This is an interesting discussion. I share Duncan and others worries.
It raises important questions about the purposes of what we might call
'critical pedagogy' which presumably seeks to allow the development of
student 'voice' and interrupt the 'authority' of the teacher as a (in
my case) white, liberal, male. This is something I have always imagined
myself as seeking to achieve. In cases where students use the space
created by such a pedagogy to assert racist, sexist, homophobic etc.
views, the limits to such a pedagogy are tested.
In considering what in going on in such exchanges in my classroom, it
might be that such student's are in their own way challenging my
pedagogic model, resisting the strategy by refusing to adopt a tempered
voice. Another strategy often used by students seems to be to adopt the
'sensible' voice that they think I want to hear whilst, outside the
classroom, holding on to their own opinions - is this any better in
terms of learning than the oppositional stance ? When
'unacceptable' positions are adopted (and most of the time I've been
teaching in English secondary education)invariably I have fallen back
on the 'authority' I have as a teacher...and I feel as though I've
'failed'. Maybe the task is to get students to engage explicitly with
the question of 'authority' in learning situations, both as embodied by
teachers, and also in the forms of 'knowledge' (e.g. refereed books,
articles, 'expert' opinions) that are legitimated in geographical
education.
Best wishes
----------------------
John Morgan
Education, Environment and Economy,
Institute of Education,
University of London,
20 Bedford Way,
London
WC1H 0AL
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|