McD’s

In my research paper I will be examing the relationship between McDonald’s advertising and children.  There are lots of arugments that claim that McDonald’s is attacking the children and in essence brainwashing them at a very early age.  These people feel that children should be entitled to an ad free childhood free of outside influences they view as negative.  I think it will be very interesting.  People are claiming that when McDonald’s supports a school program with something such as a donation they are actually sneakily doing a very strong form of advertising.  Children are the most suceptible to outside influences and don’t know when something is good and bad for them.  They look at things very simply and McDonald’s advertising is simple and to the point.  They promote a fun and entertaining atmosphere.

I have found some websites of companies that have been partners with McDonald’s to create ad campaigns.  They talk about the progression of McDonald’s advertising through the years and the roles they have played in creating slogans and having that mass appeal McDonald’s is famous for.  I can use these sites to see the other side of the argument and how their main goal is to show their product in a positive light that is attractive to potential customers.  That they don’t focus on children, but the whole population.

Another site, from the other side, is an interview with Sue Dibb.  She is the writer of a book called “Children: Advertisers’ Dream. Nutrition Nightmare? The Case for More Responsibility in Food Advertising (National Food Alliance) 1993” and this interview is about how McDonald’s exploits children with their advertising.  She has done lots of research and is at the forefront of this campaign against McDonald’s.

I still need to get more sources of different types with different views and opinions.  I need to form a more structured thesis and really get my sides separated and ready to form an argument.  Is there any format or other criteria or is this basically it?  Form a thesis and do it? If so that’s fine but if there’s more I don’t want to go too far and have to backtrack.

Freire #3

Freire goes against his own idea in this essay. I feel like he is telling the reader too much and expecting them to take it and run with it. They have no other sources to think upon this subject with so they cannot really formulate their own opinion. He tries to be open and use his own style but he fails. He should not have been so forceful with his words. I think that if the tone of the essay was a little lighter the point would have come across differently. Instead I get the feeling that he feels to strong about this subject that he cannot be too open minded and give all the evidence and fully explain the problems with the current system and the changes that must be mad. He tells us, instead of informing us.

Freire #2

I would define alienation as being empty and without the common understanding that a typical education is thought to bring.  The students are “…alienated like the slave in the Hegelian dialectic…”  They do not get a chance to comprehend what they are told, just to remember it in order to reproduce a replica of it later on a test or quiz.  They don’t understand, or have a alien feeling when learning, as if they don’t belong.

He uses Praxis in this essay as how the students learn.  He says “liberation is a praxis…” telling the reader that liberation is the way they learn and is a way of learning.  They use liberation in order to learn about there world and more fully understand what is going on in it.

Freire Question #1

It is interesting that Freire goes his whole essay without mentioning any actual examples within a classroom and barely seems to explain what the actual differences would be between the two types of teaching, only how it would go about being done. In an English class I feel that there would be active discussion and essays that do not have set topics/thesis but that are formed by the student. In a History class it would be tough. There might be analization of the time period moreso than just learning about what happened and why, such as determining its lasting effects. Psychology would involve active prodding and experiments to see how things are done, not so much how they work and why. I don’t think there is a way to do it for math. Math is a very concrete subject that has right and wrong answers. Students could create problems, I assume that would step outside of being told what to do.

An authentic form of thought and action would be a discussion that is started and lead mostly by students with the teacher adding in ideas occasionally and then incorporating them into an assignment or some sort of work that expands on the ideas that they all brought together.

Freire’s reflection is understanding your work and learning and relating it to the world, reflecting on what it has taught you. It involves being active with knowledge and building around with outside sources instead of taking and accepting something as what is told.

Teachers can be expected to learn about students and how they deal with things in life and the ways they learn. They will not learn knowledge necessarily, but they will gain insite into the life of a child in this time period. They will watch them interact with the material and each other. It will be a different kind of learning but one that could be considered just as important.