercise, suitable for larger classes, involves asking students develop a kinship-diagram in order to identify their second cousins. It is useful for illustrating the meaning of social status position, social norms and social roles by drawing attention to the social roles and social norms regulating the relationship between various kinship categories. This discussion can be leveraged to emphasize how different social norms and social roles comprise the relationship between social status positions. The topic of kinship relations could also be used as a bridge into a further discussion of how the values of the social institution of “the family” inform the human experience in ways that differ from the social institution of “the university”. Importantly, a discussion of social institutions depends on asking students to reflect on shared values, opening up the opportunity to explore the role non-material beliefs and values play in human experience. The second section of this chapter provides students with a way of thinking more concretely about the nature of these common factors—as either non-material beliefs and values material creations/tools—which help us transform both ourselves and the world around us. 3. Ways of Thinking about Human Culture and Transformation Section three provides students with an opportunity to think about and contrast material and non-material culture and the way these ideas are employed in idealist and materialist uses of the concept of culture. This distinction is illustrated primarily by focusing on non-industrialized and non-western cultures and rituals. Frequently, student’s are challenged my ethnocentric assumptions when considering non-industrialized and non-western cultures. Indeed, they may believe that only ethno-racialized North Americans can be said to have a culture or follow rituals. Levy (1992) describes an activity which helps address this challenge. By asking students to document family rituals (like eating Sunday breakfast together), they are able to identify their own culture and explore the role it plays in maintaining social order. See Deegan (1993) for a complicating critique of Levy’s (1992) assignment. Miner’s (1956) classic article “Body Ritual among the Nacirema” which satirizes ethnocentric assumptions about “other” cultures, can be used to similar effects. The strength of a Miner’s (1956) article is not only is it approachable for introductory students but that it has also spawned a range of other easily read tongue-in-cheek articles, such as Jones’ (1980) research fragment on Nacireman Tsigoloicos (sociologists), Leininger’s (1976) comparison of Gnisrun and Enicidem (nursing and medicine), and Kimmel’s (2006) discussion of ritualized homosexuality among tarfs (frats). Hiller (1989) provides similar satiric reading, perhaps more relevant to Canadian students in his article “Understanding Culture: The Discovery of the Yekcoh Ritual”. 4/5. Human Culture and Its Contributions to Sociological Thinking/ Human Culture, the Sociological Imagination, and Critical Thinking One of the goals of section four is to support an appreciation of how culture, which emphasises commonality, also provides us with a way of thinking about difference. One of the obvious challenges associated with emphasizing difference is that of ethnocentrism. In section four difference and ethnocentrism are used to introduce basic concepts of subculture and counterculture. Dowd & Dowd (2003), reflecting on the challenges faced when making distinctions between these concepts, describe an in-class exercise. Students are asked to respond to a range of vignettes to help consolidate their understanding of the notion of culture and related concepts. Dowd & Dowd (2003) also provide a broader strategy for introducing students to the notion of culture, which may be used as a support to the information presented in this chapter. Section four also explains how the concept of culture encourages us to reflect on or relationship to “nature”. Gnida’s (1995) lecture/discussion, which challenges genetic accounts of black athletes’ successes, can be used to support a discussion of culture and it’s relationship to the natural world. Section five explores Canadian culture in general and the FLQ crisis in particular, to illustrate how the idea of culture can further our understanding of the sociological imagination as well as how using culture to do so is also an expression of critical thinking. With very minor modification, Dowd & Dowd’s (2003) assignment could be used to support or challenge the reading of the FLQ crisis described in section five. References Adams, D. S. (1993). "Who Are Your Second Cousins?" A Lecture/Discussion Technique for Introducing "Status," "Norm," and "Role" in the First Year Sociology Course. Teaching Sociology, 21(1), 105-108. Deegan, M. J. (1993). Teaching American Rituals from a Critical Perspective. Teaching Sociology, 21(2), 197-198. Dowd, J. J., & Dowd, L. A. (2003). The Center Holds: From Subcultures to Social Worlds. Teaching Sociology, 31(1), 20-37. Hiller, H. H. (1989). Understanding Culture: The Discovery of the Yekcoh Ritual. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 14(2), 225-228. Jones, R. A. (1980). Myth and Symbol among the Nacirema Tsigoloicos: A Fragment. The American Sociologist, 15(4), 207-212. Kimmel, M. (2006). Ritualized Homosexuality in a Nacirema Subculture. Sexualities, 9(1), 95-105. Leininger, M. (1976). Two Strange Health Tribes: The Gnisrun and Enicidem in the United States. Human Organization, 35(3), 253-261. Levy, D. E. (1992). Teaching Family Ritual: Sunday, Sausage, and Solidarity. Teaching Sociology, 20(4), 311-313. Miner, H. (1956). Body Ritual among the Nacirema. American Anthropologist, 58, 503-507. Thinking Critically About Society: An Introduction to Sociology Teaching Resource Guide Russell Westhaver Chapter 8 Social Inequality and Social Stratification Learning Outcomes Inequality and the Human Experience: Students s should be able to define inequality and explain how inequality intersects with power, privilege, and prestige. Social Inequality and Social Stratification: Students should be able to describe what it means to say that social inequality and social stratification are fundamentally about the relationships groups of people have to valuable resources. Students should also be able to recall that social status positions of class, gender, and ethno-racialization play key roles in this relationship to valuable resources. Social Mobility and Meritocracy: students should be able to define social mobility and meritocracy and explain how they can help us account for the human experience. Social Mobility, the Sociological Imagination, and Critical Thinking: students should be able to describe what the idea of social inequality and social stratification add to our understanding of the sociological imagination and explain how these ideas can be used to support critical thinking in sociology. 1. Inequality and the Human Experience The first two sections of this chapter introduce students to the role inequality plays in shaping the human experience. In the first section, inequality is defined in terms of differential access to valuable resources and linked to differences in power, privilege, and prestige. The role differential access to valuable resources plays in shaping differences in power, privilege, and prestige is presented as a key means of accounting for what we do and think. Hattery (2003) provides some reflection on the challenges with teaching undergraduate students about social inequality as well as a range of active learning strategies designed to promote a deeper experiential appreciation of impact of social inequality. The strength of Hattery’s (2003) activities is that they lend themselves well to helping students reflect on the way access to valuable resources intersects with power, privilege, and prestige. Assignments include assigning students to fictions families belonging to different social classes and being asked to find employment, housing, and childcare with these constraints in mind; an assessment of who controls campus finances and policies; asking students to spend a day in a wheelchair; and asking students live on a low-income diet for two days. Davis (1992) describes common reactions students have when exposed to material about inequality (resistance, paralysis, rage) as well as strategies for encouraging a more critical engagement with these reactions. Wooddell and Henry (2005) reflections on teaching ethic studies classes advocates for including a discussion of advantage and disadvantage, a focus which lends itself well to the themes of power, privilege, and prestige included in this section of the chapter. A particular strength of Wooddell and Henry’s (2005) discussion is its focus on ethno-racialization. 2. Social Inequality and Social Stratification In the second section, students are introduced to the notion of social stratification and the importance of understanding social inequality and stratification as structured. Brislen and People’s (2005) outline a discussion activity for introducing students to the notion of social stratification which aims to overcome individualistic understandings of social inequality. The activity involves informing students that their grades will be standardized (curved) in order to mimic the skewed distribution of income. Discussion of the fairness of this marking strategy opens up an opportunity for highlighting the structured and social nature of income inequality. By focusing on grades the assignment becomes particularly germane for students by illustrating how structural factors can affect their own achievement. Wetcher-Hendricks & Luquet (2003) describe an active learning exercise using crayons, also designed to overcome simplistic understandings of the relationship between effort, merit, and equality. Students are presented with different sized packages of crayons and asked to draw with them. Debriefing, drawing on key concepts associated with social stratification, opens up an opportunity for understanding how the structural disadvantage represented by the differential distribution of crayons influences equality. One of the points developed in the latter part of this section is the important role that class, gender, and racialized identity play in social stratification. Tiemann, Davis, & Eide (2006) outline a counterfactual discussion introduceing students to myths and assumptions and social inequlaity. Students are presented with a list of public figures and a list of different types of cars and asked to identify and explain what kinds of cars the figures might drive and which figures would drive which cars. A debrief of the choices creates an opportuntity to reflect on assumptions about how social position influenced their decisions. Students are then asked to reflect on their own relationship to car ownership and what this may say (or what others might think it says) about their own position with a system of social stratification. Hauhart (2007) describes an active learning exercise useful for introducing the gendered nature of social inequality. Students are asked to complete an survey measuring the amount of unpaid domestic labour students complete. Subsequent debriefing can be used to encourage self-reflection on the gendered division of labour in student’s lives, give women a voice, and create a plateform for thinking about the structured nature of social inequlaity. While this survey exercise was origianlly designed for an online distance course, Hauhart (2007) offers suggestions for modifying it for a traditional introductory course. Groves, Warren, and Witschger (1996) describe a simulation exercise for helping students understand how structural determinants shape employment opportunities for ethno-racialized communities. Students are asked to link themselves into networks using string to demonstrate the importance informal/personal networks play in finding employment. 3. Social Mobility and Meritocracy When introduced to social inequality, students can be challenged with normative understandings of the role individual effort, desire, or merit play in the human experience in general and social mobility in particular. Brezina (1996) offers a counter-factual exercise in which students are asked to think through the logical consequences of merit-based explanations of social inequality. In particular, students are asked to think through a situation in which everyone possessed the same ability and motivation needed for financial success. Through this, students can see that greater equality would not necessarily emerge if all people possessed the same ability and motivation, underscoring the argument that the roots of social inequality are located within economic structures rather than individuals. Brislen and People’s (2005) discussion activity, outline earlier, is also suitable for overcoming individualistic understandings of social inequality. Coghlan & Huggins (2004) describe a modified version of Monopoly designed to help students experience different lefts of social stratification as well as undermine arguments that individual effort or desire can overcome the structural barriers responsible for social inequality. Eells (1987) describes an activity, suitable for larger classes, which helps student’s experience a structural barrier first hand. Students are given a quiz on assigned readings with different time limits; discussion and debriefing provides an opportunity to reflect on the nature of structural barriers and social inequality. Renzulli (2003) describes a coin tossing exercise, suitable for larger classes, which achieves similar results. Random coin tosses undermine the role individual differences play in any outcome while also producing a distribution that mirrors the skewed distribution of income. Discussion can lead students to appreciate the role structural constraints or barriers play in the production of goods and services. Touzard (2009) asks one group of students to simulate a market place in which they interact as consumers and producers on the basis of different class positions. A second group of students are paired with the first group, acting as the children of the consumers and producers. Students are then invited to explore their parents’ standing in the market place might influence their goals and aspirations, illustrating how being born into a particular class position shapes mobility. References Brezina, T. (1996). Teaching Inequality: A Simple Counterfactual Exercise. Teaching Sociology, 24(2), 218-224. Brislen, W., & Peoples, C. D. (2005). Using a Hypothetical Distribution of Grades to Introduce Social Stratification. Teaching Sociology, 33(1), 74-80. Coghlan, C. L., & Huggins, D. W. (2004). "That's Not Fair!": A Simulation Exercise in Social Stratification and Structural Inequality. Teaching Sociology, 32(2), 177-187. Davis, N. J. (1992). Teaching about Inequality: Student Resistance, Paralysis, and Rage. Teaching Sociology, 20(3), 232-238. Eells, L. W. (1987). So Inequality Is Fair? Demonstrating Structured Inequality in the Classroom. Teaching Sociology, 15(1), 73-75. Groves, J. M., Warren, C., & Witschger, J. (1996). Reversal of Fortune: A Simulation Game for Teaching Inequality in the Classroom. Teaching Sociology, 24(4), 364-371. Hattery, A. J. (2003). Sleeping in the Box, Thinking outside the Box: Student Reflections on Innovative Pedagogical Tools for Teaching about and Promoting a Greater Understanding of Social Class Inequality among Undergraduates. Teaching Sociology, 31(4), 412-427. Hauhart, R. C. (2007). Teaching about Inequality in a Distance Education Course Using The Second Shift. Teaching Sociology, 35(2), 174-183. Renzulli, L. A., Aldrich, H. E., & Reynolds, J. (2003). It's Up in the Air, or Is It? Teaching Sociology, 31(1), 49-59. Tiemann, K. A., Davis, K., & Eide, T. L. (2006). What Kind of Car Am I? An Exercise to Sensitize Students to Social Class Inequality. Teaching Sociology, 34(4), 398-403. Touzard, G. (2009). Shaped Goals: Teaching Undergraduates the Effects of Social Stratification on the Formulation of Goals. Teaching Sociology, 37(2), 205-211. Wetcher-Hendricks, D., & Luquet, W. (2003). Teaching Stratification with Crayons. Teaching Sociology, 31(3), 345-351. Wooddell, G., & Henry, J. (2005). The Advantage of a Focus on Advantage: A Note on Teaching Minority Groups. Teaching Sociology, 33(3), 301-309. Thinking Critically About Society: An Introduction to Sociology Teaching Resource Guide Russell Westhaver Chapter 9 Classed Social Relationships Learning Outcomes What Is Class?: student should be able to outline the differences between Marx and Weber as well as offer a definition of the term “classed social relationship.” Thinking Critically about Classed Social Relationships and Social Mobility: students should be able to outline how the sociological imagination, the notion of classed social relationship, and the practice of critical thinking can be used to account for social mobility. Social Inequality and Social Stratification: Occupation, Income, Wealth, and Prestige: After reading this section, you should be able to describe labour in terms of a system of social stratification and explain how it affects social mobility. Social Mobility and Social Status Position: Education: students should be able to explain how the social norms and expectations associated with different class positions affect social mobility. Social Mobility and Social Institution: Capitalism and Poverty: students should be able to describe capitalism and explain how it can affect downward mobility by creating jobs that lead people into poverty even if they work full-time. Social Mobility and Culture: The Mass Media: students should be able to draw on the idea of culture to explain how ownership of the mass media affects social mobility. Harlow, R. (2009). "Innovations in Teaching Race and Class Inequality: Bittersweet Candy and the Vanishing Dollar." Teaching Sociology 37(2): 194-204. Describes two exercises designed to illustrate concepts about the institutionalization of social class & racial inequality to introductory sociology students. The Vanishing Dollar focuses on income inequality in the US, while Bittersweet Candy illustrates the structural bases of racial discrimination & other '-isms." Classroom implementation of the exercises & student learning outcomes are summarized. K. Hyatt Stewart 1. What Is Class? A central aspect of teaching this section involves helping students understand the differences and relationships between Marx’s reading of class and Durkheim’s reading of class. Rinehart’s (1999) discussion of using active collaboration among students to teach theories includes concrete and detailed examples of activities and assignments for teaching theory in general and Marx and Durkheim in particular. Ahlkvist’s (2001) application of the ideas of Durkheim, Weber, and Marx to song lyrics and album covers of progressive rock bands(i.e.: Pink Floyd) represents another well structured activity. In a related vein, Walczak and Reuter’s (1994) concrete exercise for analysing song lyrics to introduce students to important sociological concepts can be modified to introduce students to Marx’s and Durkheim’s understanding of class. Donaghy (2000) describes a similar active learning assignment in which students are asked to consider how key theorists might respond as talk show guests or news program panellists to current issues. Scarboro (2004) reviews and describes a range of active learning and online activities that can be employed to help students develop a consolidated understanding of key theorists like Marx and Durkheim. Students are given a choice of a range of activities (for example, reviewing film and video, norm breaching, and fieldwork activities outside of classrooms). Students are then asked to report on their activities through an online discussion forum (via Moodle, WebCT, or Blackboard). Pedersen (2010) describes an assignment in which students are directed to make observations of others in public locations and then apply sociological concepts to these observations. While this assignment is structured as a course-long activity for an undergraduate theory course, it can be shortened and adapted to focus Marx and Durkheim’s analysis of class. Finally, The Sociological Cinema (www.thesociologicalcinema.com) provides an extensive range assignments and discussions for using film and television as a means of introducing students to key sociological concepts. 2. Critical thinking and the sociological imagination In this section students are invited to see how attending to class and classed social relationships can further our understanding of the sociological imagination. Any of the discussion and in-class activities for encouraging students to develop a sociological imagination (all noted in chapter 1) described by Hanson (2002), Prendergast (1986), Tipton and Tiemann’s (1993), Hoffmann’s (2006), Dowell (2006), or Kaufman’s (1997) can be revisited to emphasize how class and our position in a classed social relationships shape private troubles. In this section students are also invited to see how applying the sociological imagination is also an exercise in critical thinking. Kebede’s (2009) timeline assignment is well suited to this goal, given that it explicitly asks students to engage in the process of critical thinking by collecting and reflecting on relevant background information using sociological concepts. Carter (1989) teaching module on the interpretation of data is also particular appropriate for this section given its emphasis on the collection and interpretation of background data and its substantive focus (gender and occupation). 4. Social Mobility and Social Status Position: Education While the main focus of this section is on how class-based norms shape social mobility, an important focus in the latter part of the section is on the relationship between class positions and structured advantage and disadvantage. Bohmer and Briggs’ (1991) strategy for introducing students to individual and institutionalized forms of discrimination provides a means of helping students understand this relationship. Bohmer and Briggs (1991) ask students to list different forms of oppression and discrimination based on ascribed social status positions and link these forms of discrimination to different social institutions (i.e.: the family, education). In doing this, students can begin to explore the structured nature of advantage, disadvantage, and resistance. While Bohmer and Briggs’s (1991) exercise situates individually held prejudices and stereotypes in a broader macro-sociological context of institutionalized discrimination, its micro-sociological component is well suited to issues associated with concepts like social status position and social norms. This section also encourages students to understand how stratification by occupation, income, and wealth can shape the life choices and goals of entire groups of people. Touzard (2009) describes an in-class exercise, suitable for larger classes, helpful for illustrating the way goals and choices are constrained across family generations by class position. In the exercise, one group of students is asked to simulate are market place in which they interact as consumers and producers on the basis of different class positions. A second group of students, who are asked to list a series of personal and professional goals and aspirations, are paired with the first group, acting as the children of the consumers and producers. At this point students are invited to discuss how the limitations and possibilities of their parents’ standing in the market place bears on their earlier stated goals and aspirations. Through this activity, students can be introduced to how being born into a particular class position shapes mobility—and is thus well suited to the discussion of class in section 1 of this chapter. By asking students to specifically identify educational goals, this exercise can be used to support an understanding of the substantive focus (education) of this this section of the text. 5. Social Mobility and Social Institution: Capitalism and Poverty A central aspect of this chapter involves drawing a relationship between capitalist relations of production and working conditions that necessarily lead some groups into poverty. Another important aspect of this section involves challenging unstated assumptions about individual effort, merit, and meritocracy. Coghlan and Huggins (2004) describe a modified game of Monopoly. Discussion can emphasize the structured nature of social inequality and challenge meritocratic arguments about the role individual talent or effort can play in overcoming structural barriers to upward class mobility. Similarly, Renzulli, Aldrich, & Reynolds (2003) describe a coin-tossing exercise, suitable for larger classes, for illustrating the limitations of relying on individualized accounts of social mobility. Students are asked to toss coins in pairs, with winner’s receiving the loser’s coin. Given the random nature of coin-tossing, students expect the coins to remain evenly distributed across the class—although the nature of sampling distributions means that many coins will quickly be concentrated in the hands of a few players. This counterfactual exercise illustrates how structural factors, rather than individual effort, over-determine outcomes. Eells’ (1987) discussion exercise, also suitable for larger classes, allows students to experience structured inequality first hand when they are given different time limits to complete a quiz as an example of a structural constrain. This chapter also introduces students to the observation that the structural constraints associated with capitalism disproportionality disadvantages those who begin with fewer economic resources. Abelev, Vincent, & Haney (2008) provide a detailed exercise which helps support students begin understanding the life of the working poor. By directing students to develop a budget for low-skilled workers, the exercise undermines misconceptions about the working poor (such as the misconception that they do not work enough or are lazy). McCammon (1999) describes a similar budget-based exercise, in which students are asked to construct budgets for families of differing wealth and income. Garoutte & Bobbitt-Zeher (2011) present a third budgeting exercise in addition to an assessment of the effectiveness of using budgeting exercises for explaining income inequality to students. Folse (2002) outlines a related active learning exercise for illustrating the structured constraints experienced by the working poor. Students are asked to engage in fieldwork to explore how rent-to-own schemes leave the working poor, unlike middle class consumers, paying more (through interest and fees) if they are interested in buying large durable goods (like stoves or furniture). In line with this, Brezina (1996) describes a counterfactual exercise in which students are asked to imagine a world in which effort and ability are equal but the required jobs and wages are constant. Suitable for large classes, this exercise illustrates that inequality and downward social mobility are built into the wage structure. 6. Social Mobility and Culture: The Mass Media A number of recent films provide an opportunity for discussing the corporate concentration of media ownership. Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (Achbar & Wintonick, 1992) is a now almost classical documentary on corporate media ownership. Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (Greenwald, 2004) and Orwell Rolls in His Grave (Papps, 2003) are more recent documentary explorations of the same topic. Orwill Rolls in His Grave is available on Youtube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80). King (2000) describes a course which she examines the media in terms of power and inequality and the role the media plays in creating and sustaiting social relations. It can be mined for a range of teaching ideas and arguments for helping students undersatnd the extent and nature of coporate concentration of media ownership. References Abelev, M., Vincent, B. M., & Haney, T. J. (2008). The Bottom Line: An Exercise to Help Students Understand How Social Inequality is Actively Constructed. Teaching Sociology, 36(2), 150-160. Achbar, M., & Wintonick, P. (Writer). (1992). Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. Ahlkvist, J. A. (2001). Sound and Vision: Using Progressive Rock to Teach Social Theory. Teaching Sociology, 29(4), 471-482. Bohmer, S., & Briggs, J. L. (1991). Teaching Privileged Students about Gender, Race, and Class Oppression. Teaching Sociology, 19(2), 154-163. Brezina, T. (1996). Teaching Inequality: A Simple Counterfactual Exercise. Teaching Sociology, 24(2), 218-224. Carter, G. L. (1989). The Pitfalls of Post-Factum Sociological Interpretation: A Classroom Demonstration. Teaching Sociology, 17(3), 341-345. Coghlan, C. L., & Huggins, D. W. (2004). "That's Not Fair!": A Simulation Exercise in Social Stratification and Structural Inequality. Teaching Sociology, 32(2), 177-187. Donaghy, M. L. (2000). Simulating Television Programs as a Tool to Teach Social Theory. Teaching Sociology, 28(1), 67-70. Dowell, W. (2006). Throwing the Sociological Imagination into the Garbage: Using Students' Waste Disposal Habits to Illustrate C. Wright Mills's Concept. Teaching Sociology, 34(2), 150-155. Eells, L. W. (1987). So Inequality Is Fair? Demonstrating Structured Inequality in the Classroom. Teaching Sociology, 15(1), 73-75. Folse, K. A. (2002). The Poor Pay More. Teaching Sociology, 30(3), 342-347. Garoutte, L., & Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2011). Changing Students' Perceptions of Inequality?: Combining Traditional Methods and a Budget Exercise to Facilitate a Sociological Perspective. Teaching Sociology, 39(3), 227-243. Greenwald, R. (Writer). (2004). Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism: MoveOn.org and Brave New Films. Hanson, C. M. (2002). A Stop Sign at the Intersection of History and Biography: Illustrating Mills's Imagination with Depression-Era Photographs. Teaching Sociology, 30(2), 235-242. Hoffmann, E. A. (2006). The Importance of Place: Using Local-Focus Videos to Spark the Sociological Imagination. Teaching Sociology, 34(2), 164-172. Kaufman, P. (1997). Michael Jordan Meets C. Wright Mills: Illustrating the Sociological Imagination with Objects from Everyday Life. Teaching Sociology, 25(4), 309-314. Kebede, A. (2009). Practicing Sociological Imagination through Writing Sociological Autobiography. Teaching Sociology, 37(4), 353-368. King, D. L. (2000). Using Videos to Teach Mass Media and Society from a Critical Perspective. Teaching Sociology, 28(3), 232-240. McCammon, L. (1999). Introducing Social Stratification and Inequality: An Active Learning Technique. Teaching Sociology, 27(1), 44-54. Papps, R., K. (Writer). (2003). Orwell Rolls in His Grave. In R. Papps, K. (Producer). Pedersen, D. E. (2010). Active and Collaborative Learning in an Undergraduate Sociological Theory Course. Teaching Sociology, 38(3), 197-206. Prendergast, C. (1986). Cinema Sociology: Cultivating the Sociological Imagination through Popular Film. Teaching Sociology, 14(4), 243-248. Renzulli, L. A., Aldrich, H. E., & Reynolds, J. (2003). It's Up in the Air, or Is It? Teaching Sociology, 31(1), 49-59. Rinehart, J. A. (1999). Turning Theory into Theorizing: Collaborative Learning in a Sociological Theory Course. Teaching Sociology, 27(3), 216-232. Scarboro, A. (2004). Bringing Theory Closer to Home through Active Learning and Online Discussion. Teaching Sociology, 32(2), 222-231. Tipton, D. B., & Tiemann, K. A. (1993). Using the Feature Film to Facilitate Sociological Thinking. Teaching Sociology, 21(2), 187-191. Touzard, G. (2009). Shaped Goals: Teaching Undergraduates the Effects of Social Stratification on the Formulation of Goals. Teaching Sociology, 37(2), 205-211. Walczak, D., & Reuter, M. (1994). Using Popular Music to Teach Sociology: An Evaluation by Students. Teaching Sociology, 22(3), 266-269. Instructor Manual for Thinking Critically About Society: An Introduction to Sociology Russell Westhaver 9781259066993
Download
Close
Close
