Teaching digital literacy does not mean teaching digital skills in a vacuum, but doing so in an authentic context that makes sense to students.

They focused on two kinds of students. The “thrivers” were those who did much better in college than their high school grades would have predicted. The “divers” were those who did much worse. Mostly, these students were neither superstars in high school nor delinquents — they all got fairly good, respectable grades. But upon arriving at college, the thrivers averaged A's, while the divers averaged F's.

Two observations. I have had to learn to resist the incredibly powerful pull of needing to present a neat and tidy package to them, so that all issues are clearly articulated and summed up, and no ends are left loose. I do some summary at the end of a discussion, and always explain the point of the discussion and say what I want them to have learned (except when I want them to be kept in suspense until the next class period). But I try to keep it till late in or the end of the discussion, and I do not (usually) summarize by giving them the full correct truth (Brighouse edition).

f the conversation ebbs, or if some particular strand is, in my opinion, played out, I step in an prompt the discussion with further questions, and often with low-pressure cold-calling

The main thing is this. I need something to inhibit me from constantly jumping in with either i) interrupting reassurance or ii) some interesting, pedagogically valuable, comment (of which many come to mind). So I’ve engineered some sort of gestalt switch in my head. When a student says something, instead of thinking that I am depriving her by not responding (either assuringly or interestingly) I think to myself that I am depriving her precisely by responding – depriving her of the interaction with her peers, the reasons they can give to her, and the opportunity to surprise them.

Thus 'Victorian Values' were being rehabilitated by nineteenth-century enthusiasts for a decade or more before Mrs Thatcher appropriated them for her Party's election platform; while Professor Hoskins' discovery of 'lost' villages, and his celebration of the English landscape anticipated some of the animating sentiments which have been made the conservationist movement a force for planners to reckon with.

Despite the novelty of its subject matter, social history reproduces many of the characteristic biases of its predecessors.

By the time Weber had travelled to the US in 1904, Du Bois had already published influential works (not only The Philadelphia Negro but also the widely popular The Souls of Black Folk), and in this sense it was Du Bois who was the known sociologist in the United States, not Weber.

“The city of Chicago served as a social laboratory where empirical research conducted on the major social processes unfolding in one of the world’s great modern cities.”

In the early twentieth century, “the black sociologist, scholar and activist W.E.B. Du Bois developed the first scientific school of sociology at Atlanta University. […] Du Bois was the first social scientist to establish a sociological laboratory where systematic empirical research was conducted.”[6]

There is at least one good reason for why Chicago heralds itself as the founding school of American sociology. It is not mere self-congratulation. Nor is it the fact that Chicago founded The American Journal of Sociology. The reason why Chicago heralds itself as the founding school is because everyone else does too.

If Morris is right, there is an argument to made that Du Bois and the Atlanta School should replace the Chicago School, not just be added alongside it. For, with The Scholar Denied, Du Bois can no longer be seen as the “first black sociologist”, the originator of “African-American sociology,” or the one who pioneered the study of African-American communities. He must instead be seen as the first scientific sociologist who is the rightful progenitor of American sociology itself.

If Morris is right, graduate students should instead focus upon the real innovators and founders: Du Bois and his “Atlanta School” of sociology.

One declared that since Du Bois was not cited and was instead marginalized, he cannot be considered a founder: “a citation analysis would be necessary evidence to make an argument for the ‘founder’ of any scientific advance.” Another post added “I’m not sure how DuBois can be a founder while also being so marginalized.” “I’d venture that of the early 20th century black sociologists,” wrote another, “Cox, Frazier, and perhaps a few others were at least as influential on the field as Dubois, if not more so.”[14] 0 Login or Register to comment The remarkable thing about The Scholar Denied is that it shows us that, in fact, Du Bois was influential at the time. Morris mobilizes an array of impressive information revealing that Du Bois influenced a range of thinkers whose debt to Du Bois has been covered up. Standard histories of sociology, for example, overlook the black sociologists of the Atlanta School and instead point to Oliver Cox, Charles S. Johnson or E. Franklin Frazier from the 1920s and 1930s who were advised by Park at Chicago (the influence of these histories upon present-day students is seen in the website discussions noted above). But the impact of Du Bois upon these thinkers is clear. Frazier’s most important book was The Negro Family in the United States, and in 1939, just after its publication, Frazier wrote to Du Bois to tell him that Du Bois’ “pioneer contributions to the study of the Negro family” was influential upon him, and that much of Frazier’s own work – and of his colleagues – is merely “building upon a tradition inaugurated by you in the Atlanta studies.”[15]