Graduate Research and Critical Pedagogy: Down Copperhead Road

Log in

Submitted by clardoyle on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 17:17

Over time I have become curious about how some graduate students, who are exposed to various approaches to research, gravitate to critical educational research. At this stage in my teaching I believe that I can guess what students will be most comfortable with quantitative, qualitative, or critical research [It is important we hold on to our illusions]. Over the next couple of writings on this site I want to share my understandings of how some graduate students, building on their own ideologies and experiences, move toward realizing that a critical research is the best approach for dealing with the complexities of educational, social, and cultural life.

The context for this piece is a graduate course that consists of quantitative, qualitative, and critical approaches to educational research. This course examines ways of knowing, educational theories, and methodologies as they apply to the various approaches to research in education. The course was developed and is taught by a team of professors. I helped develop and have been part of that team for over fifteen years, taking responsibility for qualitative and critical research.

As I indicated above, my particular interest here is in how graduate students accept, respond to, and eventually gravitate to one of these approaches. This journey has taken on a particular fascination for me. It should be noted that it is sort of the “dentist course” for many students: some people dread doing it. The journey for many is somewhat analogous to Steve Earle’s Copperhead Road [“You better stay away from Copperhead Road”].

The raw material for this piece consists of hundreds of final papers from graduate students who have been exposed to three approaches to research. Furthermore, I draw on countless hours of thesis and dissertation supervision, where graduate students examine their ideologies, practices, and comfort levels as they agonize over their own research. Part of the exercise with graduate students is to indicate the array of approaches to educational research. In this way students can better appreciate that their own divergent thinking and research interests are not out of tune with the rest of the academic world. One other aspect of this process is to help graduate students appreciate the significance and complexity of what they do. This often means trying to set a context for the ever-changing site of educational research.

Given my own ideology and interest I stress that critical social research attempts to reveal the socio-historical specificity of knowledge and to shed light on how particular knowledge reproduce structural relations of inequality and oppression. Its intent is to expose enduring structures of power and domination, to deconstruct the discourses and narratives that support them and to work as advocates for social justice. This approach is also foundational to the work I do in theatre: more of that at another time.

Graduate students, as well as some colleagues, are not always comfortable with a critical education theory that looks at the role that education reciprocally plays in the shaping of public life. In particular critical education theory interrogates how public life is shaped through the exercise of power used instrumentally through the medium of education. As teachers and professors we need to realize that critical education theory sees education as being shaped by the structures and the powers that exist in the wider society, but it also sees education as a powerful force for shaping the minds, perceptions, beliefs and behaviors of the general public. This is where fundamental questions about who shapes the official curriculum, whose knowledge counts, and how classrooms and administrative offices are shaped by the contexts of social, political and economic forces? The impact of such an approach, with such loaded questions, is not lost on graduate students. They realize very quickly that these questions have to be applied to their own work in teaching and learning. We are not talking about “the other” here, we are talking about ourselves. It is easy to see why there would be much greater comfort with simply sending out a survey and have it computer coded. Having said that, it is my experience that many graduate students are not afraid to ask the hard questions. They often realize that if there is to be any possibility of transformation the vexing questions need to be asked and institutional structures and practices need to be interrogated.

Part of the concern for graduate students, who have been exposed to thoughts of objectivity, is in realizing that any attempt to dispense with values, historical circumstances, and political considerations in educational research is misguided. Another issue has to do with accepting that understanding a particular educational issue is very often locked into context plus acknowledging the conceptual frames they bring to the inquiry. They had been told, or assumed, that for research to be valuable it should not be tainted by researcher belief systems. Some students prefer to be just told “how to do it”. I have found that, especially in recent years, such students are in the minority.

Graduate students write that their desire to change the status quo stemming from the issue of emancipation is one particular area; for example dealing with schoolyard bullying. They see the purpose of critical research is to change a problematic situation or phenomena, and merely understanding it is not enough. They further claim that critical approaches to educational inquiry need to enable powerless people to understand and change their world [Paulo lives]. Some graduate students assert if they stand by and refuse to question the issues/concerns in their own surroundings, they will become dormant. It has been forcefully stated. Once again by graduate students I work with, that a main philosophical thought behind critical research is that it should result in emancipation of the disempowered, bringing about social change. It is a struggle against hegemony, risking disturbance of the status quo, and desiring the improvement of education by changing it. This realization is a powerful one, especially when it is internalized in a fashion that impacts on, and transforms, work in teaching and learning. Graduate students tell me that we are in a better position to do this when we realize that our educational problems and solutions are both linked to social, political, cultural, and economic realities. That is why teaching about educational research is still exciting to me. [It is possible to come “back from Copperhead Road”].

Comments

As one who literally lived on Copperhead Road

Sat, 05/17/2008 - 13:28 — Joe Kincheloe

Clar,

What a wonderful blog! And thanks for the Tennessee metaphor. I really did live and work on the road Steve is referencing in the song. I even got to meet Steve and talk to him about our mutual childhoods (and unlikely ideological perspectives) in Tennessee when he was playing an anti-Iraqi War gig in New York City. To me it was a great brush with celebrity. So Copperhead Road sucked me in immediately.

It really is a shame that some students see research courses in masters and doctoral programs in such a negative light. But, of course, we understand why. The most excruciating class I took in my graduate work was the general, required educational research course. In this trip-to-the-dentist course there was only one proper way to conduct research, the idea of research having a practical value was viewed as absurd, the notion that different paradigms and epistemologies existed was never mentioned, and that different researchers might legitimately devise differing interpretations of an event was heretical. Every intuition I had about research was "incorrect" in this context. I didn't particularly enjoy the experience.

What a difference between this experience and the educational research course you teach. I would have loved to have taken your class as a young student--hell, I'd love to take it now, Clar. And you're correct, while some students will have already have bought into positivistic orientations, most students who take critical research courses will understand the complexity, multidimensionality, and even the fun of knowledge production. This is not to mention that probably the most powerful educational learning experience humans have devised involves research on things that matter. I think Freire had a few things to say about that.

So thanks so much for the great insights into research. You know how much we appreciate you, your teaching, and your work here in the Freire Project. Just a few words in closing from Steve Earle:

Well the sheriff came around in the middle of the night
Heard mama cryin', knew something wasn't right
He was headed down to Knoxville with the weekly load
You could smell the whiskey burnin' down Copperhead Road

Sincerely,

Joe L. Kincheloe (a.k.a. John Lee Pettimore)
Canada Research Chair in Critical Pedagogy
Faculty of Education
McGill University

a grad student's persepective

Mon, 05/19/2008 - 22:18 — eloise

hi clar! as a current grad student i find your research incredibly interesting and Needed. i can share with you some of the experiences i have had with critical theory and critical pedagogy - im sure it will sound familiar to what many of your students tell you!

i was not in the field of education per se until grad school and i was really shocked that it was such a big 'deal' to have a critical perspective - namely critical pedagogy. i came from a background in development studies from a radical university with an equally radical department and being critical was kind of unremarkable and indeed expected if you wanted to be rigorous in your analyses.

as a grad student in education the experience with critical pedagogy is much different. you must constantly state from the outset: "i am a critical researcher, i am a critical pedagogue" - because most aren't! if you take a course with a faculty member who does not engage with critical discourses - well it can be difficult sometimes because you're talking two different worlds. of course there are always exceptions and some open faculty members. but generally if you're in a class that's not critical and you are, you are faced with some comments like this: 'your writing sounds too personal, too subjective', 'academic writing should be objective, make yourself invisible as the writer', 'this is not a critical theory course, this is a __________course'. these are tough spots to navigate as a grad student where you feel powerless and as though whoever is giving you the grade that term lays down the law and you just have to follow it.

one of my fellow grad students is putting together an edited collection to be published this year you might find useful, it's about the affective journey into critical discourses and is authored by grad students and scholars in critical pedagogy. it's called 'rocking your world' and the editor is Andrew Churchill

eloise

Does US education have a problem?

Thu, 06/05/2008 - 19:38 — Vanessa Paradis

Clar,
Thank you for your blog and covering this subject. It appears I have been short-changed in my education because I have not learned about the third option for research in my master's work or in my doctorate work. I am currently in the final leg of my journey and I have become disenchanted with the watered down curriculum (this is a trend I've noticed over the past two years). In fact, in my research course (which is online, and the second, "advanced" course) several of us were in a heated debate over the content. Of course, I cited what Freire said about content. Two of us expressed our views that the course was not preparing us for what we need to know when we conduct our own research, that it appears knowledge is being highly filtered, and only the basic information is being presented. We were somewhat ostracized for our views because other students want the course to be easy and only care to receive reassurances as to what a great job they are doing on their assignments, not any sort of critical analysis of their work. I am disappointed in my education and I am now expecting the third research course will only be slightly better than the first two.

Here I am, at this point in my studies, and as far as critical research, all I am able to find in our textbook is a brief discussion of critical ethnography, less than two pages that define it. The first characteristic of critical ethnography is stated as follows: “Critical researchers are usually politically minded people” (Creswell, 2008, Figure 15.2, p. 178). Now, that clearly sets it apart from other research methodologies, right?....(what's wrong with this picture?)

It appears to me that some universities here in the United States are very good at filtering knowledge (are they universities for the poor?).

What defines critical research is not currently clear to me, and I am looking forward to reading more in your blog (and doing some additional research on the topic). In fact, throughout my studies, even critical pedagogy was not covered in any of my coursework; I just happened to "stumble" across it when an instructor mentioned I might like Peter McLaren's work. Once I read some of his work, I was "off and running" so to speak. But still, nothing was ever mentioned in my courses.

References
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research.

Eager Grad Student Looking For Answers

Wed, 07/02/2008 - 21:44 — Miss Parchas

Hello Dr. Doyle,

I’m a graduate student at McGill University taking Dr. Kincheloe’s and Dr. Steinberg’s classes. Learning about Critical Pedagogy is new to me as I am a second language teacher and graduated with a bachelor of Education in Teaching English as a Second Language. Paolo Freire was never mentioned in any of my undergraduate courses. After my first classes (today) and doing some of my first readings on Freire, the idea of Critical Pedagogy is still unclear and abstract to me. I am very interested in learning more about critical pedagogy and after having read your blog (which is directly connected to me being a graduate student), I have a few questions for you:

In your blog you state, “As teachers and professors we need to realize that critical education theory sees education as being shaped by the structures and the powers that exist in the wider society, but it also sees education as a powerful force for shaping the minds, perceptions, beliefs and behaviors of the general public. This is where fundamental questions about who shapes the official curriculum, whose knowledge counts, and how classrooms and administrative offices are shaped by the contexts of social, political and economic forces?” In his book, Critical Pedagogy: Where Are We Now?, Dr. Kincheloe also claims, “what we do in the classroom is linked to wider social, political and economic forces” (p. 3). Maybe because I’m not educated enough in critical pedagogy and I know I don’t have much experience in teaching but I wonder, don’t we want to be a country that is economically well? Aren’t we proud of our economic status?

I understand the underlying principles of why the government, ministry of education, people with political power wouldn’t want critical pedagogy in the school system, but has it ever been proposed? Has it ever been researched and presented to them with all its positive effects? What reasons do these proponents give as to not accepting/rejecting critical pedagogy? I just don’t understand how people in the ministry that are not even in education, not in the classrooms, not in the schools...how could they come up with what should/shouldn’t be taught in the classroom? How could they decide what items are on/aren’t on a standardized test? I believe the wrong people are making these decisions. They aren’t educated in/don’t have the experience to be making such judgements. Teachers and education researchers, ect., should be assessing, evaluating and discussing and deciding what should be part of the curriculum.

On another note, I can definitely relate to your following quote, “They had been told, or assumed, that for research to be valuable it should not be tainted by researcher belief systems. Some students prefer to be just told ‘how to do it.’” I remember the first time a professor told me to use “I” for an assignment, I almost fell off my chair. Prior to that, all my other teachers had told me to NEVER use “I.” It was supposed to be an easy assignment and I had to incorporate my own experiences. It was one of the most difficult assignment I ever had to do because I was just not used to it!!

Thank you and looking forward to reading your answers,

Patricia Parchas

Patricia, I can relate!

Wed, 07/02/2008 - 23:33 — Vanessa Paradis

Patricia,

You are so fortunate to be able to take classes with Dr. Kincheloe and Dr. Steinberg! Most U.S. universities do not cover critical pedagogy at all, so we are on our own to learn. I have learned by doing a LOT of reading, writing, and through diaglogue here on this site as well.

As far as economics, I wonder, how can we say we are economically healthy as long as there are class divisions? Can we be proud of our economic system when there are people living on the streets or who do not know where their next meal will come from? Peter McLaren has written extensively on global capitalism. Also, you might find the article by Pepi Leistyna (p. 97 of the Where Are We Now? text) helpful to better understand the economic component and the interrelationship with education. I think it may answer at least some of your questions.

You have asked some great questions! It will all fit together as you read more and search for answers.

Vanessa

Thanks for your answers

Thu, 07/03/2008 - 01:00 — Miss Parchas

Hello Mrs. Paradis

Wow! This is great--I'm a first time user of this--I didn't know I would get an answer so quick.

I have two more classes Thursday, July 3. hopefully we could continue this discussion and I could add on what I learned in my classes.

Hope to hear from you soon,

Patricia Parchas

Patricia: I would love to hear what you learn in your classes!

Thu, 07/03/2008 - 01:33 — Vanessa Paradis

Patricia,

That's great! I will look for your responses on Thursday, then. I would enjoy further discussions. You might want to put my name in the subject line so that I don't miss seeing your post. It seems that there are many students posting now. Also, I have a blog, "Critical Pedagogy, Technology and Online Education." Feel free to begin a discussion there. You can get to it by scrolling down on the home page to where the blogs are and clicking on the link.

Vanessa

Vanessa Paradis: questions, questions, questions!!!

Thu, 07/03/2008 - 22:04 — Miss Parchas

Hello Mrs. Paradis,

I had a wonderful class with Dr. Steinberg today. I learned so much and I was just so interested. I guess because I feel that there is so much hidden behind education that I didn't know about. It is so complex and to hear about all the truths about who controls education and why was just mind-blowing to me!! I don't know if I have just been blind or simply ignorant all this time....all I know, is that every day I sit in my class, with my little red pen and my little stickers with my little Ministry of Education assessment grid beside me and I hum to myself while I correct and I think about how my job is so perfect and how life is beautiful. But after what I learned today (the history of education and how it has come to be) life is not so beautiful.

Dr. Steinberg gave us a little historical background of education and how we have come to what education is today. She began by the education of “truths.” The first TRUTH started with God and then shifted over to scientific truths. Later, we got to the industrial revolution era and how people realized that we need to educate people in order to have skills to work so that the country can become more industrialized (Fordism). Then came F. Taylor with the “factory model:” prepare students for work; make them efficient and ready for jobs. (We basically dumped God for consumption). We discussed capitalism and how people with money have the power to control others. We discussed who has power: big corporations, people in politics, media, etc. We learned about Hermeneutics and analyzing. We discussed important people like Dewey and Adorno. We then got to Critical Theory and how it came about. I understood everything up until this point. Now, in all my excitement (and 6 pages of note-taking), I got a little lost when Dr. Steinberg talked about LIBERATION THEOLOGY (something about Catholics and Marxists). Can you help me out with this?

I still have a lot of reading to do, so maybe the answer is in my books, but what better way to learn, other than from each other?

In tying all this in to Dr. Doyle’s original blog he states, (Graduate students) “see the purpose of critical research is to change a problematic situation or phenomena, and merely understanding it is not enough. They further claim that critical approaches to educational inquiry need to enable powerless people to understand and change their world. Some graduate students assert if they stand by and refuse to question the issues/concerns in their own surroundings, they will become dormant.” Forget being dormant, what about someone like myself, an educator, who is directly in contact with teaching, why did it take me so long (five years of university, starting on my sixth) to finally learn (even know) about all this? Shouldn’t all this have been taught to me in my first year, let alone be a required course (and not an elective). I feel robbed and misled!!

Patricia Parchas

Questions and Answers for Patricia

Thu, 07/03/2008 - 23:17 — Vanessa Paradis

Patricia,

I have been there, feeling as you do and I am still to a large degree - feeling cheated in my (very expensive) education. I went through my Master's program in education and not once did I hear "critical pedagogy." I am nearly finished with my doctorate in education and only one time was I provided even a reference to an author of critical pedagogy and it was only because the instructor happens to be a critical pedagogue and through my writing, she evidently thought I would like Peter McLaren's work. Now the weird thing was - I was my own worst enemy. I would research books on Amazon and I remember Freire's books came up from time to time, but I would always overlook them because they were not the books I needed at the time. And McLaren: I read a couple of his articles when the instructor mentioned him and I was hooked on his writing, but then his work was put on the back burner because it never fit in with what I needed to be studying for my coursework as dictated by the university. It wasn't until toward the end of my coursework that I had the opportunity to research areas of my choice and that was when McLaren's work came back to my attention (I always knew I would return to his work). And then, of course, to all of the other authors of critical pedagogy.

So, yes, now that I look back at my education, while I was my own enemy too, I feel very cheated. But look what you learned today, Patricia; it adds up! The educational system is very carefully devised to leave out authors and theories that would threaten what Giroux (2007) refers to as a "military-industrial-academic complex." This is a global problem. The system is clever to devise things like "critical thinking" which turns out to be a superficial form of making people think they are thinking. Everything is controlled - the textbooks, the curriculum, the teachers, the students...here, in the U.S. with the No Child Left Behind Act, the focus is on passing standardized tests, which totally counters any sort of true learning.

Times are changing, though. And like I said yesterday, your are so fortunate to have this opportunity with Drs. Kincheloe and Steinberg. While you will not learn everything in a few short weeks, you can take it from here and I can tell that you are motivated to do so, and that's wonderful.

You mentioned that we can learn together and you are correct about that! Liberation theology was something I heard only a few weeks ago from Dr. Kincheloe. Critical pedagogy, according to Dr. Kincheloe, can be traced back to liberation theology. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

I believe that critical pedagogy traces back to the form of liberation theology that emphasized people achieving their full potential at work they chose or that they had special gifts for. Let me know what you learn. You may want to do some internet research for a better reference than Wikipedia - or follow some of the outside links from Wikipedia.

Critical pedagogy also draws on some elements of Marxist theory and is variously criticized for doing so. Peter McLaren addresses these quite extensively. I will do a little research and get back with you with at least a summary of the major points, criticisms, and defenses, and some references if you would like to look into liberation theology.

What books are you reading? (Where Are We Now? is there another book?) Maybe I can help point you to more information in them. I have read the Where Are We Now book as well as many other books.

I am enjoying this discussion very much! Let me know if you have any other questions, too.

Vanessa

Giroux, H. (2007). The University In Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial Complex.Boulder: Paradigm.

Vanessa Paradis: connecting to the readings

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 23:17 — Miss Parchas

Thanks for helping me out! I took a look at the link you sent and then clicked on a few more links from there. I’m slowly getting there. I’m learning from my professors, discussing with my peers at school, reading the books as well as your very helpful answers.

To answer your question, I am reading Authentic Assessment Primer (Valerie Janesick) and The Art of Critical Pedagogy (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell) for Dr. Steinberg’s class and Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Pedagogy of Hope by Freire and Critical Pedagogy Primer by Kincheloe for Dr. Kincheloe’s class. Have you read these?

I was discussing with someone in class today that all these ideas are just so abstract. I wish I could see a real concrete example of a teacher using this in a primary or secondary class.

You mentioned that in the US that the NBLC Act counters any sort of real learning, so I took the liberty of familiarizing myself with the NCLB Act. Very interesting: TESTS, TESTS, TESTS! All I understood from was: WHITE, POWER, WHITE, POWER! So, this made me investigate our education system program, Quebec Education Program (QEP). Every teacher in Quebec is OBLIGATED to follow this. I’ve read this thing a billion times but this time I looked through it and tried to connect it with what I’ve learned so far about Critical Pedagogy; more precisely what Critical Theorists would support or oppose (I’m starting to get it!!J Please let me know if I am on track or completely off it).

Here is a quote from the first page, “Schools must continue transmitting the knowledge of previous generations, while at the same time helping all students develop skills that will enable them to become well-educated individuals, active citizens and competent workers” (QEP, p.4). I am connecting this to Dr. Steinberg’s class and discussion about Factory Models. Then on page 5, it states, the new program is about orienting secondary schools towards, “a more open-education that would allow some students to acquire basic qualifications for employment. Here is where it gets hot and heavy! Under the sub-heading Construction of Identity, it states, “...more attention is paid to work-related identity, and students are encouraged to clarify and develop their career paths and their self-esteem and to affirm themselves as individuals, workers and citizens,” (p. 13).

I think I’ll stop here and continue tomorrow. I’ll read the QEP a bit more and try to find things that Critical Theorists would support. For example, “encourage students to develop an active relationship with their environment while maintaining a critical attitude toward consumption and the exploitation of the environment” (p. 13).

Patricia Parchas

Quebec Education Plan: A Curriculum for the 21^st Century, 2008

Patricia: On Marxism, the "trinity" and the Internets

Sat, 07/05/2008 - 11:46 — Vanessa Paradis

Patricia,

Great analysis of the Quebec Education Program! There are the troubling aspects, but we cannot ignore the windows and doors of opportunity that allow for the practice of critical pedagogy. I am a teacher as well, and really, I do not find the standards here in the US an issue to address. They are so watered down, that if I focus my teaching on substance, the students will gain the knowledge to pass some stupid standardized test. Where teachers and administrators go wrong is to focus on the test to the point they are only teaching to the test. (They are manipulated into doing this because the NCLB ties student performance to school funding and ultimately to whether the school survives or is shut down.) This focus on teaching to the test is counterproductive for passing the test, much less for gaining any sort of real knowledge. I have seen this happen to excessive degrees in some school districts and this is a terrible injustice for the students, but it does serve the purpose of the military-industrial complex by limiting the number of people who get an education that would result in learning how to think for themselves. I incorporate critical pedagogy in my teaching in many ways and I am always looking for other ways because I am still learning. I incorporate multiple worldviews, allow student choice, maintain flexibility, encourage them to question what they read and seek additional perspectives, and take them on academic excursions into research and discourse on topics they show interest in. I maintain close contact with them through emails and telephone contact (I teach online), and if I had been allowed, I was willing to go to their schools (but, the program was being operated by a corporatized university that did not encourage this). There will be more I can do as I learn more. I have actually been doing this before I even knew what critical pedagogy was. Now that I know, I can learn even more and do a better job at designing online courses and teaching.

On Marxism

Peter McLaren, Paula Allman, and Glenn Rikowski, offer a detailed description of Marxism as applied in critical pedagogy on McLaren's web site:

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/pages/mclaren/

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and it lists his articles in red. The article on Marxism is about in the middle of the list and is entitled, After the Box People: The labour-capital relation as class constitution and its consequences for Marxist educational theory and human resistance.

The article does a great job of explaining class, labor, and capitalism and how Marx defines them - and then goes into a detailed explanation of revolutionary critical pedagogy. This is actually the form of pedagogy I support, as I am in agreement with McLaren. I do not believe we will ever completely eliminate classism or racism or any other isms unless we abolish capitalism (in which profits are made from the labor of people). As long as profit is the name of the game and it is made from the work people do, they are not receiving fair value for their work, and capitalism will continue to institute measures that serve to divide people in order to maintain power and control over them so that it can continue to forever increase its profits. Then it gets to the point where we are today in the United States. Wages get lower (to increase profits) taxes get higher (so that government – which is really big businesses in the form of the military-industrial complex - contributes to profits of these respective companies), and all sorts of ways are schemed in order to steal from the masses to get more and more capital (for example, charging outlandish interest rates for loans and credit, tacking on taxes and devised fees on more forms of goods and services, etc.), and the government continues to borrow more foreign money. It is possible that the entire economic system will collapse (some economists think so, others do not). Some critical pedagogues believe we can attain social justice within a different form of capitalistic system. I’m not sure what that system would look like, while I can envision a more socialist system in which goods and services are generally exchanged in equal value and the exchangers have direct control of deciding what these values are. With the US on the verge of an economic collapse and with people experiencing ever-growing levels of exploitation, McLaren, Allman, and Rikowski contend, “never before has the potential – indeed the reason – been greater for humanity to unite against capital.”

This is where critical education comes in, because people will not unite against capital unless they are aware of the hidden class system and how capitalism maintains it. It is disguised through “proxy social classes” based on the types of occupations people hold. But Marx – and McLaren – contend that it doesn’t matter whether you work as a hairdresser or as an executive, capitalism thrives from the profit made from labor – and the only two classes that count are the capitalist class, that is, the elite class that profits from labor power, and the working class that sells their labor power. Setting up “proxy social classes” and focusing on them as peoples’ “socio-economic status,” for example, simply helps maintain power over them so that they do not unite and overthrow capitalism. Another thing capitalism does is control education, which is also becoming capitalized, create excess labor power, often so that there are more workers than needed, thus they can pay less and make more profits. In unison (because they work together on this), corporations conduct massive job layoffs solely for the purpose of creating excess labor supply so that they can rehire at lower wages.

Therefore, McLaren calls for a revolutionary critical education that incorporates teaching what is happening and why, and for people to unite to abolish capitalism. People have the power because they are the source of the labor. “…we need to do more than rail against the suffering and tribulations of the oppressed and instead seek ways of transforming them” (McLaren, 2000, cited in McLaren, Allman, & Rikowski). McLaren’s pedagogy takes the position that the goal of education is to abolish human suffering, and his work draws from this Marxism as described and from Freire and Gramski. Instead of teaching for labor production, education maintains a “social justice agenda” and teaches for transformation and socialism.

On pages 19-22, the authors expand on this in detail, explaining that as revolutionary critical pedagogues, “in our struggle to defeat capital, we must ensure that hope is not left as a metaphysical or mystical abstraction or as an attempt to summon a prelapsarian or preexilian world of unsullied. Hope must be made practical and despair impractical” by abolishing the “social relation based on the two forms of labor – in order that the human capacities and vital forces of our species-being can take root in the soil of non-alienated social formations” (p. 21). In other words, by understanding how capitalism divides us and drawing on a hope that is rooted in the future, we are empowered to envision and then create new and better ways of living in the world together, collectively. There is no longer a need for the isms that divide us and as we work together, we can keep the destructive forces of capitalism at bay.

McLaren’s writing will force you to take out a dictionary (and this is true for most of the works on critical pedagogy), but I fell in love with his writing the first time I read his work. Some of it, and he attests to this in the video interview with Joe Kincheloe (it is posted on this site), is very much an “in your face” type of writing, tempered by maintaining a unique academic style. I am of the opinion we are in need of this sort of bluntness - along with the writing styles of the other criitcal pedagogues - to get the point across to some people who would not listen otherwise. I encourage you to read the article I have summarized and others works as you have time. I have three favorite critical pedagogues and recommend their works; I call them “the trinity” (I have not seen anyone else refer to them this way, and I do not mean this in a religious sense, but more in the sense of how they have collectively influenced and continue to influence critical pedagogy): Peter McLaren, Joe Kincheloe, and Henry Giroux. And that is not to minimize the great works of all of the other great critical pedagogues, it's just a reflection of the current authors that I read the most. Of course, I have read, and continue to read, Freire’s books (I do have the books you have been assigned to read in Dr. Kincheloe’s class) as his work forms the foundation of critical pedagogy, and I read many other authors as well. I don’t have the other two books you are reading in Dr. Steinberg’s class, but since they are recommended for a course in critical pedagogy, I will send for them. That way we can be “on the same page.” I have studied authentic assessment, or "Educative Assessment" (Wiggins, 1998) extensively and use this form of assessment in my course designs and teaching. I also use Stiggins’ (1994) concept, Assessment For Learning as opposed to using assessment to measure learning.

I’m looking forward to continuing this discussion! It is really helping me learn as well. This research is actually helping me with my next blog, which I hope to post within a few days. It is about the "military-industrial-academic" (Giroux, 2007) internets (that is plural - in fact there are two other major internets that I know of - something the public as a whole does not realize, which was brought out when people made fun of Bush for speaking about the internets during the last presidential debates. That was one time when Bush actually knew what he was talking about.)

Peace & Love,

Vanessa

PS. Patricia: Please click on the "Reply" link under my post to reply to this, instead of entering it in the form below. This will keep the strand flowing in the proper order. Thanks! (I forgot to do this, myself, in our earlier posts.)

References

McLaren,P. Paula Allman, and Glenn Rikowski, offer a detailed description of Marxism as applied in critical pedagogy on his web site: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/pages/mclaren/

Giroux, H. (2007). The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex.Boulder: Paradigm.

Giroux, H. (2008). The academic repression in the first degree: The attack on higher education and the need for critical pedagogy. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from http://gcadvocate.org/index.php?action=view&id=124

Stiggins, R. (1994). Assessment for learning. Also: Student-Centered Classroom Assessment.

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vanessa Paradis: Still more questions

Sun, 07/06/2008 - 20:24 — Miss Parchas

First and foremost, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for all the time you have taken to answer my questions, as well as giving me great resources to read and research.

After reading your response, I have yet again more questions! I’d like to quote you, as my questions come from your response “I incorporate multiple worldviews, allow student choice, maintain flexibility, encourage them to question what they read and seek additional perspectives, and take them on academic excursions into research and discourse on topics they show interest in. I maintain close contact with them through emails and telephone contact.” My first question: critical pedagogy suggests that there is a power struggle between the teacher and the student (one has power/authority on the other—right?). You also mention that you maintain flexibility and allow student choice, which I do as well. But, sometimes I feel that students (because of my age, 26 and the closeness of age between my students and myself), take advantage of me because I am so nice and not strict (they often tell me). I give them an inch, they take a mile. For example: A student comes to see and tells me she can’t hand in her project on time, we negotiate the consequence (there should be one, right?), we come to an agreement and then doesn’t respect the agreement. I then give her a low grade. Consequently, the parent calls me about the grade, I explain what happened and the choice their daughter made and they tell me that their daughter is too young to be making choices and realizing the consequences of her actions. Other teachers then tell me, “if you start allowing students to hand things in late, then all students will start handing things in late.” This was just one example, but there are many examples like these. I feel if I don’t show authority—or even power, I will lose control over the class. How do I find that balance?

You say you maintain close contact with your students. I am very close with my students; I truly love them! Every single student knows it! They know I am always available for them, my door is always open and they are always welcomed (before and after school, even at lunch time). Some even come to my class to eat lunch with me. I always help them and they have my e-mail address which I check every day to help them with homework. They always help me do stuff because they say I deserve it...I do so much for them; they like to help in return. This is now considered a problem amongst other teachers at my school. They say that I shouldn’t be close with students; that there should be a distance. They are always on my case—but they don’t understand or feel the passion I feel. I love my job and I love to go to work every day. P. Freire talks about love in education. This is what I’m doing—but they won’t accept it. I keep hitting brick walls...

Patricia Parchas

Patricia: What is your philosophy?

Sun, 07/06/2008 - 22:17 — Vanessa Paradis

Patricia,

I will write more later, but I am curious, what is your teaching philosophy? It sounds like the other teachers have a different philosophy. What is their teaching philosophy, from what you are able to observe?

I will be back to try and address your other questions.

Vanessa

Does anyone have some ideas that might help here?

Sun, 07/06/2008 - 23:37 — Vanessa Paradis

Patricia,

In my view, you are doing everything right. You negotiate consequences with your students and follow through with them. You love your students and you love teaching. It sounds like the other teachers may not know how to show love to their students or their teaching (thus, they are probably not teaching well). I’m not sure what to advise about the other teachers viewing this as a problem. I work online, so I do not have those sorts of politics going on. It sounds like the other teachers are envious of your relationship with your students, but perhaps do not know how to achieve the same with theirs. Maybe your instructor would have some ideas, or some other people in the class. I’ll post a question on this discussion strand as well to see if someone else might have some ideas.

Power and authority

First, I think what is meant by a power struggle is that because teachers are teachers they are in a position of power over the students. That does not mean, however, that our goal is to exercise that power. Exercising our power is what will create the power struggle. Freire speaks to authoritarianism in several of his books. In Teachers As Cultural Workers, he states the following:

“The authoritarians, stance, in contrast [to humility], is sectarian. Theirs is the only truth, and it must be imposed on others. It is in their truth that others’ salvation resided. Their knowledge “illuminates” the obscurity or the ignorance of others, who then must be subjected to the knowledge and arrogance of the authoritarian…As one might expect, authoritarianism will at times cause children and students to adopt rebellious positions, defiant of any limit, discipline or authority. But it will also lead to apathy, excessive obedience, uncritical conformity, lack of resistance against authoritarian discourse, self-abnegation, and fear of freedom….it is possible that certain children will go through the rigors of arbitrariness unscathed, which does not give us the license to gamble on that possibility and fail to make an effort to become less authoritarian. And if we can’t make that effort for our dream for democracy, we should make it out of respect for beings in development, our children and our students” (pp.73-74).

Thus, instead of an authoritative demeanor, teachers should take one of humility. Freire speaks of this humility and demonstrates it himself in all of his books.

On loving your students

What Freire says about love: “it is not possible to be a teacher without loving one’s students, even realizing that love alone is not enough. It is not possible to be a teacher without loving teaching” (p. 28).

On “coddling” students

“Finally, the thesis that teachers should be teachers and not coddling parents points to the fact that we all have the privilege and the duty to fight for the right to be ourselves, to opt, to decide, and to unveil truths....But the reader of this book retains the right, in being a teacher or in pretending to be, to want to view his or her teaching role as a form of parental coddling” (p. 28).

Peace & Love,
Vanessa

Reference: Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as Cultural Workers. Cambridge, MA: Westview.

Vanessa Paradis: teaching philosophy, P. Parchas

Mon, 07/07/2008 - 20:55 — Miss Parchas

In response to your question: What is my teaching philosophy?, it has definitely changed since the beginning of these two summer classes! I’m not saying that my old philosophy was wrong, but with experience and more education, it continues to modify and transform. I don’t think I had mentioned this to you, but I teach English as a second language to French students at a French school. Before these CP classes, my philosophy was undoubtedly teach students the best way I can –with humor, care, sensitivity, performing, being a clown, silliness, expressing love, expressing curiosity, positive, sparking interest, showing interest, concerned, protector, guardianship, respectful, adapting, open, being real....anything to have students leave my class at the end of the year speaking a somewhat understandable English. (And much much more, but I’d like to keep it relevant to this topic). Also, to leave with a positive view of English language and what bilingualism could bring them (this is due to language issue battles we have in Quebec, a French-English history).

I’m realizing with some of the readings, that second language education has received much criticism in the critical pedagogy field. I am in no way forcing my students to have to take my class and learn English, but I do in a sense make them feel “guilty” if they don’t want to learn. I always ask them: “How do you expect to get a job here in Montreal, a multilingual city if you can’t even speak the two official languages?” Or, I tell them that they need English to travel because it is an “international” language; that if they want to communicate with the rest of the world, they NEED English. I’m using economic and financial means to motivate/convince them. On the other hand, I’m empowering them, providing them a communicative tool to be able to express themselves to others who don’t speak their native language. As a trilingual, I feel empowered. I can communicate and discuss issues with three times more people than a monolingual. I BELONG! And as Quintero suggests in Chapter 10 of Kincheloe and McLaren’s, Critical Pedagogy: Where are we Now?, “To belong is to be recognized as a full participant in the practices that shape knowledge, identities, and action” (p. 203). But, then again, I wouldn’t want to be pressured or forced to learn a language I don’t want to learn.

Also, thanks for those quotes!

Patricia Parchas

Patricia: Crit Ped Transformation!

Tue, 07/08/2008 - 00:55 — Vanessa Paradis

Hi, Patricia,

You are very welcome for the quotations and such. I have this strange ability that seems to allow me to find relevant quotations “on the fly.” It makes it look like I must have worked hard, but I don’t, really. I hadn’t even read that particular book yet, other than the introductory section. Of course, I went to the first book that I thought might have what you were asking, and it was just like Freire was talking right to you because his words answered the exact questions you were asking. Anyway, I hope they reassured you that, yes, you can love you students – in fact, you must love them, and it’s ok to be like a second parent.

I remember when my daughter was back in second and third grades and she had a teacher who literally was like a mother for her. We all knew it and talked about it, and I was glad the teacher followed her from second to third grade. It was such a good thing. My daughter had struggled so much in school and was labeled as developmentally delayed. As it turns out, she has since been diagnosed with autism, and with all of the right interventions, she is doing fine now. But she remembers that teacher and she always will. If only teachers like that could be the norm instead of the exception.

I had never read that critical pedagogy criticized teaching children second languages. Where are you reading that? I think it would be great if we all learned at least two languages. Isn’t it easier to learn more, once you can speak in a second language? And doesn’t it actually help literacy skills to know more than one? I know a little Spanish and I really want to refresh what I know so that I can communicate with more people. Then I would like to learn French. Here’s an observation: Based on the postings on this website, I can honestly say that the people posting here have a greater command of the English language than most of the students I attend online classes with at the doctorate level here in the U.S. Why is that?

On the crit ped transformation – I’m glad you realize that teaching philosophies change. We are always in transformation. I have also found that my philosophy has never changed as fast as it has these past few days. I have really enjoyed the conversation with you – and it helps push me toward learning more about critical pedagogy and I’m not even enrolled in the classes. And my eyes are opened now about things I didn’t notice much before. I just started back in my coursework for summer quarter. I’m working on a doctorate in Education with a specialty in Instructional Design for Online Learning. I have just realized how biased the instruction is toward the business model. We are supposed to develop an online program and develop “competencies.” Competencies came straight out of the business literature and I don’t like it because what do you have if you don’t have a competency? An incompetency. Well, that doesn’t work with critical pedagogy at all, and of course, neither does the business model because I am not designing a for-profit program. So, here I am in the first week of the course and already telling the instructor, basically, (in how I competed the assignments) that this system we are supposed to use is wrong. On top of it, they throw in a few western-based ethics and then call it a good way to design courses. It may be fine for training, but it is not going to work for education – especially education based on critical pedagogy.

Challenges, challenges. Actually, I am excited about designing a new model – I’m looking to incorporate Joe Kincheloe’s theories so that the ethics are built in and not added as an “oh by the way, we’d better follow these ethics, too.”

Do you sleep ok with all of this? I have been having the most difficult time sleeping. I wonder if that goes along with critical pedagogy. It energizes me so much, I hardly need any sleep!

Can’t wait to hear from you again. Keep me updated on what you’re learning! And keep the questions coming, too! I seem to have many of the same questions.

Peace & Love,

Vanessa

Vanessa Paradis: second language education

Tue, 07/08/2008 - 20:04 — Miss Parchas

You are facing quite a challenge, Mrs. Paradis!!

I’m glad we began a discussion on language issues because it relates directly to tonight’s reading for Dr. Steinberg’s class tomorrow.

I would like to start off by clarifying the statement I made yesterday in concern to CP an dsecond language education. I was unclear and vague. I am not suggesting that critical pedagogues are criticizing teaching children second languages, however, I believe they are criticizing the ‘how’ and the ‘why.’ When immigrating to another country, you obviously have to learn the language of the country. Critical pedagogues invite us to reflect on the reasons we are teaching the second language. The following is quote from Critical Pedagogy: Where are we Now? by Leistyna discussing immigrants learning English in the U.S:

“A one-year Structured English Immersion Program is surely designed to fail in developing both fluency and literacy. Instead, these kinds of state and federal education policies and practices reflect an implicit economic need to socialize immigrants and members of oppressed groups to fill necessary, but undesirable, low-status jobs” (p. 111).

Also:

“What I have suggested, then, is that SLE is in dire need of locating itself within a broader range of educational, social, political, cultural and historical thought. Furthermore, what I am suggesting is that, given the political issues centred around language and language education, SLE would do well to look at educational theory that is critical, politically engaged and has transformative goals. What we must surely be engaged in as teachers is the empowerment of our students.... At this juncture, I would like to return more specifically to SLE and raise the question as to what such a view of empowerment implies for students learning a language” (Pennycook, 1990).

And finally:

“If we look back upon the history of English and its close connection with the spread of colonialism, we find ourselves pausing, pondering, and admitting that English is not an innocent language. Exposing some of the values that underlie the spread and promotion of English, and questioning some of the assumptions based on which the profession currently operates are at the heart of CP and discussions dealing with linguistic imperialism” (Pennycook 1998).

Do you understand it the same way I do? Second language teaching has gotten a bad rap by CP because of language politics and power. I'm doing my final paper on this topic and I'm incorporating the QEP by analyzing through a CP lens. It should be fun! If you have any resources for me (because I know you are great for that!), I'd be thrilled!

Thanks,

Patricia Parchas

Thanks, Patrica!

Tue, 07/08/2008 - 22:52 — Vanessa Paradis

Thanks, Patricia, for the additional information!

Now, I understand the language issue. And a one-year program would most definitely set learners up for failure because first, that is not long enough to learn a language fluently. Secondly, they are losing valuable instructional time in other subjects if they are required to spend most of their time learning a language (which they would have to do if they were to have any chance at all of learning it in a year). So it is a set-up for them to take menial positions in the labor market. Somewhere I have read that it takes up to five years to learn a second language. Learning a second language needs to be approached as a long-term project and the instruction needs to build in sensitivities and expose how the English language - through the language itself, even - tends to promote colonialism (I have very little knowledge in this area!).

I do have one reference that might help you with your paper. I had taken a course in language acquisition for my masters program and the text was:

Brown, H. Douglas (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4^th ed.). NY: Pearson.

There is probably a new edition out now. Maybe you can research for some more up-to-date articles.

Here are some tips provided for what Brown refers to as “culturally appropriate techniques”

Does the technique…

…recognize the value and belief systems that are presumed to be a part of the culture(s) of the students?

…refrain from any demeaning stereotypes of any culture…?

…refrain from any possible devaluing of the students’ native language?

…recognize varying degrees of willingness of students to participate openly due to factors of collectivism/individualism and power distance?

…sufficiently connect specific language features (e.g. grammatical categories, lexicon, discourse) to cultural ways of thinking, feeling, and acting?

…in some way draw on the potentially rich background experiences of the students, including their own experiences in other cultures?

If the technique requires students to beyond the comfort zone of uncertainty avoidance in their culture(s), does it do so empathetically and tactfully?

Is the technique sensitive to the perceived roles of males and females in the culture(s) of your students? (Brown, 2000, p. 202).

The text specifies that language teaching is both an art and a science.

When is your paper due? (Is this a two-week course?)
Thank you for the clarification on the teaching of second languages. Your paper sounds interesting!

Vanessa

Vanessa Paradis: private sector

Thu, 07/10/2008 - 13:58 — Miss Parchas

Yes, both courses are two-week courses. Both papers are due in a month.

In the book we are reading now called The Art of Critical Pedagogy (for Dr. Steinberg’s class), and in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, most of the suggestions made to integrate CP in the classroom has to do with teaching students how to think critically, especially the oppressed and how to fight for liberation. Obviously, Freire wrote this book with his experiences, I guess coming from an oppressed background. But, has he written anything on schools that have students predominantly rich, or can relate mostly to the oppressor more than the oppressed. I know that even the oppressors have much to learn, but....

The reason I ask is because I work in a private school; students that attend it are multi-ethnic. I would say half is a mix of different ethnicities and the other half is white French-Quebecois. Most students are rich and other students have parents that can afford this private school at the limit. I can’t teach my students to fight for liberation and not be oppressed because they are not. And vice-versa.

I know I can teach my students to think critically and I could apply most of Freire’s ideas, but I feel like I’m going about this backwards. What do you think?

Patricia Parchas

Reply to Patricia

Thu, 07/10/2008 - 16:27 — Vanessa Paradis

Patricia,

Thank you for entrusting me with a very important question. The answer is complex and will be different for each situation, so I am going to refer you to Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Kincheloe for advice. I hope you will have the opportunity to speak with them, because it is a relevant question in so many situations and for many people.

It is an issue Freire was careful to address - we have to remake theory - we cannot simply transplant what worked there and expect it to work in our environments without transforming it. This is all work that Joe Kincheloe, Peter McLaren, Henry Giroux, and others have been working on over the years. Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Kincheloe will be able to direct you to a source that is appropriate for your specific situation better than I am able to.

Thank you for the question. Please let me know what you find out.

Peace & Love,
Vanessa

Dear Vanessa and

Thu, 07/10/2008 - 18:34 — sabrina

Dear Vanessa and Patricia,

I have taken interested in your blog because of the issues that you have raised in second language learning and because I am a second language teacher. After reading Critical Pedagogy: Where are we now, it made me reflect on my teaching methods. Before I discuss that, I think it is important to realise that American Immersion schools and Canadian immersion bilingual schools are different. I see American immersion schools more like the way Quebec schools were 50 years ago with the influx of immigration. At that time, students were only exposed to French or English in school and at home their parents did not know how to speak either language. Correct me if I wrong, but I think that in the States, this is a situation that we see more often then we do now in Quebec.

Now let’s have a look at Quebec’s public schools. In Quebec, immersion and bilingual schools belong to English boards. French schools do not offer immersion or bilingual programs in English only English schools can offer these programs. New immigrants arriving in Quebec cannot go to English schools. Therefore, new immigrants are not part of an immersion or bilingual school. In most situations, students who attend immersion or bilingual schools must hold a certificate of eligibility to attend an English school which means that their parents or at least one their parents were educated in Quebec. It can also mean that a special permission was granted i.e. to children of diplomats. Furthermore, there is also a distinction between immersion schools and bilingual schools. In immersion schools, from kindergarten to grade 2, students are only being taught in French, grade 3 and 4, the curriculum is divided in 60% French and 50% English. In grade 5 and 6, the curriculum is divided equally in both languages. Bilingual schools, instructional time is 50% French and 50% English as of kindergarten. Now which model is best, is an entire other issue. As well, it is the choice of the parents to send their children to immersion, bilingual or English core schools.

Critical Pedagogy argues that when second language learning takes place, the children must be allowed to bring in their own culture into the class. This is will help make their learning more authentic and the students will be able to relate their life at home to what they are learning in school. We also need to let students use their first language to express themselves in a second language classroom in order to empower the students, in order for the students not to fell that their first language is not valued.

I teach in kindergarten in an immersion school. In deed, a one year program is not sufficient to learn a language. You can learn in a year how to speak a new language but a student cannot learn all the mechanics of language within a year. When I meet the parent of my new kindergarten class, they all ask me will my child learn how to speak French. I answer confidently that by the winter holiday break, their will be able to communicate in French. Maybe not fluently just yet but will have enough vocabulary words to be able to communicate and by the end of the school year the children will be fluently bilingual in communicating orally the language. Of course, they can’t write the language, hence, the reason that a language cannot be learn in a single year.

Critical pedagogy made me question my teaching method because I am one those teachers who never aloud the students to communicate in English in the class especially not to describe their work. If they can’t tell me in French, then I would ask them to ask one of their friends for help. The other option was for them to speak to me in a broken French where I would then translate the English words. It’s a long process to get the students to become bilingual and my fear of integrating their first language in the class was that I always assumed that it would delay their French language acquisition. This course on critical pedagogy, made me realize that my “safe” classroom environment was not as safe as it ought to be. Yes, the children were happy to be in my class and they were safe from harm, but by not allowing them to speak English in the class, I might have contributed to unwanted stress in my students.

Allowing English in our French immersion classes is something that has always been frowned upon by the principal and the parents and that is another reason why I never allowed “English” in my class. Therefore, the struggle that I face in September is do I tell the principal and the parents of my students who chose to send their children to an immersion school and who strongly believe that only French will be spoken to their children in kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2, that I’ll allow the students to express themselves or to tell their stories in English in order to create a better learning experience or do I quietly close my classroom door and start a quiet revolution?

Sabrina

Sabrina: second language education

Thu, 07/10/2008 - 19:46 — Miss Parchas

Hello Sabrina,

I’m glad you decided to join our discussion. Mrs. Paradis has been very helpful in answering my questions and suggesting some excellent readings. It is nice to have another second language teacher to share the same concerns I have. We are trapped; faced with difficult decisions. Are we as beginning teachers willing to create a fuss at our schools by allowing the first language in our classroom? Or do we do the right thing by facilitating second language learning with the use of the first language and make the second language less imposing? As you mention Sabrina, whichever language we teach, we should not make the student feel that their language is not valued. In addition to that, I’d like to share a personal experience. I attended a private Greek school when I was very young. Then, my step-mom switched me to an English school (I had never spoke English before that). My teacher instructed my step-mom to only speak English with me and to stop speaking Greek to me! This had a huge impact on my Greek-- in a negative way.

You asked a question in regards to your confusion and the struggle you will have to face in September. Honestly, only you know the answer to this. You know your principal better than we do. What do you think s/he will say? Do you have arguments to back you up? What if s/he says “no”....will you go behind his/her back and do it anyway at the expense of you getting in trouble (and being labelled a trouble-maker becasue you were told "no" and did it anyway)? Or will you not ask and do it quietly until someone warns you (and at this point you can explain yourself and your reasons for doing so)? What about asking suggestions from colleagues at your school?

I think you should do what feels right! You are the person that spends the most time with your students and you know how they will learn effectively. I think it also depends on what your goals are and most importantly what will be most beneficial for your students? In an earlier blog, Mrs. Paradis asked me what my teaching philosophy was. I am now proposing that you ask yourself that same question. By answering this, I guarantee you will have some answers to your initial question.

I am pleased that you have joined us, Sabrina! I hope you’ll be back.

Patricia Parchas

In response to Sabrina and Patricia

Thu, 07/10/2008 - 21:24 — Mrs M

Hey girls!

I've been teaching ESL for twelve years now and from experience I'd say that unless you are dealing with very advanced students it is almost impossible to never use their mother tongue. When I discipline a kid I find it very odd to do it in their L2 because they don't get all the message. All they know is that I am mad at them some something they did wrong. I could decide to stick to the language I am teaching but I am not sure it really pays off that much in the end. I,ve noticed that sometimes when I speak only English ,some kids believe they understand but when I ask them to tell me what I have just asked them, they tell me all kinds of weird things and then when I explain them in French what I meant in English they go AHHH!!!! because they finally understand! Same thing when I teach them grammar. Sometimes it can take 30 minutes in English what would normally take 2 minutes in French . To make them understand something in L2 I need to teach with gestures, drawings, multiple repetitions,... In their L1 they get it right away. In brief, it really depends on what I am doing with them. Of course during conversation games, reading activities, classroom functional language,.. all of it is in English or mostly in English since sometimes using their mothertongue is a must, it saves me a lot of time. DOn't forget that we are teaching a second language not a first one. THerefore, it is normal to refer to the L1 from time to time so students can make some links between both. THey also have a lot of prior knowledge in language acquisition. It would be totally stupid to do not refer to it. In my classes, I'd say that 80% is done in their L2 with my regular groups. With my advanced group, it's 100% in English but the context is quite different. They mostly all come from bilingual families or immersion classes.

There are now several studies available on the use of the students' mothertongues in the classroom. If you're a student at McGill, you probably had or will have Dr Sarkar and Dr Lyster. It's either one of them who talks about it in their classes. So, if I were you I would not feel too bad about using the kids mothertongue, if you principal complains about it just make him/her read a few studies about the beneficial effect of the use of L1 in L2. He should leave you alone afterwords :)

Dear Patricia and Mrs.

Fri, 07/11/2008 - 17:11 — sabrina

Dear Patricia and Mrs. M.:

It is a very interesting question to be asked what my teaching philosophy is. It is a difficult question to answer and I must admit that when I had read Vanessa asking you that question, I was happy it was not me! My teaching philosophy evolves with every year that I teach. My goal as a teacher is to create a learning environment that will allow all my students to flourish and learn. I want my students to feel safe and I want them to realize that what they bring to the class is important. I want my students to learn form each other and realize that their individuality must shine through in order to make their learning meaningful. Our class with Professor Steinberg has made me question my teaching methods and my “safe” environment that I believe I was creating in my classroom. I also realized that we mustn’t be afraid to teach what we feel is right in fear of getting reprimanded. Since I am not a person that likes confrontations, I think I would slowly change my teaching methods by doing it silently and like you mentioned Patricia at that point if somebody does say something then I’ll have built more confidence in my teaching methods and we’ll be better equipped to defend my point of view. I shouldn’t feel bad but as a teacher in a school that is so demanding by both the parents and the administrator, it is difficult to make decisions that go against their beliefs.

Sabrina

EVERYONE: CHECK THIS OUT!

Fri, 07/11/2008 - 19:30 — Miss Parchas

Hello everyone,

Since we are on the topic of second languages in this blog, I thought it would be interesting if everyone had the chance to watch this recent clip aired July 8, 2008! Obama suggests that Americans need to be bilingual; Americans need to learn an additional language. He claims that it is embarrassing that when Americans go to other countries they can’t speak any other language but that when Europeans come over and can speak many languages, they are superior because they are bi- or multi-lingual. He is being criticized –harshly!! Critics claim that he will trash the country and that he is not patriotic. I quote a critic, “you could get along very nicely in the world with just speaking English, but you cannot get along in America if you don’t speak English, and that’s a shame to the Latin American people in this country who want to be successful....” And then another critic, “if you don’t speak English in America, you’re going to have doors that will shut.”

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ML0wlG2ja2M

And if you have time, you can check this one out: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FEY_-t4wXik

Please add your comments about this clip! I'd like to know what you think.

Patricia Parchas

Reply to Patricia

Fri, 07/11/2008 - 20:57 — Vanessa Paradis

Patricia,

I agree with Obama. As is typical, the press here (imperialist-controlled) hypes everything, blows it out of proportion, takes it out of context, and does biased surveys and presents the results like they mean something. Most of us in the US are pretty much immune to the propaganda, sound bytes, and misinformation.

I just hope that Obama really can be our hope for change; but I am really not very hopeful. The president does not have the power here. I should clarify: unless they are a part of gang, like Bush is....

Vanessa

In reponse to Obama.... link posted by Patricia

Sat, 07/12/2008 - 09:22 — donna

Patricia great link. I was surprised to listen to the comments by four Americans professionals commenting on “Is okay for Obama to suggest that Americans be bilingual?” Out of the 4 professionals only one person thought Americans should be bilingual. I was surprised that they were even questioning Obama patriotism towards the USA because of his suggestion American should learn more than one language. What is wrong with being a bilingual country…Americans look at Canada.

I noted some of the comments of why American should not learn more than one language:

“…financial cost we paid for fighting for their freedom..”

“….we can get around the world knowing only English….”

English “is the language of success…”

“Cannot get along in American if you don’t speak English…”

In Dr. Steinberg's class we learned different categories of multiculturalism (Conservative diversity, Liberal diversity, Pluralist diversity, Left-Essentialist Diversity and Critical Diversity) I my opinion the way the analyst expressed themselves on their take on why it isn’t important to learn another language is an example of liberal diversity.

Liberal Diversity “….we are all the same, we have more commonalities than difference. Difference is downplayed, almost lacking in taste to articulate. Focus on sameness.” The segment ended by Bay Buchanan a Republican strategist saying “ what keeps us together, keeps as a family, a nation is we have something in common we speak English. We want to be English only that’s what keeps us the same. That’s imperative as a nation if we want to survive.”

Fox newscast on Obama

Sat, 07/12/2008 - 16:01 — sabrina

I hope that like Vanessa stated that most Americans are immune to propaganda, sound bytes, and misinformation. It is from Fox news and it does tie in to another blog which did discuss the validity of their news report and their journalists. In the video it did not show the name of the second newscaster but he said, “What language would be these Europeans country speaking for if it wasn’t for “our” country and that we have nothing to be embarrassed about considering the blood, the sacrifice and the financial burden we have to pay for fighting their freedom.” Comments like these do not give any integrity to their newscast. It is also a great example of “white” supremacy like we have been discussing in class. They were all white and who conducted the phone survey and who did they call? It was quite awful to watch a newscast that is telling Americans that learning a second language is detrimental to their survival.

Sabrina

Vanessa, Donna, Sabrina: Response Obama

Sun, 07/13/2008 - 10:23 — Miss Parchas

This clip and the criticism we heard all tie in with what Dr. Steinberg was saying about white supremacy. It’s amazing how a language can keep a person “in” or keep a person “out.”

Vanessa, it is nice to hear a comment from you, especially for the fact that you are American. How are other people reacting to that? Here in Quebec, the French language is quite forced on immigrants; young students are required to attend French school (there are some exceptions). But, English is taught as a second language and Spanish too in some schools.

Donna, you mention that what the analysts say and feel about Obama’s comment represent Liberal diversity: “….we are all the same, we

Log in

Graduate Research and Critical Pedagogy: Down Copperhead Road

Comments

Comment viewing options