[Teaching_Composition] Critical vs Radical
Thelin,William
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Tue, 3 Oct 2006 15:45:35 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6E724.7EC77E97
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello again, Kathy (and all):
=20
The terminology here is troubling for me. "Radical pedagogy" being =
separated from critical pedagogy? Most people would think critical =
pedagogy is radical and hardly benign. Chris Gallagher's book Radical =
Departures argues for a progressive look at pedagogy, using the term =
"radical" in his title. As another example, what is the difference =
between "questioning and examining" and "unraveling"? The physical acts =
of examining and unraveling are roughly the same. You pick something up =
and probe it to find out how it works. Are the mental activities =
different?
=20
I think rather than "radical," Kathy probably means "oppositional," a =
stance often attributed to France and Fitts. I think Strickland =
epitomizes it in his CE article about confrontational pedagogy. In such =
a pedagogy, the students must take into account the instructor's =
position. It is considered dishonest to hide an agenda. Advocates =
believe they are unmasking the essentially hostile relationship between =
students and teachers. There's much to be said about the integrity of =
such a method, but I don't have it in me to be such an agitator in the =
classroom. Freire's method of trying to solve the student-teacher =
dichotomy is more appealing. Still, in my version of critical pedagogy, =
students do have to think through materials. They just don't have to =
argue for or against them.
=20
Probably my most important response to Kathy's last two posts is to =
counter her position about the illegitimacy of having an ideological =
goal in mind that ideally would result in change for students. All =
education seeks to shift students' world views toward a specific =
direction. Learning implies change. If we're trying merely to teach =
working-class or urban students to write academic prose, for example, we =
are shifting their world view toward accepting academic prose as good =
prose when writing in college. There's an implied superiority to other =
forms of writing. Why else would we teach it? The students must change =
in order to function. The issue here is that politicized writing =
courses get marked because they challenge the status quo. People =
comfortable with the status quo don't want it to be challenged. People =
who see change as a possibility through the status quo, as na=EFve as =
that sounds to me as I write it, don't want disruptions to it that might =
change their privilege along with the problem that needs to be =
addressed. Critical pedagogy is doing nothing that other pedagogies are =
not doing tacitly. Critical pedagogy is just more upfront about it.
=20
Kathy's notion about what critical pedagogy can become when instructors =
get careless can be applied to any pedagogy. The politics of a =
current-traditional or expressivist class are just as real and probably =
more dangerous to those already marginalized in our society. I would =
prefer instructors who might get too pushy and force students to =
actually consider an alternative perspective than an instructor who =
says, "Hands off" and helps a student create an argument that claims, =
for example, the poor and homeless are just lazy. Just because students =
might not immediately respond positively to being challenged does not =
mean good teaching has not occurred. Many students naturally prefer =
things to be easy. When given the choice to write, say, an essay about =
the joy they receive in owning a pet or an essay that asks them to =
explore the relationship between humans and pets to see if it is =
exploitive or symbiotic, most students will probably go for the former =
with its built in assumptions about the place of animals in relation to =
humans. The students will benefit much more from the latter, however. =
I will extend what Doug suggests that people who think rhetorically and =
critically will learn to read and write better. In classes that do not =
challenge the students' pre-conceived notions, a cap has been placed on =
how much they can learn. This is the real threat to higher education.
=20
Bill
=20
=20
________________________________
From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com =
[mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Kathy =
Fitch
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:24 AM
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Critical vs Radical
=20
So, what's the difference? I'll pipe down after this and go work on =
cleaning up the flooded basement some more (and think about what's to be =
done with the battered tire our flooded creek deposited in the back =
yard), but I'm really curious. Bill's vision of critical pedagogy =
sounds entirely benign-what we all shoot for-but if it's not really =
about promoting the development of critical skill but about subverting =
the dominant paradigm (how ever the teacher of the moment might define =
that), when does it cross the line into a radical pedagogy? How do we =
distinguish between teaching toward questioning and examining, and =
teaching toward unraveling? Learning to write well will often result in =
a shifting of world views, often in major ways, as will higher education =
as a whole. But when and where, if ever or anyplace, is shifting world =
views toward a specific direction a legitimate teaching goal? I really =
wonder how folks here would distinguish a critical pedagogy from a =
radical one. Doug mentioned religious fundamentalists, and bill =
mentioned radical right wingers, so I'll take those as examples. Is =
there some reason a student who is a religious fundamentalist or a =
radical right winger (already loaded and reductive terms in ways I find =
really troubling) can't learn to become a better writer without his or =
her views and beliefs being (critically or radically) called directly =
into question?
=20
Kathy
=20
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6E724.7EC77E97
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
name=3D"PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hello again, Kathy (and =
all):<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The terminology here is troubling =
for me.=A0
“Radical pedagogy” being separated from critical =
pedagogy?=A0 Most
people would think critical pedagogy is radical and hardly benign.=A0 =
Chris
Gallagher’s book <u>Radical Departures</u> argues for a =
progressive look
at pedagogy, using the term “radical” in his title.=A0 As =
another
example, what is the difference between “questioning and =
examining”
and “unraveling”?=A0 The physical acts of examining and =
unraveling
are roughly the same.=A0 You pick something up and probe it to find out =
how it
works.=A0 Are the mental activities =
different?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I think rather than =
“radical,”
Kathy probably means “oppositional,” a stance often =
attributed to
France and Fitts.=A0 I think Strickland epitomizes it in his CE article =
about
confrontational pedagogy.=A0 In such a pedagogy, the students must take =
into
account the instructor’s position.=A0 It is considered dishonest =
to hide an
agenda.=A0 Advocates believe they are unmasking the essentially hostile
relationship between students and teachers.=A0 There’s much to be =
said
about the integrity of such a method, but I don’t have it in me to =
be
such an agitator in the classroom.=A0 Freire’s method of trying to =
solve
the student-teacher dichotomy is more appealing.=A0 Still, in my version =
of
critical pedagogy, students do have to think through materials.=A0 They =
just don’t
have to argue for or against them.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Probably my most important response =
to
Kathy’s last two posts is to counter her position about the =
illegitimacy
of having an ideological goal in mind that ideally would result in =
change for
students.=A0 All education seeks to shift students’ world views =
toward a
specific direction. =A0Learning implies change. =A0If we’re trying =
merely to
teach working-class or urban students to write academic prose, for =
example, we
are shifting their world view toward accepting academic prose as good =
prose
when writing in college.=A0 There’s an implied superiority to =
other forms
of writing.=A0 Why else would we teach it?=A0 The students must change =
in order to
function.=A0 The issue here is that politicized writing courses get =
marked
because they challenge the status quo.=A0 People comfortable with the =
status quo
don’t want it to be challenged.=A0 People who see change as a =
possibility
through the status quo, as na=EFve as that sounds to me as I write it, =
don’t
want disruptions to it that might change their privilege along with the =
problem
that needs to be addressed.=A0 Critical pedagogy is doing nothing that =
other
pedagogies are not doing tacitly.=A0 Critical pedagogy is just more =
upfront about
it.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Kathy’s notion about what =
critical
pedagogy can become when instructors get careless can be applied to any
pedagogy.=A0 The politics of a current-traditional or expressivist class =
are just
as real and probably more dangerous to those already marginalized in our
society.=A0 I would prefer instructors who might get too pushy and force =
students
to actually consider an alternative perspective than an instructor who =
says, “Hands
off” and helps a student create an argument that claims, for =
example, the
poor and homeless are just lazy.=A0 Just because students might not =
immediately
respond positively to being challenged does not mean good teaching has =
not
occurred.=A0 Many students naturally prefer things to be easy.=A0 When =
given the
choice to write, say, an essay about the joy they receive in owning a =
pet or an
essay that asks them to explore the relationship between humans and pets =
to see
if it is exploitive or symbiotic, most students will probably go for the =
former
with its built in assumptions about the place of animals in relation to =
humans.=A0
The students will benefit much more from the latter, however.=A0 I will =
extend
what Doug suggests that people who think rhetorically <i><span
style=3D'font-style:italic'>and critically</span></i> will learn to read =
and
write better.=A0 In classes that do not challenge the students’
pre-conceived notions, a cap has been placed on how much they can =
learn.=A0 This
is the real threat to higher education.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Bill<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font =
size=3D3
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font =
size=3D2
face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
[mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] <b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Kathy Fitch<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, October =
03, 2006
11:24 AM<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName =
w:st=3D"on">teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> =
[Teaching_Composition]
Critical vs Radical</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>So, what’s the difference? I’ll =
pipe down
after this and go work on cleaning up the flooded basement some more =
(and think
about what’s to be done with the battered tire our flooded creek
deposited in the back yard), but I’m really curious. =
Bill’s
vision of critical pedagogy sounds entirely benign—what we all =
shoot
for—but if it’s not really about promoting the development =
of
critical skill but about subverting the dominant paradigm (how ever the =
teacher
of the moment might define that), when does it cross the line into a =
radical
pedagogy? How do we distinguish between teaching toward =
questioning and
examining, and teaching toward unraveling? Learning to write well =
will
often result in a shifting of world views, often in major ways, as will =
higher
education as a whole. But when and where, if ever or anyplace, is
shifting world views toward a specific direction a legitimate teaching
goal? I really wonder how folks here would distinguish a critical
pedagogy from a radical one. Doug mentioned religious =
fundamentalists,
and bill mentioned radical right wingers, so I’ll take those as =
examples.
Is there some reason a student who is a religious fundamentalist or a =
radical
right winger (already loaded and reductive terms in ways I find really
troubling) can’t learn to become a better writer without his or =
her views
and beliefs being (critically or radically) called directly into =
question?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<table class=3DMsoNormalTable border=3D0 cellspacing=3D0 cellpadding=3D0 =
width=3D"4%"
style=3D'width:4.06%' id=3Dtable1 bordercolorlight=3D"#591425"
bordercolordark=3D"#4B6E64">
<tr>
<td width=3D40 style=3D'width:30.0pt;padding:3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt =
3.75pt'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Kathy<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6E724.7EC77E97--