Critical Pedagogy, JST 3
Hey, guys! Writing on behalf of Jigsaw Table 3.
As a group, we worked to define critical pedagogy, then crafted three sections of responses that consider how we apply critical pedagogy in our respective fields.
Thank you for reading, & wishing you all a happy start to your week!:)
– JST3 (AKA Helen Ajao, Carter Eggleston, Qishen Huang, Leslie Jernegan, Medha Satyal and Ruixiang Xie)
Group definition: Critical pedagogy comes from a desire to foster curiosity and acknowledge the realities of student experiences through the application of relevant material. In practice, it centers around an inclusive, equity-focused environment of collective learning between teacher and student where all are able and encouraged to learn from each other. Such a space liberates and empowers learners—both teachers and students—to engage with the world outside of the classroom.
Student-Centered Learning as a type of Critical Learning
Student-Centered Learning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXS5FnaWyDk – video.
The video is about a school and the strategies used to ensure that their teachings are student-centered. These strategies explain three main tactics which include
Collaborative group work
Student choice
Inquiry-based activities
Collaborative group work: The lesson plan was designed to engage students in a group work activity. These activity helps the student to learn from each other and makes them successful.
Student Choice: This strategy involves empowering to the student to decide how they want to learn. It gives the student the feeling that they have control of their learning. Part of the activities includes mind mapping exercise, role play and setting ground rules for themselves. One of the experience while taking a class was being given an opportunity to redesign the class syllabus, the instructor gave the opportunity to choose the deadline date for our assignment and also to include our expectations for class into the syllabus.
Inquiry-based activities: This was used to encourage the student to research independently with inquiry-based activities. These activities include student given task that has to do solving real-world problems. It makes the student engage in critical thinking, teachers listening to students’ questions and inspire them to put forward further questions to deepen student’s investigations
These three strategies explain Freire ideology about laboratory action. The liberation is a social dynamics involving working with and engaging other people in a power-conscious process. The students are empowered to think critically. It brings the cultivation of both teachers and students critical consciousness. Above all, it maintains the authority of the teacher as well as respecting the being and experiences of students.
Critical Pedagogy in the Arts
Foster curiosity and acknowledge the realities of student experiences through application of relevant material. This focus is typically a key focal point for creative writing, as much of the creative work (e.g., short stories, novels, poems, essays, plays) we (students and teachers) produce tends to be influenced by what most interests and concerns us, tends to leverage writers’ experiences—or, as Paulo Freire puts it, discusses “the concrete reality of [our] lives.” Although some teachers experiment with requiring students not to write about themselves in their submitted work, these teachers are apt to encourage their students to write about people, places and ideas that, although non-autobiographical, nevertheless inspire their curiosity.
Nonetheless, as a teacher, I urge caution with limiting the subjects about which students can/cannot write. (An example: A creative writing professor told me this past week that she once asked students not to write about guns in their work, as she was sick of reading about them. This censorship, she reported, proved suffocating for her students, particularly those who genuinely felt pressed to include guns in their creative work for myriad reasons. Is the classroom not a place to play with and enhance our skills to best relay our messages?) While I acknowledge the benefits in placing constraints on writing and providing prompts, these assignments seem to best serve students in the experimentation and idea-fruition stages.
To put things more concisely, as a teacher I’m working to help my students build their toolkits for best crafting the creative work they wish to create. The strongest creative work, from my experience, has been the work that’s been honest—the work that’s been written by a writer with something to say. Who am I to muzzle that?
The students and teacher are all learners. The ability of the instructor to transcend the role of a knowledge dispenser is paramount to the concept of critical pedagogy. As stated by Joe L. Kinchloe, teaching is complex, and involves much more than serving “as deskilled messengers who uncritically pass along a canned curriculum.” This particularly resonates as a teacher in the arts. Intrinsic to any successful artist is their ability to create work that is undeniably their own. Its forms exhibit manipulation from the artist’s own hand, its aesthetics reflect choices guided by the artist’s own beliefs, and its messages are delivered through a voice molded by the artist’s own passions and experiences.
There is no “canned curriculum” for this. As a teacher, I must expect to learn from my students, just as they expect to learn from me. I can certainly share with them the knowledge that I have gained from my own experiences, but I must be aware that their experiences are different from my own. Establishing a relationship where I’m comfortable learning from my students broadens all of our perspectives and enables all of us to further develop as artists in way that is honest to our individuality.
Trust yourself. All great teachers are able to inspire self-confidence in their students, and students who believe in themselves and the work that they do are almost always more successful than those who don’t. In the arts, a lack of self-confidence can be more difficult to conceal, as there aren’t as many facts, figures, or formulas to hide behind. Assessment is typically done through the creation of art, not through testing, and an unavoidable component of this is evaluating student creativity. How can I adequately gauge creativity if my students don’t feel confident and comfortable enough to infuse their work with their own fears, passions, and ideas? Every aspect of my role as an instructor must be mindful towards instilling confidence in students. This empowers them to create more successful work, and also carries with it benefits for life outside the classroom. Creating environments that build self-confidence during sensitive moments like critique or other periods of feedback are particularly important.
Feedback. Just as teachers teach students and students teach teachers, students serve the purpose of teaching each other in the classroom. Much of my academic world spins around the creative-writing workshop—classes in which students turn in their creative work to their peers, and peers return the next week with thorough feedback, both written and to be discussed as a class, with other students and/or the instructor as the discussion facilitator.
In such classes, students are in a constant cycle of collective learning via critical thinking, as those responding to a piece are learning from the process of giving feedback, and the person receiving the feedback, after having first learned from the process of producing the work, is now learning from the process of actively listening to responses regarding the next steps to take with that work. Such a space exemplifies self-directed, democratic education; each student in the group should and must be heard, and should and must actively listen. The antipode of passive learning, workshops, when facilitated properly, exemplify the practice of critical pedagogy, and serve not to tear apart peers’ work. Rather, the questions, collectively addressed, are: What does this work, on its own terms, seek to do? What have we discovered and appreciated with respect to the sensibility particular to this work? How can we work to make this even better?
Critical Pedagogy in Science and Engineering
The traditional lecture, with teachers as deliverers of information and students as passive receivers, is very popular in undergraduate courses in the sciences. These lectures tend to focus almost exclusively on information transfer—which is certainly important, but should not be the only goal. There are key facts and concepts that are important to know in every discipline, but in today’s world where information is constantly readily accessible, it isn’t important to have every fact or reaction or equation memorized. Instructors should place greater focus on how students might apply concepts in different contexts rather than focusing on memorization of concepts.
What differs the critical pedagogy from traditional lectures is that critical pedagogy emphasize on active thinking and learning of students. The education system right now is more like a screening system, which can provide all the information students want, in order to put students into places that he/she is comfortable to stay at. It focus on the input and output of the system regardless of the processing method of it. However, an ideal critical pedagogy would encourage the students to actively find out the direction they want to go by learning and thinking about what information they can get from the system. Thus the students will no long just be inputs of the system, but become variables of the system. The final output will change with them interactively.
Table – Comparison between traditional lecture and ideal critical pedagogy.
Typical Situation | Ideal Critical Pedagogy | |
Information Delivery | Lecture, passive learning | Active, student-centered learning |
Assessment | Standard tests | Applied question (not of the purpose of testing, regurgitation of information) |
Student-teacher interaction | Authoritarian | Interactive |
Class activities | None | Group work |
Class size | Huge | Small |
Priority | Knowledge (facts) | Curiosity, skills |
It is well-established that passive learning strategies are not as effective as active learning strategies. In my view, the traditional lecture style likely persists for two main reasons. The first being that professors tend to teach the same way they were taught. As future educators, it is our responsibility to not fall into this trap. The second reason, and perhaps the greatest challenge, is large class sizes; at some large universities, introductory classes can have hundreds of students. Having large class sizes is economically effective for universities, but makes courses impersonal for both instructors and students. It can be difficult to design engaging activities that can be scaled up to such a large group of students, and lecture halls don’t provide an appropriate physical environment for collaborative group work. Smaller class sizes would allow for more personal and interactive relationships between instructor and student as well as among students. With technological advances, one strategy to encourage engagement that has become popular is presenting quiz questions during lectures which students respond to using clickers. This is a good way to check that students are present and absorbing information; however it falls short in that it doesn’t require students to apply or manipulate or synthesize the information they have learned.
October 29, 2018 @ 4:50 pm
First let me start by saying, I really like your definition of critical pedagogy! I agree that this mindset of learning is liberating and empowering. So well said. As I think about my teaching philosophy, your section on student centered learning resonates with me and describes the type of classroom learning environment I want to create. Sometimes I find it hard to articulate what that looks like though, so these three strategies provide helpful concrete examples. Allowing students to have a say in how they learn will also help them gain a stronger sense of responsibility for their own learning. On another note, the quote “no canned curriculum” sums up a lot about critical pedagogy.
October 29, 2018 @ 7:10 pm
I agree with Carlisle that your definition of critical pedagogy rocks, especially the part of “acknowledging the realities”. I would also like to respectfully disagree in your assessment that large class sizes and critical pedagogy are mutually exclusive. While ideally, we would all love to teach sections with 20 students, that is not always possible, particularly in the lower level courses. Although it is not ideal to teach to class sizes in the hundreds, instructors supported by a horde of TA’s can find ways to incorporate critical pedagogy. Activities can still be done in class to promote active learning. Instructors can have students discuss X with their neighbors, make tests more open-ended, short answer questions, and use technology to make lectures more interactive. Since so many intro level courses are larger, I think we should put extra effort into fostering critical thinking and creativity in these courses to undo the damage of our current K-12 public school system as soon as possible.
October 31, 2018 @ 2:52 am
Hi Sarah,
I both agree and disagree with your assessment of critical pedagogy in large classes. I think aspects of critical pedagogy can (I don’t know how to italicize things in a comment but imagine that can is italicized for emphasis) be implemented in larger classes, but I would also acknowledge that depending on the resources allocated to individual professors, it’s not always easy to do that. If a professor is overloaded and has 3 sections of 100+ student courses, along with departmental demands regarding assignments, etc., it’s easy to see where that individual would have the personal resources to explore ways to engage critical pedagogy in their classes.
Like you said, I think we should all strive to engage critical pedagogy, but we should also not be so quick to harshly judge those who do not.
Incidentally, I don’t think the onus should be on the higher education system to “undo” (are both of my quotes facing the same way? They are as I’m writing this comment and I don’t like it) the negatives caused by the primary education system. Rather we, as individuals, parents, and community members, should work toward shifting the educational paradigm so that K-12 education is actually valuable and sets students up for later successes. Developmentally, it’s much more difficult to undo or correct maladaptive behaviors so late in adolescence, the time when most students begin in college.
October 31, 2018 @ 3:51 pm
Hi,
This is a good point ! I agree that reforming the system at the root ( K-12) would be the ideal goal and something that we should think about vitally, seriously and urgently. At the same time I understand why changes can come about more easily at the higher levels because by then it becomes an adult education problem. Whereas, any revision of the primary school system needs to be drafted with regards to developmental psychology and sociology of early education, and not to forget, a great deal of cultural battling, which makes it really difficult.
October 30, 2018 @ 10:50 pm
Thanks for sharing Leslie, I liked your take on critical pedagogy in science and engineering and agree that sometimes it is an information transfer session. I feel that sometimes learning science and engineering aspects is a more iterative approach were the student needs to be proactive in participating. So the lesson portion where the professors lecturers the material is only part of what is required to truly understand and grasp the topic for professional use.
October 31, 2018 @ 2:09 pm
Thanks for sharing Table 3. I loved the attached YouTube video from Maloney High School in CT. It made me feel inspired and hopeful about teaching in a student-centered classroom. You mentioned several times that large class sizes are counterproductive to critical pedagogy. Unfortunately, at large universities small class sizes just aren’t an option. However, I just recently sat in on a large (ca. 100 students) chemistry class and the instructor’s student-centered approach seemed to be well received by the students. There were clicker questions. Students were invited to ask questions often and the questions were thoughtful. It was fun to witness some of the pedagogical strategies that we’ve been discussing in GEDI being used in a classroom.
October 31, 2018 @ 5:31 pm
Nice post Table 3. One area of student-centered teaching that I am curious about is allowing the students to edit or alter the syllabus. I think setting goals and expectations for the class is good, and if you have a variety of options for a final exam date then fine, why not try to find a time that works best for the majority of the students? But, I wonder if there are any aspects of a class syllabus that students could alter that would actually impact how the class is taught, such as how exams are administrated, the types of assignments given, etc. I feel like, as a professor, it would be interesting to experiment with student-led syllabi for a decade or so, to develop a series of different takes on your classroom that you feel work well, and then you could offer these versions to the students at the beginning of class. That would allow some level of personalization for the students while retaining a valuable course that you know works, and it would keep it fresh for you as well!
October 31, 2018 @ 8:28 pm
I’ve had very good (albeit limited) experiences in syllabus co-creation. I defined the course objectives and specified the aptitudes everyone needed to have at the end. And then we worked through the “course design” together, which gave students the opportunity to define terms / concepts and draw up a kind of contract for the learning community. We were able to accommodate multiple learning styles in this manner and to leverage that diversity into something that benefitted the group as a whole. I will definitely do it again!
But not with a huge group, which brings me to Table 3’s awesome post: I think this is a terrific and versatile definition of Critical Pedagogy. And I do think that critical pedagogy approaches are easier to deploy in smaller classes than in large classes — but I don’t think that’s the point of critical pedagogy. Rather, I think critical pedagogy asks us as instructors to interrogate the rationale for having huge classes in the first place. Are they good for certain kinds of courses that are necessarily “banking model” / stand and deliver? Or are they just acceptable? Are the classes large because the university doesn’t want to / “can’t afford more faculty? Are students learning with and from the GTA’s in these large classes? Or is the instructor doing all of the “teaching” and leaving the course administration to the GTAs? Is that necessary? Ok?