Sunday, August 18, 2013
First reading discussion - Douglas Kellner, "Toward a Critical Theory of Education"
Hi all -
Apologies for the delay in posting this thread - I've been traveling along the Oregon coast and internet reception has not been as common as I'd hoped. Which, aside from being late with getting this up, is not altogether a bad thing.
Please post your thoughts on the first reading for summer, Douglas Kellner's "Toward a Critical Theory of Education" (and thank you to Vanessa for already getting the discussion started! You can see her post in the previous welcome thread).
This is a very informal discussion just meant to share our responses to the reading, so you don't need to write anything formal or even terribly thoroughly thought out - the summer readings are primarily an opportunity to take some ideas out for a walk and see where they go as well as an opportunity to become more familiar with the SSCE program's professors and their work.
Any responses are welcome, but some things you might consider for this week's reading -
* What's your previous familiarity with critical theory (either related to education or not)?
* To what degree has your educational experience - that is, the educational environments you've studied in and/or worked in - been informed by a critical theory perspective? How might Kellner's perspective here influence the environments you've seen?
* To what degree have you seen the digital divide that Kellner describes, and what has the impact been?
* What's your sense of what a critical theory-influenced educational model would look like? What's your sense of what the current goals or ends of public education are, whether intentional or not, and how would a model influenced by the perspective that Kellner describes be different?
Thank you for your thoughtful & engaging posts to the welcome thread so far - I'll respond over the next few days (I'm practically on dial-up speed right now and posting anything takes about a half hour, so I'll wait until I'm back to normal speed, but I'm looking forward to rejoining the discussion).
cheers
Gabe
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Response to “Towards a Critical Theory of Education,” by Douglas Kellner
ReplyDeleteI see this piece as a nice historical overview of critical theory where the digital divide is focused on as a means of demonstrating how critical theory may be applied. I appreciate Kellner’s reference to the privileged history of Greek philosophy in that it was used as a means of control to keep marginalized groups oppressed. I believe this was a really powerful point that Kellner later returns to as he references the parallel aspects of industry and schooling. I agree with Kellner in that the system of education should be radicalized. I think it may be interesting, however, to further the discussion about replications of power. Kellner credits Illich, for example, as one of the only advocates for ecological justice during his time as a scholar. Without over-romanticizing indigenous cultures, I still believe it’s important to credit them with this ideology, one that has been present for many generations both inside outside of the scholarly world. Similarly, I found it interesting -given our own subjective views of history- that Kellner chose to center Greek philosophers as the “grandfathers” of critical thought. In the spirit of developing a “critical theory of education” (as well as hopefully sparking dialogue between us) I think it’d be great to discuss how you believe we view and assign value to education. Who do we credit for great thought? Maybe more importantly, who is not credited?
I think it may also be interesting to think about “multiple literacies” regarding technology and how that particular dialogue is co-existing in a system where many students are still struggling to be taught in their first language (if it is not English). Thoughts?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to “Towards a Critical Theory of Education,” by Douglas Kellner
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading the way Douglas Kellner combined modern and post modern perspectives of education to develop a critical theory of education for the technological advances in society. It was interesting to ready the way in which this theory called for a curriculum with multiple literacies that would include print literacy and technology, complimenting each other instead of being opposing educational tools. According to Lukes, curriculum is flawed when an enfaces is made on only print literacy because it perpetuates forms of schooling that are no longer applicable in the current era. Many times growing up I would experience curriculum filled with print only literacy and memorization for test was valued but after test or end of term the material I memorized wouldn’t stay in my head for long. Not only does focusing on print only curriculum not adequately prepare students for the technological advances in the current era but it also ignores the fact that all students learn differently. For that reason through Kellner’s theory, a multiple literacies could provide different avenues of learning for a more equitable education. Although I agree with Kellner of restructuring education to distribute all access to new technologies for all students in order to stop the digital divide, like Vanessa, I am also concern of how this could happen with budgets in place. While tutoring middle school students in Santa Cruz, I too have seen the digital divide, and witnessed how the divide can further disadvantages low income students. The middle school the students I tutored attended began incorporating the advancing technology in their curriculum by having an online site that allowed students and parents to access class materials, and keep track, submit or make up assignments. At times students were asked to submit online assignments or complete assignments that required the internet or a computer. The group of students I would tutor were all from the migrated farm working community and the only access to a computer or/an internet was the short time they were with me at the center. This would force them to stress and rush though assignments. While other students in the same school came from privileged backgrounds that had access to their own ipad or laptops. For that reason the students I tutored could not benefit from the multi literature media the same way other students that came from higher economical families did because they did not have the same access to it. I could see how the implementation of technology in the schools curriculum could have provided for a great education if it weren’t for this new set of discrepancies.
Before I end this response I also wanted to mention how great it is that this class has integrated technology in the curriculum by having us post online and interact with one another!
-Magali
Response to “Towards a Critical Theory of Education,” by Douglas Kellner PART 1
ReplyDeleteWhile I recently completed a Credential Program at Northridge, the last time that I attacked a paper this dense in theory was many years ago during my undergraduate study of Border Identities. I was quite familiar then with Friere, but focused more on his struggle as an exile with shifting borders, cultural identities, and power struggles in postcolonial societies in my research. Kellner’s focus on technology and the need for multiple literacies was reflected in my experiences consuming his essay. Upon receipt of the email containing summer readings, I downloaded his work as a PDF and opened it on my iPad in Kindle app. I then started snapping open new windows in Safari: a Project Gutenberg edition of John Dewey’s Democracy and Education, the Purdue Owl reference page on Post-structuralism-I was relieved to read there that “…post-structuralism [is one] of the most complex literary theories to understand…” (their advice-“Be patient”), and the Preservation Institute’s complete works of Ivan Illich. These resources, Illich’s “learning webs”, allowed me deeper roots of understanding of Kellner’s analysis. Here are some thoughts I had while reading Kellner’s essay and my peers’ responses:
As referenced by Marianna, Kellner discusses Illich’s broad critique of society in his construction of a radical pedagogy. Before my work in education, I worked within the film and television community in Los Angeles. I labored and lived in this highly insular world that operates in isolation within the confines of the “real city” of Los Angeles. It wasn’t until I started volunteering at Los Angeles High School as a coach that the presence of schools, courts, hospitals, industry came into focus and I saw that LA was a city like any other that happened to host the entertainment industry. This isolation, however, was also reflected in the school I was visiting every day. The students learned and lived behind padlocked chain linked fences. The community did not interact with the students. This certainly does not jive with Illich and Kellner’s notion that educational reconstruction needs to “promote creativity, community, and an ecological balance” (10). I was struck by Marianna’s nod to indigenous cultures who, on this soil, have held this ideology and the irony that these communities have been similarly fenced in by government policy.
Response to “Towards a Critical Theory of Education,” by Douglas Kellner PART 2
ReplyDeleteMagali wrote about Kellner’s argument (founded in the Lukes’ assertion re the failures of print literacy) that the teaching of computer literacy is essential for the democratization of education. Magali referenced a predominantly print based curriculum that mandated memorization and resuscitation. I wonder, though, how a reconstruction of education inclusive of technology will necessarily change this model. The Common Core Standards are attempting this with a focus on collaboration, however the evaluations are still going to be based on individual performance. Magali also cites Vanessa’s concerns about equitable distribution and the reality of current budgets. I recently taught in a school district within LA County but not LAUSD. This district had a sizeable surplus, but has still not reinstated furlough days. My classroom had an HD overhead projector and an Elmo (a piece of technology that projects desktop images to a screen via a projector). Our use of this expensive piece of technology-bestowed upon us teachers after we put our students through a trial year of essay writing graded by an Artificial Intelligence program-really didn’t stretch very far beyond that of a glorified overhead projector. How are teachers and students to use technology to promote critical thinking and create a more advanced society? How can technology be used to increase community when the personal computer is fundamentally isolating? Vanessa mentioned that Tustin schools had larger technology budgets; how were the Smart Boards used to improve education in that environment (versus traditional blackboards)? Furthermore, in this district-a “have” district-the leadership is planning to invest in tablets for all students within the next 10 years. Their argument is that they are “cheaper” than textbooks, but they have not explored how they are better than textbooks.
Kellner’s relation of Dewey’s pragmatism was especially interesting to me in light of Common Core restructuring and the packing away of No Child Left Behind. The math department at my last school had worked over the previous five years to revise and rework a curriculum that would address District and statewide demand that CST scores improve. One teacher headed up the collaborative effort and worked tirelessly to fine-tune the curriculum and materials. Now, that curriculum is obsolete and the District has chosen not to fund the development of a new curriculum. They have adopted the rhetoric of Common Core-collaborate! Think critically!-but have not provided even a framework for the teachers on the ground to work with. The faculty at this school has been demonstrating pragmatism over the last few years, but all that work is now just being scrapped and the faculty is being asked to start anew.
I am overwhelmed and excited to start these discussions in person. I loved the frenetic energy in the final paragraph of page 11 which comprised the tasks of education and smiled at the description of schools as “congealed institutions” (12). I read Kellner’s essay in the same day that I found “The Blip”, a piece in the July 29th edition of New York Magazine by Benjamin Wallace Wells that explained an economic theory by Northwestern economist Robert Gordon. He makes some really interesting predictions about the future of the United States and I recommend checking it out (it is a quick read).