Please post one question related to each of the two readings for this week (critical theory and Freirian critical pedagogy). Feel free to engage with others' questions, but this is not necessary to complete the assignment
1. What are the underlying reasons for using critical theory in teaching or training teachers? In other words, what is the major value of using critical theory in education?
2. Is it reasonable to think that critical practice in education is on the rise?
3. What teaching practices can lead to empowering students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds?
from Susan EDUS 706 Blog Questions due 23 October 2018
from “Critical Theory”
In class, Kurt, you continue to discuss how those in the ‘Democratic Theory’ camp differ from those in the ‘Critical Theory’ camp. In the articles, they seem to cross over such as in the “Critical Theory” article, when Jessop writes states “Like John Dewey, Habermas focused on the essential importance of deliberative communication to healthy democracy. Democracy is not simply a matter of extending participation” (p. 195). Jessop later explains that Habermas’s theory of democratic deliberation is criticized because it “fails sufficiently to recognize that asymmetric power is inscribed in the situation itself”. How would those who critique Habermas’s theory see the crossover between Democratic Theory and Critical Theory or do they see a clear division?
from “Freire, Paulo: Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Critical Theory”
I read this article second, and as I read it, I wondered what Critical Theory looked like in the classroom. How is the dialogue used not only to give power to the learners but also in instruction for different fields? How does this dialogue play out differently than the dialogue for Democratic Theory?
The praxis and historicity referenced as the two defining features of human existence and freedom - how does one person’s reflective, conscious action based on their experiences and the subsequent history and culture they create obstructs the actions, history, and culture of another individual? How do we move forward from that impasse?
Jessop article:
p. 194, second column in the line that begins with “However, the caution exercised…”
It states the malleability and incomplete nature of truth as an evolving concept. How does this have a place at the table with what appears to seemingly exist as absolute truths in the current events such as nonconsensual sexual activity is never acceptable or discrimination against race, religion, sexual orientation, gender is never acceptable?
For the Paulo Friere article: This stems a bit from the discussion we had in another class last week with regard to some of the Friere work, but my question is: "Who decides that people are oppressed, or which people are oppressed and what they need, or how they should be helped, and does this just become another form of oppression?
For the CT article: On page 195 the article talks about Habermas and his idea of the "public sphere". Habermas "focused on the essential importance of deliberative communication to healthy democracy" and also talks about the "erosion of the public sphere". I would agree with the idea that the public sphere has eroded, but my question is: "how do we get that back?"
After reading the article on critical theory I’m left wondering what next. Critical theory seems to put a lot of faith in the right thing happening. When analysis and critique are supposed to lead to “desire to change” (Jessop) a lot of faith is put in others’ ability and willingness to listen. I just feel like there should be some action involved. Later, the author states that this lack of suggesting ways to fix what is wrong is out of a commitment to human freedom. This kind of seemed like a cop-out to me. I guess my question is, does critical theory rely too much on people listening to critique to lead to the desire to change, while not really offering up a suggestion on how things should be?
I really liked how Freire did not stop with conversation and added action through praxis to how change occurs. I understand that according to Freire dialogue is more than just conversation, but it seems too easy that this is how oppressed people can emerge from a culture of silence. Am I alone in thinking this?
Jessop (2014) claims that the transformation CT aspires to bring about is to be “achieved through analysis and critique” (p. 193). In thinking about my own schooling, I struggle to recall moments when I was called to analyze and critique anything beyond one of T.S. Eliot’s poems. I’m curious if any of you felt like you were invited to regularly analyze and critique in the way that Jessop (2014) describes? In what ways do we create space for this “analysis and critique” in public schools today?
As he acknowledges some of the limitations to common practices claiming to enact a critical pedagogy, Glass (2014) claims that Freire’s “praxis-oriented concept of dialogue has been widely misinterpreted to mean a kind of individualistic give-and-take conversation between teachers and students” (p. 339). I am curious if any of you have witnessed a lesson or activity that has actually enacted Freire’s pedagogy effectively and in a manner that promotes “liberation from oppression” (Glass, 2014, p. 339). Can you describe this lesson or activity and why you think it actually enacts critical pedagogy?
Posted by Jacqueline As I consider both texts in terms of theory to action, I question how this looks in real time. I recently listened to a Richmond City Council person describe conditions in city schools which included rats in the classroom, mold in classrooms, no toilet paper for the bathrooms, and more. These seem to be contributories to dehumanization. Recently, we marveled at the conditions presented in the documentary Waste Land. Taking into consideration some of the conditions right here in Richmond and Freire’s, work it appears that the oppressed sometimes need a someone to show them their oppression and lead them in the dialogue needed to expose the oppression. It currently seems that those who recognize the “oppression” in some of our urban schools are operating outside of the center of oppression. Potential leaders within the environment of the oppressed are actually benefitting from the oppressive banking system of education because it offers an avenue of control and power. Questions: How do we move from theory to action? What ideas are there regarding moving RPS to toward an emancipatory pedagogy? Does anyone have any examples of this actually happening?
Jessop article: I struggled with the conclusion of this article when she states that the goal is not to "anticipat(e) a particular future state." (p.196). Without a goal, can we have enough vision to make changes that will make a big difference? At the same time, I question if she is saying we should not try to solve the whole problem all at once (of which I am a proponent), but rather should try to make small changes that are realistic in order to reach a more equitable society? Does this not still require a bigger "goal" state?
Freire article: What are some things we can do in the education system to begin enacting Freire's theory. Yes, as teachers we can begin to give up the power in the classroom and allow students a voice, but how can we also give teachers a voice in the larger political structure of our education system?
1. What are the underlying reasons for using critical theory in teaching or training
ReplyDeleteteachers? In other words, what is the major value of using critical theory
in education?
2. Is it reasonable to think that critical practice in education is on the rise?
3. What teaching practices can lead to empowering students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds?
from Susan
ReplyDeleteEDUS 706
Blog Questions
due 23 October 2018
from “Critical Theory”
In class, Kurt, you continue to discuss how those in the ‘Democratic Theory’ camp differ from those in the ‘Critical Theory’ camp. In the articles, they seem to cross over such as in the “Critical Theory” article, when Jessop writes states “Like John Dewey, Habermas focused on the essential importance of deliberative communication to healthy democracy. Democracy is not simply a matter of extending participation” (p. 195). Jessop later explains that Habermas’s theory of democratic deliberation is criticized because it “fails sufficiently to recognize that asymmetric power is inscribed in the situation itself”. How would those who critique Habermas’s theory see the crossover between Democratic Theory and Critical Theory or do they see a clear division?
from “Freire, Paulo: Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Critical Theory”
I read this article second, and as I read it, I wondered what Critical Theory looked like in the classroom. How is the dialogue used not only to give power to the learners but also in instruction for different fields? How does this dialogue play out differently than the dialogue for Democratic Theory?
Glass article:
ReplyDeleteThe praxis and historicity referenced as the two defining features of human existence and freedom - how does one person’s reflective, conscious action based on their experiences and the subsequent history and culture they create obstructs the actions, history, and culture of another individual? How do we move forward from that impasse?
Jessop article:
p. 194, second column in the line that begins with “However, the caution exercised…”
It states the malleability and incomplete nature of truth as an evolving concept. How does this have a place at the table with what appears to seemingly exist as absolute truths in the current events such as nonconsensual sexual activity is never acceptable or discrimination against race, religion, sexual orientation, gender is never acceptable?
For the Paulo Friere article: This stems a bit from the discussion we had in another class last week with regard to some of the Friere work, but my question is: "Who decides that people are oppressed, or which people are oppressed and what they need, or how they should be helped, and does this just become another form of oppression?
ReplyDeleteFor the CT article: On page 195 the article talks about Habermas and his idea of the "public sphere". Habermas "focused on the essential importance of deliberative communication to healthy democracy" and also talks about the "erosion of the public sphere". I would agree with the idea that the public sphere has eroded, but my question is: "how do we get that back?"
After reading the article on critical theory I’m left wondering what next. Critical theory seems to put a lot of faith in the right thing happening. When analysis and critique are supposed to lead to “desire to change” (Jessop) a lot of faith is put in others’ ability and willingness to listen. I just feel like there should be some action involved. Later, the author states that this lack of suggesting ways to fix what is wrong is out of a commitment to human freedom. This kind of seemed like a cop-out to me. I guess my question is, does critical theory rely too much on people listening to critique to lead to the desire to change, while not really offering up a suggestion on how things should be?
ReplyDeleteI really liked how Freire did not stop with conversation and added action through praxis to how change occurs. I understand that according to Freire dialogue is more than just conversation, but it seems too easy that this is how oppressed people can emerge from a culture of silence. Am I alone in thinking this?
Jessop (2014) claims that the transformation CT aspires to bring about is to be “achieved through analysis and critique” (p. 193). In thinking about my own schooling, I struggle to recall moments when I was called to analyze and critique anything beyond one of T.S. Eliot’s poems. I’m curious if any of you felt like you were invited to regularly analyze and critique in the way that Jessop (2014) describes? In what ways do we create space for this “analysis and critique” in public schools today?
ReplyDeleteAs he acknowledges some of the limitations to common practices claiming to enact a critical pedagogy, Glass (2014) claims that Freire’s “praxis-oriented concept of dialogue has been widely misinterpreted to mean a kind of individualistic give-and-take conversation between teachers and students” (p. 339). I am curious if any of you have witnessed a lesson or activity that has actually enacted Freire’s pedagogy effectively and in a manner that promotes “liberation from oppression” (Glass, 2014, p. 339). Can you describe this lesson or activity and why you think it actually enacts critical pedagogy?
Posted by Jacqueline
ReplyDeleteAs I consider both texts in terms of theory to action, I question how this looks in real time. I recently listened to a Richmond City Council person describe conditions in city schools which included rats in the classroom, mold in classrooms, no toilet paper for the bathrooms, and more. These seem to be contributories to dehumanization. Recently, we marveled at the conditions presented in the documentary Waste Land. Taking into consideration some of the conditions right here in Richmond and Freire’s, work it appears that the oppressed sometimes need a someone to show them their oppression and lead them in the dialogue needed to expose the oppression. It currently seems that those who recognize the “oppression” in some of our urban schools are operating outside of the center of oppression. Potential leaders within the environment of the oppressed are actually benefitting from the oppressive banking system of education because it offers an avenue of control and power.
Questions:
How do we move from theory to action? What ideas are there regarding moving RPS to toward an emancipatory pedagogy? Does anyone have any examples of this actually happening?
Jessop article: I struggled with the conclusion of this article when she states that the goal is not to "anticipat(e) a particular future state." (p.196). Without a goal, can we have enough vision to make changes that will make a big difference? At the same time, I question if she is saying we should not try to solve the whole problem all at once (of which I am a proponent), but rather should try to make small changes that are realistic in order to reach a more equitable society? Does this not still require a bigger "goal" state?
ReplyDeleteFreire article: What are some things we can do in the education system to begin enacting Freire's theory. Yes, as teachers we can begin to give up the power in the classroom and allow students a voice, but how can we also give teachers a voice in the larger political structure of our education system?