Talk:Teachable moment

Blogosphere?

Initially, I turned to the internet because this term was unfamiliar. The media coverage of President Obama's remarks suggested that "teachable moment" is a catchphrase in contemporary American English, but it was new to me.

After creating the stub, I wanted to try to figure out how to expand the article; and in the exercise, I hoped to expand my understanding of the term. A Google search for reveals that this phrase is used in a variety of blogs; but I'm uncertain about using these as a source.

Specifically, I'm inviting feedback about how to incorporate what I discovered when I googled "Wikipedia + teachable moment"? --Tenmei (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Spin

I can't understand the "spin" section. Who did Juan Williams say was lying—Gates? Obama? Are we accusing Williams, Bill Kristol, and Robin Dunn of engaging in deliberate spin rather than giving their best analysis? Are we saying there was some kind of conspiracy? Is there any source for a claim (beside Kristol's incoherence) for any such claim?

If this isn't OR, I'd say it belongs at arrest of Henry Louis Gates, if anywhere on WP. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

JerryFriedman -- I hope we can work together to improve this section. My first reaction was to try to respond seriatim to your questions. However, the simplest rely is "no" -- no innuendo or accusations were intended.

The mere fact that you were moved to pose questions of this sort is a valid demonstration of two things:

• (a) that this addition to the article is not merely relevant and necessary, but it is also more evocative and more controversial than I had suppoed; and
• (b) that my attempt to contrive a neutral, understated, non-controversial text needs more work.

Yesterday, I used many more words in my first attempt to respond to your comment. As you can see, that first draft text is collapsed below. On reflection, I've come to recognize that it doesn't matter what I intended. My attempt to explain is largely irrelevant.

The focus needs to remain on what you perceived, based on the prose which is already posted. Instead of trying to amplify or clarify what I meant, it is probably much more constructive to invite for your suggestions. In your view, What should be done now?

• Would it be best to re-position the "Spin" section on this talk page where you and others can help me revise it?
• Would it be sufficient to add in-line "dubious"-tags and/or "citation needed"-tags?
• Would you suggest adding the WP:OR-headnote and/or WP:Synthesis-headnote in this section?

How do you propose this article can be improved? --Tenmei (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I didn't understand the spin section. It seemed to rely on connections between sentences that I didn't see. I had the feeling that some case was being made, without knowing what. Maybe I should have just said so instead of taking guesses.

Some specific comments on the subsection head and the first two sentences. They're general comments about the incident in which I see no connection to the phrase "teachable moment". Furthermore, they don't identify who has the strategy, who is putting spin on the subject of discussion, or who is calculating anything.

I don't understand how spin is a strategy in reframing issues. I might say reframing the issue is a way of putting a different spin on it, or is putting a different spin on it.

What political outcome was achieved? Do you mean people were attempting to achieve a political outcome?

I wonder whether a priori is really the phrase you want. I know it as "before the whole discussion", whereas you seem to be saying, "in one step". A possible use of a priori as I understand it would be to say that some commentators had decided a priori that they would criticize Obama and others that they would support him, no matter the rights and wrongs of the matter (and I'll bet a lot of them had decided that, but I don't think we should say so here).

I think you could drop "rather than incrementally during subsequent 24/7 news cycles". The "24/7" seems particularly unnecessary. If the reporting of news around the clock is important to the phrase "teachable moment", I think that importance needs to be explained.

I like the idea of moving it to the talk page.

My suggestion, based on your now-collapsed comments, is to replace the "Spin" section with something like, "Obama's use of the phrase attracted considerable comment in the American media and blogosphere," with the references you found to Williams, Kristol, Dunn, and maybe more to anyone else who would help outline the range. (The second sentence here would be a possibility, though there may be better examples.)

I read the comments you collapsed, and later edited this page without noticing you'd collapsed them. Feel free to read what I wrote or to skip it (as TLDR applies to my reply, and you now think those issues are unimportant). Incidentally, I also added ]s to a couple of your links. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial response -- collapsed in order to avert TDLR

JerryFriedman -- Responding seriatim to the cluster of questions you pose: A. Who did Juan Williams say was lying—Gates? Obama? Response: Williams did not attribute a lie in this instance. You can see and hear his words in context by clicking on the in-line citation Note 11; and I suspect you will decide for yourself that the specific use of the term "lie" was inelegant. In context, I construed his meaning as something akin to the computer term GIGO. I understood Williams to be aligning himself with those who would have preferred that the President said nothing in a situation where he himself admits a priori that he did not have access to all the relevant facts. First, Williams seemed to accept the police report as "the facts", which I think means he did assume Gates was lying. The interpretation of his comment seems to me to be problematic enough to be beyond our scope. Second, I agree with you about who he was aligning himself with, but the way he put it—"you can't have a teachable moment if it's based on a lie"—is nonsense. A lie can give rise to a moment where you teach people that it is a lie, how to recognize it as such, why the liar might have said it, and no doubt other things. Jumping to conclusions without the facts and overreacting can likewise give rise to a teachable moment. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC) B. Are we accusing Williams, Bill Kristol, and Robin Dunn of engaging in deliberate spin rather than giving their best analysis? Response: No accusations are proposed, nor did I appreciate that any accusations could be inferred from what I wrote. I perhaps mistakenly believed that by linking the term "spin" to the Wikipedia article, I had created a sufficient foundation for the axiomatic presumption that -- in the 24/7 news cycles and/or weltanschauung and/or blogosphere -- the distinct conceptual constructs of analysis and spin are married or otherwise inextricably co-mingled in some fashion. In other words, the ideal of "rigorous proof" in maths and physics has no counterpart in the public stage where this sort of thing runs its course. I wonder if your question should be interpreted to suggest that I need to import a specific citation as a supplement to the link. Spin (public relations) doesn't claim, as far as I can see, that spin and analysis are inextricably mingled in this context. (Maybe it should.) Spin, as I understand it, is deliberate dishonesty, a very serious charge (though no doubt often true). Saying that named media pundits engage in it is probably legal as public debate, but as you say, such things can't be proved rigorously. I don't see it as something an encyclopedia should become involved in. Certainly I don't see that making such a case belongs in an article on this phrase. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Question: I hadn't recognized this as an explicit issue before; but now, please, may I proffer a counter-question? Are "See also"-links in our Wikipedia context construed as serving a function similar to that of in-line citations? Your comments cause me to believe that the answer is "no" ...? I guess I should have added a citation consistent with WP:V and WP:RS? I can't give a general answer to that (as you probably guessed). In some cases, I'm sure a link is the easiest way to handle something that's too peripheral to an article or too time-consuming to discuss or even reference. The question is how readers are likely to react. Unfortunately I, at least, am not very good at predicting that or even remembering to try. C. Are we saying there was some kind of conspiracy? Response: No. I meant to suggest no conspiracy. Rather, I was simply pointing out the unremarkable likelihood of differences in analysis as developed by different commentators. This causes me to wonder if I should have added a citation which makes this more explicit? I don't know about a citation, but I think it needed to be explicit. E. Is there any source for a claim (beside Kristol's incoherence) for any such claim? Response: I know of no source confirming conspiracy as an integral element of "spin" nor as an integral element of "analysis" ... but I'm not sure I understand this question. Kristol's comment seems to equate "analysis" and obfuscation? or "spin" and obfuscation? I posted it because it represented some sort of point-of-view which was quite distinct from other analysts. The intent was to suggest a range without being too explicit about the elements across the span of that range. Here again, I think being explicit would have helped. "The range of commentary..." I thought Kristol's comment was so incoherent that it could lend support to the idea that he had made up his mind before hand to criticize Obama without regard for the truth. Apparently, though, that's not what you had in mind. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC) F. If this isn't OR, I'd say it belongs at arrest of Henry Louis Gates, if anywhere on WP. Response: This seems like a crucial point. The term "teachable moment" arises from the context of early childhood development and pedagogic or heuristic strategies. This catchphrase was originally intended to apply in intimate home and classroom settings. When the President of the United States introduces this term into the public discourse, that aspect of intimacy is lost or abandoned. It becomes something a little different -- and, for shorthand purposes, I used the adjective "political." In this public setting, the media becomes a factor, an intermediary ... and, as a result, the "teachable moment" is affected by analysis and spin in a way which is distinguishable from home or classroom. The purpose of the "Spin" section was to suggest this somewhat different public venue without explicitly parsing its as-yet unclear outlines. Let me say how I see that from my Weltanschauung, as you put it. "Teachable moment" has been a catchphrase in education for 50 years or so. A president used it—undoubtedly not the first use in politics, but this one referred to a situation that was arousing great public interest in America—so there was a flurry of comment in the ephemeral realms of news and the blogosphere. This means people are interested, and I'm glad you started the article and mentioned Obama's use of the phrase. But I don't think we need much detail about the comment. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Bottom line: Is this "answer"/response nothing more than a restatement of what is already incorporated in the section with appropriate in-line citation supports, good. If not, I have more work to do. --Tenmei (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article to talk page

The following section inspired the comments and questions JerryFriedman posted above. I was persuaded by his suggestion that the disputed text would be better discussed and revised here. We were working at cross-purposes in a sense because I was adding in-line citation supports to this text while he was drafting a response to what I'd written yesterday and earlier today; but now -- literally -- we are on the same page. --Tenmei (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSED TEXT

Spin as political strategy ... heading may need re-phrasing?

In this context, media "spin" became a factor in a process of re-framing issues. Framing has come to be understood as a significant strategic element of politics and political discourse as an open-ended debate.

The New York Times reported in 2005 that "a new political word had begun to take hold .... That word was 'framing.' Exactly what it means to 'frame' issues seems to depend on which [person you ask] ..., but everyone agrees that it has to do with choosing the language to define a debate and, more important, with fitting individual issues into the contexts of broader story lines."

These were first steps in a process calculated to achieve political outcome a priori rather than incrementally during subsequent 24/7 news cycles.

For example, commentator Juan Williams's televised comments during a Fox News Sunday panel discussion on July 26, 2009 focused on discovering the full range of facts. He proposed that a wider selection of relevant facts is essential because "in this situation, the president spoke without the facts. And so you can't have a teachable moment if it's based on a lie." Further news analysis and commentary expanded from the skeleton framework elements of this incident, e.g.,

• "The An Obfuscatable Moment." by Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard.

Bill Kristol sought to re-define the terms by suggesting that "it's not a "moment" that's teachable, it's the truth that's teachable. So a moment in which everyone colludes to obscure the truth (which seems characteristic of most "teachable moments" in contemporary America) is not a moment of teaching; it's a moment of deception, of misdirection, of obfuscation. Call it an obfuscatable moment."

Notes

Media analysis

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

• "Hard Truths and the Teachable Moment" by Robin Wells in the The Huffington Post.

Robin Wells sought to summarize conflicting perspectives. She argued that Gates and Sgt. Crowley came away from their initial encounter with deep grievances: "grievance for being an acclaimed Harvard scholar yet disrespected as a black man, grievance for being disrespected as an officer, verbally assaulted while serving the public good". In this scenario, Wells suggested that Sgt. Crowley, having verified the facts, should have apologized for the misunderstanding and left. She said that Gates could have calmly explained his outrage, and view Sgt. Crowley as doing his job by carrying out an innocent investigation without racial overtones, rather than angrily demanding respect.

Blogosphere

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

• "Obama flunks his "teachable moment," by Mark Anthony Neal at The Griot.

Mark Neal focused on the opportunity for teaching, which might have converted the elements of this one incident into a lesson: "We all want a president who takes the time to hear about and understand the everyday struggles we face. But that is exactly what the president failed to do when he took up the issue of the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. by a Cambridge police officer. Rather than use a reporter's query about Gates' arrest as an opportunity to discuss the issues of racial profiling and police harassment - a teachable moment, if you will - the president chose to close ranks around his friend."

Another proposal

Okay, here's mine:

Obama's highly publicized use of the phrase in this political context attracted varied comment in the American media and blogosphere.

See also

(etc.)

Notes

(Williams, Kristol, Wells [sheesh, where did I get "Dunn"?], Neal)

So I don't think we need to "frame" these comments for readers. I hate to suggest taking out your citations on spin and framing after I carelessly seemed to ask for them, but I think quotations from Fish and Feldman would work well in Spin, showing opposite opinions of it, and things from the Bai article could go well at George Lakoff, United States presidential election, 2004, and maybe Spin.

But here I think they're overkill. That is, I don't see most readers interested in this phrase wanting to see the quotes in our article or comments on the quotes, or general comments on spin and framing. For those who do want to see the quotes, I think the links in the references would be enough. But of course I can't read people's minds. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Obfuscation

I don't know what Kristol had in mind, but I do know that often when I witness an argument or a debate, it confuses me and confuses what I thought were the relevant issues. Something about the Kristol formulation resonates with me in a way which seems prospectively useful in the context of an article about this catchphrase ...? --Tenmei (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think referring to this article is fine. Personally I wouldn't quote it or any of them. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to trust your intuition on this. --Tenmei (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed the examples of recent coverage in blogs, new media etc - this is, IMO, recentism and gives undue weight to the political use of the term in 2009. A "teachable moment" is a well-known concept in education and the emphasis on this one episode and the phrase's use in a political context seems excessive for the article. Some examples could be given in a footnote if necessary. For the same reason I shortened the Obama quote, keeping the part that refers to a "teachable moment." --hippo43 (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

hippo43 -- I did suspected that your edits were informed by a solid rationale, but it wasn't a point-of-view I understood intuitively. Wikipedia:Recentism isn't a term I've previously encountered, but a quick scan of the explanatory text is instructive. I was struck by one sentence in particular:

"Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight."

Give me a short while to ponder your edits in a context which is new to me. At first blush, I disagree with (a) deleting the Gladwell sentence and with (b) shortening the Obama quote, but perhaps I need to revisit some of my assumptions?

I wonder if this could be an instance in which my intuitive "logic" is skewed 180° from wiki-conventional wisdom. --Tenmei (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Obama should be limited to the parts which are relevant to the subject of this article. A longer quote may be appropriate for the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates article. Trimming it here takes some of the weight off the recent use of the phrase, but still the article is dominated by one recent example of use in another context, rather than the educational concept itself.

I don't know what the point of the Gladwell sentence was - is it a quote, or a summary of something he wrote? This isn't clear. It doesn't seem to be relevant to the subject of teachable moments, and he is not an expert on education. Again, it might be relevant to another article. --hippo43 (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed deletions

A priori, let me state clearly that I construe this article as standing on an independent foundation. Although it can be reasonably understood as an mere appendage to the main article about Arrest of Henry Louis Gates, this article enhances the value of Wikipedia without reference to that event and its aftermath. The following were removed by hippo43 -- here. As I understand it, the radical surgery seemed justified by reasons identified in the essay at WP:Recentism. This less is more rationale is compelling, but not WP:Policy -- not definitively persuasive in all instances:

• 1. Gladwell sentence -- restatement, description of pivotal fulcrum as deliberatly redundant pedagogical device, conceptual transition from narrow application beyond early childhood development to broader application, catchphrase = "tipping point"

"Good teaching is interactive – it engages and responds simultaneously.<:ref>Gladwell, Malcolm. (2002). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, p. 90.</ref>

• 2. Pedagocial catchphrase -- re-articulation heighlights evolving character and application of 1950s term; support from non-developmental context, Journal of Emergency Nursing, illustrates transition of conventional usage from early childhood development to applicability not precisely anticipated by Robert Havighurst, emphasize term as teaching tool in non-child focused situations

Pedagogic catchphrase (sub-heading/sub-section):

"The pivotal time-frame in which a paradigm shift becomes possible is captured with a definitional label which became a pedagogic catchphrase.<:ref>Lassman, Janet. "Teachable Moments: A Paradigm Shift," Journal of Emergency Nursing (April 2001). Vol. 27, Issue 2, pp. 171-175.</ref>

• 3. Obama citation -- allowing speaker to establish context and nuance for catchphrase, restatement of context for this article about an evolving term, essential to be cited in full, not because of a wiki-editing decision, but because the speaker himself identifies a need for redundant, pedagocial emphasis and restatement and "part of [Obama's] portfolio" ...:

"My hope is, is that as a consequence of this event this ends up being what's called a teachable moment, where all of us instead of pumping up the volume spend a little more time listening to each other and try to focus on how we can generally improve relations between police officers and minority communities, and that instead of flinging accusations we can all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do to contribute to more unity... I just wanted to emphasize that—one last point I guess I would make. There are some who say that as President I shouldn't have stepped into this at all because it's a local issue. I have to tell you that that part of it I disagree with. The fact that this has become such a big issue I think is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of our society. Whether I were black or white, I think that me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to constructive–as opposed to negative–understandings about the issue, is part of my portfolio."<:ref>Obama, Barack. "Statement by the President," White House Press Office. July 24, 2009.</ref>

• 4. Political catchphrase (sub-heading/sub-section) -- re-articulation highlights evolving character and application of 1950s term; to be developed further when news articles emphasize Obama's tendency to be "professorial"<:ref>Luce, Edward. "The Prosaic Professor," Financial Times. August 21, 2009.</ref> or "teacher-in-chief" ... or "teachable" + who-knows-what ....

"New" Political catchphrase (sub-heading/sub-section):

"Although Obama may have failed to achieve any constructive goals, he did bring ensure that the catchword phrase "teachable moment" would be accorded a new prominence."

The Media analysis section stands on a distinctly different foundation because it relies on suspect blog sources. The argument that blog sources are appropriate and necessary in this narrow, non-standard context of this article is difficult, perhaps even a little bit beyond my ability to defend. I think there is merit in posting this section, but the arguments which inform that point-of-view are different than the four bullet-points listed above. --Tenmei (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional disputed deletions

Subsequent to the major edit above, hippo43 found two other areas to cut -- the goal, no doubt, being to create a crisp, concise dictionary-like article. I would like to restore those further deletions, but I can easily imagine basis in WP:NOR for challenging these aspects of the article:

• 5. A Schrödinger's cat sentence was deleted here. In my view, its verification/justification derives from all cited sources, which makes it an exception to the WP:NOR prohibiition. If my understanding of this concept is inadequate, then the sentence may require a specific source citation. In that instance, I don't see why it would not be sufficient to add a "citation needed"-tag rather than deleting it altogether.

"The U.S. President's Barack Obama's comments about the incident affected the unfolding news story."

• 6. A cognitive dissonance sentence was deleted here. In my view, its verification/justification derives from all cited sources, which makes it an exception to the WP:NOR prohibiition. If my understanding of this concept is inadequate, then the sentence may require a specific source citation. In that instance, I don't see why it would not be sufficient to add a "citation needed"-tag rather than deleting it altogether.

"The term encourages attempts to investigate beyond circumscribed arguments to the systemic roots of any problem. Such attempts are projected to achieve a kind of cognitive dissonance which becomes an opportunity for teaching and learning; and this becomes an exercise which fosters an awareness of the possibilities for change in systems many previously thought to be immutable."

If the reasons for removing the above are derived from something other than WP:NOR, then I guess I'm missing the point? --Tenmei (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed 'Media analysis' deletion

The disputed bullet-points above do not affect the array of issues which arise in the context of the media analysis section. Intuitively, I think it belongs here; but I didn't know how to handle it well enough. The nature of this topic is quite outside the scope of my Wikipedia experience.

For the moment, I'm assuming that hippo43's edit was arguably correct; but I simply don't understand it well enough. My point-of-view supports the notion that something like media analysis needs to be encompassed within the context of this article, but that doesn't mean that what was deleted necessarily needs to be restored ...?

My current plan is to hope that I'll learn from working collaboratively to restore/modify the material identified in the six bullet points above. Perhaps some part of that process will suggest ways in which I can begin to understand how to respond constructively to hippo43's edit. --Tenmei (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tenmei

My response to all of this is that you may be over-thinking things. I don't understand some of what you have written - could you maybe stick to really simple, plain English in your comments? I see that you started this article, and perhaps your idea of what the article 'should be' has clouded your judgment a little here. Perhaps take a step back for a short while, and leave it to other editors to develop? You don't own the article. Please don't assume anything about my intent, just read my edit summaries and comments, and please ask me if I'm not making something clear.

The article is titled 'Teachable moment' therefore should be on the subject of teachable moments, not on the subject of the phrase 'teachable moment' or its recent use. This is a well-known term used in education, coaching etc, which has been prominently used recently. From your comments above, it seems that you have written this article primarily about the term's use in relation to the recent Gates arrest - this is not the appropriate context for this article.

You are trying to assemble sources to provide analysis of the term which has not been previously published in reliable sources. That is a clear case of original research. If no good quality sources can be provided which comment on the term's use, then we need to stick to brief examples of the term's use.

This sentence - "The pivotal time-frame in which a paradigm shift becomes possible is captured with a definitional label which became a pedagogic catchphrase" - is, IMO, gibberish. The link provided does not lead to the article so I've no idea what the context is. Is this a quote? Or your summary of what this person wrote? Or your analysis of the meaning based on this one article? The 'cognitive dissonance' sentence has the same problem.

The Obama quote is too long. He is not speaking on the subject of teachable moments, he is speaking on a specific incident. The quote is useful in this article as an example of a prominent person using the phrase, not as a reliable source explaining what a teachable moment is. Detailed commentary on the Gates incident belongs in the specific article relating to his arrest. Linking characterisation of Obama as professorial etc to the phrase is OR.

The Gladwell sentence is unclear - is this your summary of his writing or is it a quote? It reads like a personal statement from you. The connection between teachable moments and tipping points is not made in reliable sources. He is not an expert on the subject, and he was not writing about teachable moments, so it has to go.

The recently-added 'Political catchphrase' section is pure original research, and has to be removed.

The article as a whole gives undue weight to recent use of the term 'teachable moment' in one context only. We need to bear in mind that these examples of use are confined to the USA, and to one very recent incident. I really respect the work you have put in here, and I find it surprising that there was no previous article, but we need to stick to the subject. --hippo43 (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

hippo43 -- Aha, yes. I'll step back. That gesture is easily accomplished.

Your comments have clarified my appreciation for your point-of-view. Although I'm not ready to agree with your approach, I do especially like this explanation:

"The article is titled 'Teachable moment' therefore should be on the subject of teachable moments, not on the subject of the phrase 'teachable moment' or its recent use.

I want to acknowledge that your pressure caused me to re-examine my understanding of "original research" as defined in this venue.

An especially thought-provoking observation was this one:

"[Obama] "is not speaking on the subject of teachable moments, he is speaking on a specific incident. The quote is useful in this article as an example of a prominent person using the phrase, not as a reliable source explaining what a teachable moment is."

I did not parse a difference between Obama's use and the definition of the term, which causes me to re-think my understanding of what it means to describe English as a living language. These sentences also cause me to ponder how I use the Oxford English Dictionary and how I respond to contemporary usage.

Let me thank you again for bringing WP:Recentism and WP:Undue weight to my attention. I construe this thread as having been a worthwhile exchange -- thank you. Perhaps your comments will be better understood when I return to these issues at some point in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

References