Points I enjoyed reading
Democratic goals vs. Social control goals
Cooperative vs Competitive
Schooling as Institutionalized oppression (not his words)
Star trek like writing "takes us where nobody's gone before"
Amibiguity is what it's all about - Neutrality is dead
Reform over and over and over again is dead
Teachers as political beings
Teachers as knowledgeable beings NOT experts
His criticism of the right
Students as knowledgeable beings NOT deficient
His acknowledgement of the power dinamic in the classroom
Teachers as reasearchers - evolving practices
His piece on the unfortune of positivism and his outline on it.
Things I didn't like
His definition of agency
His canonization like process of authors
His disregard of authors (Vygotsky, Bourdieu, Delpit)
His disregard of ethic and moral develpment through critical pedagogy
His positivist assumption that History and Science can be taught the same way (ok it's a leap)
His, simingly, equation poor = lower level (ignorance); thus contradiciont (p.28, first full paragraph) "I start where they are"
Question:
If studies show (recent AERA article read in 631) that problem-solving curriculum does not improve achievement? Is this the way to go.
Yes, perhaps it does depend on what I am measuring and why. Or does it? How can I teach in this way if I know they will encounter SAT, MCAT, GRE, etc, etc, etc and their skill at passing these will determine alot of their future! On top of this, can I really expect my students to succeed once in college if, for a fact, most science courses remain lecture driven.
In other words, getting back to an earlier blog discussion with Jay, can I seriously promote a socialist anti-capitalist, critical society when I know I live off a very different one, and succeed (even intellectually - dialectical exchange with professors cost money) Yes Freire did it and so did Ghandi, they endured many things. For what? 750000 copies of his book (of which perhaps only half read, and of those only half got it!) Sorry I sound so frustrated, in reality I just like to include an oppositional voice. IN any case last thing I didn't like about Kinchloe. He didn't seem very hopeful.
Update
17 years ago
5 comments:
Roberto,
Can you point to place in the text that caused to to consider the following points?:
"His definition of agency
His canonization like process of authors
His disregard of authors (Vygotsky, Bourdieu, Delpit)
His disregard of ethic and moral develpment through critical pedagogy
His positivist assumption that History and Science can be taught the same way (ok it's a leap"
Is it ok to say I don't like his cannon,AND he didn't use (i)my(/i) "cannon" (vygotsky, delpit, et al)?
The AERJ article on problem-based learning was not at all connected to crtical pedagogy. Simply because problem-posing shares the word problem-solving or problem-based learnign does not make them the same.
Do you think Freire's point of living was to sell books? Come on!
This is not just directed at Roberto but others who continually bring this up. When the authors we read explain two positions in polar relations some of you criticize them for their "dichotomous view". But you (collectively)take similar positions, as if we can either a) change the system
or
b) deal with it the way it is
Of course I don't think Freire's "golden achievement" was the copies sold. Many where sold as a 2000 edition. But I'm glad it unsilenced your frustration.
As to the first question I don't think I frased it as his "cannon" versus my "cannon". On the contrary, I believe any form of cannonization is wrong. I simply see his choice in quoting some not others when he writes and feel the need to critique it.
Finally as to the article, I agree with your point. But consider what we have to work with. Have you recently seen an AERJ article that had action research in critical pedagogy? The common question that will be posed "in this day and age" is: where's the research?
Finally, I would like to hear more about "dichotomous views" I'm not sure I see this explicitly. But just to respond I don't believe it is "either or" but navigating this terrain often makes it seem so. Finally it got juicy!
Well maybe we are talking about theory-based opinions and about styles at the same time. I don't mind the more "heated" tone the conversation has taken because I believe that we do become passionate (some more some less) and it manifests itself in different forms, when we discuss what really moves & hails us. I come from a place (background culture, family, etc) where confrontation IS discussion, and I have really appreciated all the different arguments we all bring to the table, and the many styles in which we do so. to be truthful, I love when it gets like this...must be in my veins!!
"This is not just directed at Roberto but others (this applies to ed reformers, colleagues, administrators, politicians, pundits, scholars and classmates - not just people on this blog) who continually bring this up. When the authors we read explain two positions in polar relations some of you (here I mean what I say some) criticize them for their "dichotomous view". But you (collectively)take similar positions, as if we can either (this was meant to demonstrate that I sometimes see hypocracy or double standards in some people's critiques and their positions. The following is probably the best example)
a) change the system
or
b) deal with it the way it is"
In a quote from Lesley "If it doesn't apply to you don't get defensive" - I said some of you, not all of you.
If we can't agrue about some of the most important things that we are considering what is the point? An argument doesn't necessarily mean that there are personal issues at stake just that we need to hash out how we talk about things.
As for "you're with me or against me" I appreciate hearing others views (almost always) and I frequently learn from others in such a manner that it causes me to abandon conceptions of theory and/or action, at other times it reinforces my position. Where I am in the with me/against me spectrum is trying to figure out how to best end exploitation and oppression of all varieties. If someone is against me in that regard than I have little interest in continuing a dialog with that person. I would not consider any one in this class to be in that space.
I meant to say it is probably not the best example
Post a Comment