Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts

The article, “Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts,” by Peter McLaren was very thought provoking. Much like Freire’s, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” this article was a little difficult to read. I appreciated that McLaren broke down the vocabulary he was presenting.

I thought it was interesting that he described schools as being both dominating and liberating. Teachers, at times, help continue the cycle of homogony through what or how they teach. McLaren encourages teachers to empower students by engaging in and understanding the world around them, to ask questions and think critically not only about school work, but about life in general.

As teachers, we will have students from all walks of life. By only teaching or encouraging dominant culture ideas, we aren’t encouraging our students to think for themselves. Like McLaren pointed out, schools and teachers should have a bigger goal than churning out workers.

I appreciated this article because it helped me think about my own pedagogy and I agree with many of McLaren’s ideas. Schools should be encouraging students to think for themselves and become contributing citizens of the world. If students are taught to question and think for themselves, then they can rise above the “oppression” of the dominant culture. But if knowledge and information is just being deposited into our students (banking education), then they will continue the cycle of homogony.

While I agree with the idea of helping students rise above by encouraging them to think critically and question, I’m not sure that I agree that schools and educators are intentionally teaching the dominant culture’s ideals and trying to suppress the subordinate or subcultures. I’m not sure a culture or society exists where everyone is equal.

As a future teacher, I’d like to empower my students and have them think for themselves. I understand that school is about more than just content. I think CCSS is a good starting place for this. By not dictating exactly what teachers need to teach and only setting benchmarks, there is wiggle room for selecting materials that will benefit the diversity of a classroom.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed

I really enjoyed reading chapter two of Paulo Freire’s, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” I appreciated how he described “banking education,” where students are treated as ATMs where knowledge is deposited. Teachers assume that students don’t know anything and that they, the teachers, are the deliverers of knowledge. I can understand how this method of teaching would oppress students. They have no control and no say in their education. They learn what’s being taught and adapt to it instead of being allowed to make sense of information and thinking critically. Banking education trains students to just accept someone else’s thoughts, ideas and interpretations rather than learning and interpreting for themselves. It takes the learning out of the students’ hands. They don’t need to think for themselves because they’re being told what they think and how they feel or how it applies to their own lives. Students aren’t in charge of their own education. They aren’t making decisions and I think this type of teaching would ruin a student’s desire to learn. I think this type of learning would be oppressive because students learn to just accept what is being taught to them rather than thinking critically. They will go on to continue to do this in life and will adapt to society rather than think for themselves.

I liked Freire’s idea of problem-posing education, where students are teachers and teachers are students simultaneously. Students aid in learning and can even teach the teachers, they are co-creators of knowledge. The key is the relationship between teacher and student. Students should feel comfortable to speak their minds and have their own unique thoughts about what they are learning. They are creating their own version of reality. But the teacher must allow this to happen. It’s much like discussion, where the teacher must create an environment where students feel safe to talk openly about their opinions. The class, including the teacher, is working together to solve a problem or come to a conclusion or raise new questions. It allows students to be people.

 

"A Response-Based Approach to Reading Literature"

The article, “A Response-Based Approach to Reading Literature,” really resonated with me. I appreciate that Judith Langer encourages teachers to push their students to think critically about what they’re reading and not just read in order to attain the same understanding as the instructor. I like that she suggests to invite ambiguity and allow for questions to lead to more questions and discussions instead of a predetermined answer.

I had many instructors in high school and college who would assign readings and give quizzes or homework with questions similar Alan Purves’, “Huck Finn is a good boy. True or False.” While some teachers would require a why or why not response after that, many times the question stopped after you circled your response. But in a situation like that, an argument can be made for either side. Stopping a student from exploring their reasoning is detrimental to thinking critically about the reading. I appreciate that Langer says not to do that sort of teaching and to allow alternative views.

She says literature is often tested as if there is one right answer, as if there is one predetermined interpretation. In high school, I had an English teacher who taught this way and we would all come to the same conclusions. It took the fun out of reading and a lot of kids in the class wouldn’t do the readings because she would tell us what we needed to know and think. It defeated the purpose of reading the book.

I thought it was interesting that in her study, many teachers felt torn about deviating from the lesson plan, as if allowing students to talk about what they were getting out of the reading was in some way taking away from what the teacher had planned. I can understand an instructor feeling that way, especially if they were a newer teacher. But as a future teacher, I’d like to encourage my students to find their own meaning in assigned readings and have a thoughtful understanding of it. I know that this type of teaching would have been more encouraging to me as a student and I would have approached readings with a different mindset.

SIOP 8 Components and 30 Features

Before the SIOP reading, I really didn’t know how I would help future students who are English language learners. I appreciated this reading because it gave an in-depth explanation as to how teachers can help English learners succeed. The article suggests building off of prior knowledge so students can draw connections between their first language and English. Consistency and familiarity is key. Building on a student’s background makes sense to me. We know as teachers we’ll have students from different walks of life in our classrooms. I can understand how developing a foundation based off of what students already know and their experiences would help when instructing English language learners because it’s something familiar.

I also appreciated that the article talked about academic vocabulary. There are many words that are only spoken and understood in a school setting. Understanding those words is essential for academic success. While this idea now seems obvious to me, I hadn’t before thought about how school jargon could be confusing for someone learning the language. The article suggests introducing and defining vocabulary simply can help students understand the material. I thought the idea of allowing them to choose their own vocabulary words they deem important was a great teaching tactic. Not only will this empower a student, but hopefully by having control over their learning and education, they’ll be more invested and interested in what is being taught.

The reading suggests teachers should avoid idioms and jargon. There is a student in one of my classes whose first language was Spanish. The professor who teaches the class is very sarcastic and jokes around a lot. There have been times where the student raises his hand to ask her to explain something she said because he doesn’t pick up on her sarcasm. I understand how breaking the rules of the English language could confuse someone who is just learning them. Teachers of English language learners can encourage more and better responses by asking open-ended questions. It makes sense to give students as many opportunities as possible to practice English in a place where it’s understood they’re learning. 

The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts Instruction in Grades 6-12

With this course being one of the first teaching courses I’ve ever taken, I don’t know very much about state standards. I do know that many people had negative opinions about George Bush’s “No Child Left Behind.” While reading the article and looking at the Common Core website, it seems this new set of standards is a step in the right direction. I like that they’re focused more on students’ experiences and the worlds they live in and allows students to draw from those experiences.

But with these new standards comes new responsibility from us as teachers. The reading, “The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts Instruction in Grades 6-12” says teachers must now wear multiple hats and become social planners, facilitators and co-learners instead of maintaining the traditional teacher role. I always enjoyed classes I took more when the teacher was involved and we had more of a discussion instead of the teacher talking at students. I like the idea of a teacher being more of a learning facilitator than the main source of knowledge.

The article explains that Common Core State Standards are generic, setting general goals for students. They don’t say what or how to teach. As a future educator, this is exciting. While there are still standards, the methods to reach those benchmarks are innumerable. Common Core seems to allow teachers to teach content in different and hopefully exciting ways for their students.

Although Common Core allows for more teaching freedom, the article points out it’s still a set of standards and isn’t fool proof. The reading says advocates for a standards-based approach argue that standards enhance student achievement. But there is no strong evidence that shows standards improve academic success. I agree there needs to be some sort of standard. How do we know when a student reaches the point they need to be at? But the standards need to be fluid and allow for successful learning of people from all backgrounds, which all teachers will certainly experience in their classrooms. At the very least, Common Core shows that the education system is starting to recognize the inequalities between schools with affluent children and schools with low-income children. I’m excited to continue to learn how to teach in a variety of ways so I will not become an educator who is too concerned with state standards and the school’s curriculum to make adjustments for students of different backgrounds.   

Discussion as a Way of Teaching

The chapters from Discussion as a Way of Teaching reinforced the idea that discussion is a valuable tool in the classroom. From the first chapter, it’s clear that having a discussion-based classroom is an important way to open students minds, challenge them and develop their understanding of topics. I personally gain a lot from classroom discussions. I enjoy sharing opinions and hearing what other people have to say. But in order to maintain a discussion-based classroom, we, as educators, need to create an environment where our students feel comfortable and safe to participate. While this sounds like an easy enough idea, the article points out that getting to that place takes time and effort. I’ve been a student in classes where a teacher attempts to incorporate discussion into a lesson, but the same few people are the only ones who participate or steamroll over other students’ opinions.

I found the sections on hospitality and mindfulness especially helpful in creating the appropriate environment to facilitate discussion. Hospitality is making people feel comfortable to participate. I think that’s a really crucial first step in incorporating discussion. During our first class, Sean said something along the lines of relationships are 90 percent of the job and the content is 10 percent because it doesn’t matter what you’re teaching if your students aren’t invested. This really speaks to hospitality and creating a space where students care and want to take risks by revealing strongly held opinions. Mindfulness is being aware of the whole conversation, who has spoken, who hasn’t and making sure all voices are heard. I think this is important not only for students to really listen and gain something from the discussion, but also for teachers to be aware of when we’re speaking too much.

I like that the article reinforces the idea that discussion doesn’t have to be neatly wrapped up with a bow. It’s okay for participants to still disagree at the end, and that outcome might be the desired one. The DNR order at the beginning of the article shows that sometimes there isn’t a right answer, but discussing the issue is worthwhile.

I appreciated this article because I agree that discussion is an important tool to use while teaching, but had never really thought about how to implement it or create a successful environment for it. In Chapter 2, they talk about why teachers lose interest in discussion. One of the reasons is discussions become a game for students to guess what answers the teacher wants to hear. I’ve experienced this. Once a teacher reacts positively to a comment, other students try to make similar ones to get their participation points. I wish the article spoke more about how to get a discussion back on track.