The intrepid debunking teens – and a dog – make Scooby Doo ideal rationalist TV, says Myra Zepf
|Scooped by Sharrock|
An administrator might use this show (Scooby Doo) to discuss data analysis as a kind of debunking of superstitious, party lines to explore rational explanations. Where is learning taking place? What is not working? How can we improve practices? Let's be those meddling kids!
This was an easy but valuable read. I found it entertaining and informative. Can this find its way into a secondary school classroom? I think so. I think it would work as non-fictional reading in any subject. It introduces useful terms as well: double-entendre, rationalism, superstition, per se, and intrepid. It could also help to distinguish betweeen plot and story in that the old Scooby Doo tv series had the same plot repeatedly but the story details changed slightly. A classroom could discuss how many other tv show series were "formulaic." Is this a bad thing or a good thing? This could also lead to questioning if something can be "bad" or "good". After all, a show designed for entertainment achieves its goals when there is an audience. This could lead to questioning and ways to construct an appropriate question? elements of an appropriate question. Open versus closed questions? etc.
From the article: "It’s not that Scooby-Doo has another "adult" level that I can suddenly decipher. There are no double-entendres for me to snigger at or references above my children’s heads. What they see and understand is what I see and understand. Only now, as an adult, I have a wider context within which to place it."