Teaching for Tomorrow Today

9 downloads 131 Views 578KB Size Report
that underpin teaching (Smyth, 1989). ... Shane and George show a similar understanding of critical pedagogy. Shane ... George asserts that he wants to,.
Chapter 49 Making a different difference: Students reading of critical pedagogy in PETE Rod Philpot

Teaching for Tomorrow Today

From: Teaching for tomorrow today

Teaching for Tomorrow Today

Dawn Garbett & Alan Ovens (Eds) 2015, 559 pages, Soft cover ISBN 9780473329068

Edited by Dawn Garbett & Alan Ovens

Publications details and purchasing information available from: www.ISATT.org or www.edify.co.nz

Edited by Dawn Garbett & Alan Ovens

Teaching for tomorrow today is a theme that acknowledges teaching is a living practice that continually evolves, adapts and responds to the opportunities, promises and challenges of being in modern times. Our aim has been to edit a publication that contributes to an on-going discussion of emerging possibilities for teachers and teaching that the 17th Biennial ISATT conference provided. We hope that teachers find it an enriching, supportive and engaging community to be a part of, and that this book endures as a record of the work that was shared in Auckland, New Zealand.

International Study Association of Teachers and Teaching 29/06/15 2:06 pm

To cite this chapter: Rod Philpot. (2015). Making a different difference: Students reading of critical pedagogy in PETE, In D. Garbett and A. Ovens (Eds), Teaching for tomorrow today (pp. 431-438). Auckland, NZ: Edify

49 Making a different difference: Students reading of critical pedagogy in PETE Rod Philpot 57

The University of Auckland

Issues of social justice and equity in education gained some prominence in the 1970’s with the emergence of Friere’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Academics such as Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, Stanley Aronowitz, bell hooks, Ira Shor, and Joe Kincheloe reiterated Freire’s appeal for socially just education through work that analysed educational practice and put forth alternative approaches to education that privileged equity, social justice and critical inquiry. Cochrane-Smith (2010) recently suggested that social justice is now a theme in most initial teacher education (ITE) programmes. Notwithstanding this emergence, what is currently done in ITE classrooms in the name of social justice education, and the tangible outcomes of social justice oriented education are less clear (Larson, 2014). One of the alternate ITE practices that moves beyond the acquisition of technical skills to educational experiences that address issues of equity and socially just teaching practices is teacher education underpinned by critical pedagogy. Critical pedagogy focuses on transforming social inequality and empowering those without power (McLaren, 1989). While its origins are located in the critical theories of the Frankfurt school (Held, 1980), critical pedagogy has evolved from a critique that focuses on the oppressive nature of capitalism to include specific theorizing of oppression based on culture, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality (Cho, 2013). Critical pedagogy is a perspective on education that privileges understanding of dominant ideologies and counter hegemonic strategies (Bartolome, 2004). Critical pedagogy is context specific and organic in the sense that it adapts and responds to changing environments and social situations. Critical pedagogy is therefore not a homogenous set of ideas, nor a method. Hinchey (2006) proposes that recipes are simply not possible in critical classrooms. The plural, critical pedagogies, will be used for the rest of the chapter to encapsulate and include all forms of oppression and all approaches to naming and acting on oppressive structures in education (Freire, 1970).

Author contact: [email protected]

432 Chapter 49: Making a different difference

The introduction of new ways of theorizing oppression such as queer theory, critical race theory, feminist theories, post structural theories and critical humanism have served to both augment and fragment critical pedagogy. The growing body of literature identifying structural inequities has brought attention to issues of race, gender and sexual discrimination. Amidst these growing theoretical differences, Gur-Ze’ev (1998) reminded advocates of critical education that there is no ‘one’ enacted critical pedagogy as critical pedagogies are always tailored to individual contexts. Soon after, Lather (2001) suggested that the heterogeneity of critical pedagogy needed to be embraced as all of the critical projects were equally committed to social change. The emerging theoretical diversity highlighted a growing tension amongst critical educators. McLaren (2002) called for a less fragmented critical pedagogy that returns to its Marxist roots. Academics supporting this view claim that these other issues of oppression would be solved if issues of class structure were resolved (Kincheloe, McLaren, & Steinberg, 2012). In last few decades, amidst the theoretical growth, there has been limited research that explores how educators understand critical pedagogies (Breuing, 2009). There are few research projects that report on initial teacher educators’ (ITEs) and classroom teachers’ understanding, and use of, critical pedagogies. The following two studies highlight some of the tension surrounding the theorizing of critical pedagogy that have led to ‘slippage’ and varied understandings. Brueing (2011) offers insight into varied understanding of the aims, purposes and practices of critical pedagogy. For the 17 self-identified critical pedagogues teaching in ITE programmes in the US and Canada who participated in her study, there was limited consensus on what a selfidentified critical pedagogue meant. For some participants it meant teaching about critical pedagogy while for others it revolved around the ‘practice’ of critical pedagogy in their classrooms. Breuing (2011) reports that student-centred / constructivist teaching was the central purpose of critical pedagogy. She observes that, “the results of my study point to the need for critical pedagogy to work toward better explication and communication of its social justice orientation…” (p. 12). An earlier study by Muros-Ruiz and Balboa (2005) provides one example of the ‘slippage’ between literature and practice. Muros-Ruiz and Fernandez-Balboa (2005) report that more than half of the 17 PETE teacher educators who claimed to practice critical pedagogy did not understand the main principles of critical pedagogy. Moreover, many of the methods they used in their PETE courses were incongruent with these principles (Muros Ruiz & Fernandez-Balboa, 2005). The authors suggest that the limited success of critical pedagogy in PETE may be due to the very limited understanding of the principles and purposes of critical pedagogy by the very TEs purporting to enact it. While the growing body of research suggests that ITE staff who identify as critical pedagogues have different understandings and unique practices of critical pedagogy, there is a paucity of research examining the sense ITE students make of critical pedagogies when they are taught or used in teacher education. This research chapter builds on the critical ITE literature by exploring the understandings of critical pedagogy of 19 students who are in their fourth and final year of an ITE programme that espouses to be underpinned by a critical orientation. The significance of this study is that it presents an opportunity to explore the possibility that a programme with “a shared professional ideology [critical pedagogy] ….will have greater impact on recruits (Lawson, 1983, p. 10). The unique context provided in this study enables the researcher to

Rod Philpot

433

explore the influence of a critical ITE programme, rather than just individual critical courses, on ITE students’ understanding of and engagement with critical pedagogies.

Research setting The setting for this study is the Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE), a four year PETE programme at Te Ika a Maui University 58 that espouses an underpinning critical pedagogy. I have recently completed a critical discourse analysis of the programme that highlighted many features that are consistent with critical pedagogy. Critical practices such as reflecting on biographies (Fernandez-Balboa, 2009; Giroux, 1981), democratic classrooms (FernandezBalboa, 1995), challenging dominant discourses (Kirk & Tinning, 1990) and problematizing knowledge (Gore, 1990; Kirk, 1986; Tinning, 2002) are espoused in 15 of the 26 compulsory courses in the BPE programme. Many of the learning outcomes from courses use verbs such as; ‘critically reflect’, ‘evaluate’, ‘appraise’ and ‘critically examine’, that further suggest the problemization and social construction of knowledge. While not all courses and not all teacher educators in the BPE programme foregrounded critical pedagogies, there is evidence that critical pedagogies are represented across courses in each of the four years of the BPE programme.

Methodology Data were collected through focus group and semi-structured interviews with students who were in their final year of the BPE programme. The participants were selected through purposive sampling. Students were required to complete the degree in the year they were interviewed. The participants reflected the diversity of the BPE students. There were nine female and 10 male participants. The participants ranged in age from 21 to 41. Twelve of the participants identified as European, three as Samoan, two as Maori 59, one as Maori / European descent while one student identified as Samoan, Maori, and European. Data were analysed through a five stage process of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Initial coding of the interview transcriptions took place while I listened to the audio recordings. Inferential coding, that is, a focus on looking for patterns, followed. As data from interviews were collected over an 18 month period, these codes were revisited and changed new transcripts were read. A visual representation using theme maps (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to elucidate themes. These themes draw on the researcher’s own theoretical understanding of critical pedagogy and focus on a ‘search’ for student understanding of critical theories, critical pedagogies and other examples of teaching that foreground social justice.

58 59

pseudonymn Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand

434 Chapter 49: Making a different difference

Findings The participants in this study were asked about their understanding of critical pedagogy in both focus group and individual semi structured interviews. In this section I have identified three themes that summarize their responses.

Theme 1: Critical pedagogy as ‘reflection on teaching’ Reflective teaching resonated strongly with the majority of the 19 participants as part of their understanding of critical pedagogy. Steven recalled that critical pedagogues had to keep, “questioning what you are teaching…you can be playing games and stuff but there are times when you need to be questioned how it can be done better” (Focus group Interview 1). Jess similarly proposes that critical teachers need to, ask [themselves] did my students learn what we set out to learn, or what did they learn specifically? Did some people not learn?...What do I need to do better next time. It’s that constant reflection and asking the real questions to then further your practice. (Focus group Interview 2) Gail states that critical pedagogues are constantly, “questioning [their teaching] and making sure that it’s working so that you are always bettering yourself, so that you are not sort of complacent in your teaching” (Interview 2). These examples of reflection on how one teaches and how one could teach differently are described by Gore (1990) as ‘technical reflection’. While these comments focus on the act of teaching, they fail to acknowledge questions of ‘for whom the lesson may be right?’ or ‘what constitutes a successful lesson?’ There is no indication that these participants consider that how or what they teach may privilege or disadvantage different students. Along with the ‘technical reflection’, there are an equal number of students that identify the important of ‘critical reflection’, that is, the examination of the values and assumptions that underpins the way one teaches. Brenda highlights that “…being critical is kind of questioning why you decide to do things and where your assumptions and decision making has come from” (Interview 2). Dillon states, for me critical pedagogy is always having an underlying reason for what you are doing. Not just ‘we’re doing hockey’, [but] why? What’s the why behind it? What’s the how behind it? Who is it going to benefit? Who is it going to be good for? (Interview 2) Critical reflection represents a ‘critical pedagogy’ as the reflections move beyond the routine day to day actions of the teaching process, focussing instead on the political and ethical principles that underpin teaching (Smyth, 1989). A critically reflective teacher makes decisions based on conscious awareness and careful consideration of the assumptions upon which decisions are based (Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000).

Theme 2: Constructivism to conscientization For a number of the participants in this study, one of the primary purposes of critical pedagogy is to enable the students they teach to construct their own knowledge and understanding. These participants position the student at the centre of learning process. They foreground pedagogies that move beyond ‘banking’ education (Freire, 1970). The verbs used in the following statements, (eg ‘thinking’, ’exploring’, ‘challenging’, ‘questioning’) are consistent

Rod Philpot

435

with constructivist teaching where students maintain an active role in the process of making meaning and knowledge construction. Advocacy for constructivism is reflected in comments by Liam who teaches in a way that requires, “students to come up with the answers rather than just feeding the students teacher directed teaching” (Interview 2). Holly aligns critical pedagogy with constructivist principles as she, “encourages students to think and not just give them information…” (Interview 2). In contrast, Jamie proposes a critical pedagogy that shifts from constructivism to something more akin to Freire’s (1970) notion of conscientization. Through his own teaching Jamie states that he wants students to, “question their own beliefs. To challenge themselves and question other’s beliefs… I would always my students not just to read anything they read and to accept it” (Interview 2). Shane and George show a similar understanding of critical pedagogy. Shane advocates for making students conscious of how their values and beliefs may influence their understanding stating that, “[I want them to explore] how their values and beliefs around an issue or subject can affect how they think about it.” (Interview 2). George asserts that he wants to, deconstruct that power that I’ve got as a teacher.. I want to allow the students to make their own decision and try to get them to rid their own bias through exploring dominant discourses, like ‘what is advantaged’? ‘What is the normal view’? and [I] try and challenge it. (Interview 2)

Theme 3: Uncertainty of understanding More than half of the participants in this study profess to be unclear as to what critical pedagogy is. These students claim that critical pedagogy has been discussed throughout the four years of the programme but it has never defined. At the first interview William was most adamant that he did not understand the term ‘critical pedagogy’, I find it quite a hazy topic to still talk about…here we are sitting in a course [programme] that has the philosophy that we all graduate as critical thinkers and critical pedagogue. And we get to fourth year and Bob 60 asks us, ‘so what are some examples of what a critical pedagogue is?’, and all of us are sitting there going oh, oh….(Focus Group Interview 1) George stated that he was familiar with ‘pedagogy’ and he had some understanding of ‘criticality’ but, “the mixture of the two is still a bit unclear in my mind” (Interview 2). When Margaret was asked to define critical pedagogy, she proposed that, “I don’t know if I would be able to pinpoint exactly” (Interview 2). Tash suggested that perhaps she was let down in her PETE programme as she has, “struggled with that [understanding critical pedagogy]... because no one has given me, “this is the definition’ of it” (Interview 2). Jess was somewhat more optimistic suggesting that, “I think I have a developing understanding of critical pedagogy. I think that it will become clearer as I get into teaching with my own classes…” (Interview 2). Only Richard seemed to allude to the possibility that the practise of critical pedagogy may be context specific and

60

Pseudonym for one of the BPE lecturers

436 Chapter 49: Making a different difference

unique to each individual. He suggests that, “I think it’s different for everyone, different person. Everyone’s got their understanding of what they think it is” (Interview 2).

Discussion and conclusions This chapter is an attempt to gain insight into the influence of a four year critical PETE programme on students’ understanding of critical pedagogy. The findings demonstrate that each PETE student has constructed a different understanding with many remaining uncertain about what critical pedagogy is and how they could enact it in their own classrooms. Some of the students are able to describe a perspective on teaching that is consistent with critical pedagogies. This engagement by some of the participants with the language of critical pedagogy, such as ‘deconstruction’, ‘equity’, ‘critical reflection’, and ‘exploring values and beliefs’, provides some evidence that exposure to critical pedagogies in the BPE programme has advanced the participants ability to engage with concepts from critical theory and helped to overcome the barrier of not understanding (Kincheloe, 2007; Macedo, 2009). Three of the participants espoused the importance of critical reflection, a process described by Giroux (1981) as looking at how their history and life experiences influence their own beliefs and values. George recognizes the importance of deconstructing his own power as a teacher to encourage students to learn to, “perceive social, political and economic contradictions” (Freire, 1970, p. 19). Tash shows a concern for issues of gender equity (Dewar, 1990; Tinning, 1985). Shane and Jamie highlight a critical pedagogy that makes students aware of how their values and beliefs influence their understanding. In contrast, this study suggests that, for many students, the critical pedagogies in the BPE may have gone unnoticed or dismissed as ‘quirky’ teaching approaches of individual teacher educators. The sense that students have made from the BPE programme may be a result of learning through critical pedagogies without enough concurrent learning about critical theory and critical pedagogy. William states that it was only in the last year that, “…a definition of critical pedagogy was explained……once it was explained to us, we could actually see how the classes we had done over the last three and a half years had actually related to that” (Interview 2). William’s initial comment (Interview 1) suggests that he had almost negotiated the four year BPE programme without being taught about critical pedagogies. This second statement reveals a growing awareness that he had been unaware and unable to identify critical teaching practices, despite having encountered them throughout the degree. Another telling comment came from Tash. Late in her final interview she was shown a list of recognised critical pedagogies. Her comment, “Are these honestly critical pedagogies? That is not what I thought they were” (Tash, Interview 2), reinforces the suggestion that some BPE students are not cognisant that they are exposed to critical pedagogies in BPE courses, nor do they have the language to articulate what ITEs are doing, or what they themselves could do in the name of critical pedagogy. The participants in this study may have been unaware of the critical pedagogies in the BPE programme as they didn’t have the theoretical understanding to identify and recognize them. The participants may not have seen critical approaches in their BPE courses because they don’t

Rod Philpot

437

know what to look for. Given that William and many other students profess to still being unclear what critical pedagogy is (theme 4), this uncertainty may signal a need to teach not only through critical pedagogies but about critical pedagogies. While it is also alluring to conclude that the BPE programme needs to better prepare students with a more comprehensive understanding of critical theory and critical teaching methods that can be applied in school HPE classes, I am reticent to make this suggestion. A growing number of PETE scholars emphasise that socially-critical ITEs must develop a commitment to critical pedagogy rather than simply understanding critical pedagogy (Muros Ruiz & Fernandez-Balboa, 2005; Tinning, 2012). Critical pedagogy cannot be reduced to a paint-by-numbers teaching method. Critical pedagogy must always be in the continuous process of development and recontextualization and not reduced to ‘one’ “narrow set of prescriptive practices” (Breuing, 2011, p. 5). This study reinforces Tinning’s (2002) assertion that different students will make different sense of their experiences in a critical PETE programme. As there is little in the way of literature to make comparisons with, it is difficult as an advocate of critical education, to determine whether I should be optimistic because of the small number of students who seem to embody the zeitgeist of critical pedagogy, or to lament the uncertainty and the narrow interpretations. This study demonstrates a growing knowledge of critical pedagogy amongst the participants, although I am less certain how they think and feel about the importance of education and social justice (Tinning, 2012). I am equally uncertain of how resilient any emerging social justice agendas outside of the BPE programme context. Critical pedagogy requires teachers to name, reflect and act critically on the world (Wink, 2005). Through ITE, prospective teachers can learn about inequity, oppression, and disadvantage. They can study politics and education and critical theories. They can observe, name, and model critical practices observed within the supportive discourse community of their ITE programme (Ovens & Tinning, 2009). Ultimately though, it the ITE students themselves who must commit to political actions in their classrooms, in the hopes of making a positive difference for the students they teach.

References Bartolome, L. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing perspective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter 31(1), 97-122. Braun, B., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Breuing, M. (2009). Teaching for and about critical pedagogy in the post-secondary classroom. Studies in Social Justice, 3(2), 247-262. Breuing, M. (2011). Problematizing critical pedagogy. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 2-23. Cho, S. (2013). Critical Pedagogy and Social Change. New York, NY: Routledge. Cochran-Smith, M. (2010). Toward a theory of teacher education for social justice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (Vol. 23, pp. 445-467). London: Springer Science and Business Media. Dewar, A. (1990). Oppression and privilege in physical education: Struggles in the negotiation of gender in a university programme. In D. Kirk, & R. Tinning (Eds.), Physical education, curriculum and culture: Critical issues in contemporary society (pp. 67-100). London: The Falmer Press.

438 Chapter 49: Making a different difference Fernandez-Balboa, J. M. (1995). Reclaiming physical education in higher education through critical pedagogy. Quest, 47, 91-114. Fernandez-Balboa, J. M. (2009). Bio-pedagogical self-reflection in PETE: Reawakening the ethical conscience and purpose in pedagogy and research. Sport, Education and Society, 14(2), 147-163. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press. Giroux, H. (1981). Ideology, culture, and the process of schooling. London: Falmer Press. Gore, J. M. (1990). Pedagogy as text in physical education teacher education: Beyond the preferred reading. In D. Kirk, & R. Tinning (Eds.), Physical education, curriculum and culture: Critical issues in the contemporary crisis (pp. 101-138). London: The Falmer Press. Gur-Ze'ev, I. (1998). Towards a nonrepressive critical pedagogy. Educational Theory, 48(4), 463-486. Held, D. (1980). Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkely, CA: University of California Press. Hinchey, P. (2006). Being a critical educator: Defining a classroom identity, designing a critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kincheloe, J. (2007). Critical pedagogy in the twenty-first century. In P. McLaren, & J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 9-42). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kincheloe, J., McLaren, P., & Steinberg, S. (2012). Critical pedagogy and qualitative research: Moving to the bricolage. In S. Steinberg, & G. Cannella (Eds.), Critical qualitative researcher reader (pp. 14-32). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kirk, D. (1986). A critical pedagogy for teacher education: Toward an inquiry-oriented approach. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 230-246. Kirk, D., & Tinning, R. (1990). Physical education, curriculum and culture. London: The Falmer Press. Larson, J. (2014). Radical equality in education: Starting over in US schooling. New York, NY: Routledge. Lather, P. (2001). Ten years later: Yet again. In K. Weiler (Ed.), Feminist engagements: Reading, resisting, and revisioning male theorists in education and cultural studies (pp. 183-196). New York, NY: Routledge. Lawson, H. (1983). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Spring, 3-15. Macedo, D. (2009). Introduction. In P. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition (pp. 11-26). New York, NY: Continuum. McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools. New York, NY: Longman. McLaren, P. (2002). Marxist revolutionary praxis: A curriculum of transgression. Journal of Curriculum Inquiry into Curriculum and Instruction, 3(3), 36-41. Muros Ruiz, B., & Fernandez-Balboa, J. M. (2005). Physical education teacher educators' personal perspectives regarding their practice of critical pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 243-264. Ovens, A., & Tinning, R. (2009). Reflection as situated practice: A memory-work study of lived experience in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1125-1131. Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 2-9. Tinning, R. (1985). Physical education and the cult of slenderness: A critique. ACHPER National Journal, 107(Autumn), 10-14. Tinning, R. (2002). Toward a "Modest Pedagogy": Reflections on the problematics of critical pedagogy. Quest, 54, 224-240. Tinning, R. (2012). A socially critical HPE (aka Physical Education) and the challenge for teacher education. In B. Down, & J. Smythe (Eds.), Critical voices in teacher education: Teaching for social justice in conservative times (pp. 223-238). Dordrecht: NY: Springer. Wink, J. (2005). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Yost, D., Sentner, S., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programmes. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39-49.