Tag Archives: digital pedagogy

Critical Digital Pedagogy: A Definition

One of the most thought-provoking online tech journals, Hybrid Pedagogy, published this article today. It is incredibly thought provoking and articulate. I hope you will read it and comment on the article. It is reproduced here in its entirety in conjunction with their Creative Commons Licensing. If you enjoy the article, I recommend that you subscribe to their free journal.

On November 21 at the OpenEd Conference in Washington, DC, Sean Michael Morris and Jesse Stommel will present on critical digital pedagogy and MOOCs. This is the first of three articles that inspired that talk.

“There is no such thing as a neutral educational process.”  ~ Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed

“Pedagogy is not ideologically neutral.” This line has been for me almost a mantra over the last several years. I’ve said variations of it on Twitter, on the About Us page of Hybrid Pedagogy, on the site for theHybrid Pedagogy Inc. non-profit, and in our recent CFP focused on Critical Digital Pedagogy. I’ve circled around this phrase, because I feel increasingly certain that the word “pedagogy” has been misread — that the project of education has been misdirected — that educators and students alike have found themselves more and more flummoxed by a system that values assessment over engagement, learning management over discovery, content over community, outcomes over epiphanies. Education (and, to an even greater extent, edtech) has misrepresented itself as objective, quantifiable, apolitical.

Higher education teaching is particularly uncritical and under-theorized. Most college educators (at both traditional and non-traditional institutions) do little direct pedagogical work to prepare themselves as teachers. A commitment to teaching often goes unrewarded, and pedagogical writing (in most fields) is not counted as “research.”

The entire enterprise of education is too often engaged in teaching that is not pedagogical. There are a whole host of other words I’d use to describe this work: instruction, classroom management, training, outcomes-driven, standards-based, content delivery. Pedagogy, on the other hand, starts with learning as its center, not students or teachers, and the work of pedagogues is necessarily political, subjective, and humane.

What is Critical Pedagogy?

Critical Pedagogy is an approach to teaching and learning predicated on fostering agency and empowering learners (implicitly and explicitly critiquing oppressive power structures). The word “critical” in Critical Pedagogy functions in several registers:

  • Critical, as in mission-critical, essential;
  • Critical, as in literary criticism and critique, providing definitions and interpretation;
  • Critical, as in reflective and nuanced thinking about a subject;
  • Critical, as in criticizing institutional, corporate, or societal impediments to learning;
  • Critical Pedagogy, as a disciplinary approach, which inflects (and is inflected by) each of these other meanings.

Each of these registers distinguishes Critical Pedagogy from pedagogy; however, the current educational climate has made the terms, for me, increasingly coterminous (i.e. an ethical pedagogy must be a critical one). Pedagogy is praxis, insistently perched at the intersection between the philosophy and the practice of teaching. When teachers talk about teaching, we are not necessarily doing pedagogical work, and not every teaching method constitutes a pedagogy. Rather, pedagogy necessarily involves recursive, second-order, meta-level work. Teachers teach; pedagogues teach while also actively investigating teaching and learning. Critical Pedagogy suggests a specific kind of anti-capitalist, liberatory praxis. This is deeply personal and political work, through which pedagogues cannot and do not remain objective. Rather, pedagogy, and particularly Critical Pedagogy, is work to which we must bring our full selves, and work to which every learner must come with full agency.

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire argues against the banking model, in which education “becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor.” This model emphasizes a one-sided transactional relationship, in which teachers are seen as content experts and students are positioned as sub-human receptacles. The use here of “sub-human” is intentional and not exaggeration; for in the tenets set out in Freire’s work (and the work of other Critical Pedagogues, including bell hooks and Henry Giroux), the banking model of education is part and parcel with efforts most clearly summed up in the term dehumanization. The banking model of education is efficient in that it maintains order and is bureaucratically neat and tidy. But efficiency, when it comes to teaching and learning, is not worth valorizing. Schools are not factories, nor are learning or learners products of the mill.

I immediately become deeply skeptical when I hear the word “content” in a discussion about education, particularly when it is accompanied by the word “packaged.” It is not that education is without content altogether, but that its content is co-constructed as part of and not in advance of the learning.

Critical Pedagogy is concerned less with knowing and more with a voracious not-knowing. It is an on-going and recursive process of discovery. For Freire, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” Here, the language echoes the sort of learning Freire describes. With a flurry of adjectives and clauses separated by commas, his sentence circles around its subject, wandering, pushing restlessly at the edges of how words make meaning — not directly through literal translation into concepts, but in the way words rub curiously against one another, making meaning through a kind of friction. Knowledge emerges in the interplay between multiple people in conversation — brushing against one another in a mutual and charged exchange or dialogue. Freire writes, “Authentic education is not carried on by ‘A’ for ‘B’ or by ‘A’ about ‘B,’ but rather by ‘A’ with ‘B’.” It is through this impatient dialogue, and the implicit collaboration within it, that Critical Pedagogy finds its impetus toward change.

In place of the banking model, Freire advocates for “problem-posing education,” in which a classroom or learning environment becomes a space for asking questions — a space of cognition not information. Vertical (or hierarchical) relationships give way to more playful ones, in which students and teachers co-author together the parameters for their individual and collective learning. Problem-posing education offers a space of mutual creation not consumption. In Teaching to Transgress, bell hooks writes, “As a classroom community, our capacity to generate excitement is deeply affected by our interest in one another, in hearing one another’s voices, in recognizing one another’s presence.” This is a lively and intimate space of creativity and inquiry — a space of listening as much as speaking.

What is Critical Digital Pedagogy?

My work has wondered at the extent to which Critical Pedagogy translates into digital space. Can the necessary reflective dialogue flourish within web-based tools, within social media platforms, within learning management systems, within MOOCs? What is digital agency? To what extent can social media function as a space of democratic participation? How can we build platforms that support learning across age, race, culture, ability, geography? What are the specific affordances and limitations of technology toward these ends? If, indeed, all learning is necessarily hybrid, as I’ve argued, to what extent are Critical Pedagogy and digital pedagogy becoming also coterminous?

The wondering at these questions is, in fact, not particularly new. In his forward to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Richard Shaull writes, “Our advanced technological society is rapidly making objects of most of us and subtly programming us into conformity to the logic of its system […] The paradox is that the same technology that does this to us also creates a new sensitivity to what is happening.” And, John Dewey writes in Schools of To-Morrow, published decades earlier, “Unless the mass of workers are to be blind cogs and pinions in the apparatus they employ, they must have some understanding of the physical and social facts behind and ahead of the material and appliances with which they are dealing”. If we are to keep every educative endeavor from becoming mill-work — from becoming only a reflection of oppressive labor practices and uneven power relationships — we must engage deeply with its reality.

Increasingly, the web is a space of politics, a social space, a professional space, a space of community. And, for better or worse, more and more of our learning is happening there. For many of us, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between our real selves and our virtual selves, and in fact, these distinctions are being altogether unsettled. In “The New Learning is Ancient”, Kathi Inman Berens writes, “It doesn’t matter to me if my classroom is a little rectangle in a building or a little rectangle above my keyboard. Doors are rectangles; rectangles are portals. We walk through.” When we learn online, our feet are usually still quite literally on ground. When we interact with a group of students via streaming video, the interaction is nevertheless face-to-face. The web is asking us to reimagine how we think about space, how and where we engage, and upon which platforms the bulk of our learning happens.

In Small Pieces Loosely Joined: a Unified Theory of the Web, David Weinberger writes, “We are the true ‘small pieces’ of the Web, and we are loosely joining ourselves in ways that we’re still inventing.” Ten years ago, following the publication of Weinberger’s book, I wouldn’t have imagined the learning networks I have now built with colleagues working together (sometimes simultaneously in real time) in places as seemingly remote as Portland, Madison, Manchester, Prince Edward Island, Sydney, Cairo, and Hong Kong.

This is not to say, however, that there aren’t challenges to this sort of work. In On Critical Pedagogy, Henry Giroux argues,

Intellectuals have a responsibility to analyze how language, information, and meaning work to organize, legitimate, and circulate values, structure reality, and offer up particular notions of agency and identity. For public intellectuals, the latter challenge demands a new kind of literacy and critical understanding with respect to the emergence of the new media and electronic technologies, and the new and powerful role they play as instruments of public pedagogy.

Most digital technology, like social media or collaborative writing platforms or MOOCs, does not have its values coded into it in advance. These are tools merely, good only insofar as they are used. And platforms that do dictate too strongly how we might use them, or ones that remove our agency by too covertly reducing us and our work to commodified data, should be rooted out by a Critical Digital Pedagogy. Far too much work in educational technology starts with tools, when what we need to start with is humans.

We are better users of technology when we are thinking critically about the nature and effects of that technology. What we must do is work to encourage students and ourselves to think critically about new tools (and, more importantly, the tools we already use). And when we’re looking for solutions, what we most need to change is our thinking and not our tools.

In short, Critical Digital Pedagogy:

  • centers its practice on community and collaboration;
  • must remain open to diverse, international voices, and thus requires invention to reimagine the ways that communication and collaboration happen across cultural and political boundaries;
  • will not, cannot, be defined by a single voice but must gather together a cacophony of voices;
  • must have use and application outside traditional institutions of education.

A Critical Digital Pedagogy demands that open and networked educational environments must not be merely repositories of content. They must be platforms for engaging students and teachers as full agents of their own learning.

Pete Rorabaugh writes in “Occupy the Digital: Critical Pedagogy and New Media”:

Critical Pedagogy, no matter how we define it, has a central place in the discussion of how learning is changing in the 21st century because Critical Pedagogy is primarily concerned with an equitable distribution of power. If students live in a culture that digitizes and educates them through a screen, they require an education that empowers them in that sphere, teaches them that language, and offers new opportunities of human connectivity.

Critical Pedagogy is as much a political approach as it is an educative one. As Sean Michael Morris writes, it is “a social justice movement first, and an educational movement second.”

So, Critical Digital Pedagogy must also be a method of resistance and humanization. It is not simply work done in the mind, on paper, or on screen. It is work that must be done on the ground. It is not ashamed of its rallying cry or its soapbox. Critical Digital Pedagogy eats aphorisms — like this one right here — for breakfast. But it is not afraid to incite, to post its manifestos, to light its torches.

Hybrid Pedagogy uses an open collaborative peer review process. This piece was reviewed by Sean Michael Morris and Valerie Robin.

[Photo, “Electric Sun“, by Andreas licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.]


How to Gain Parent Buy-In for Classroom Technology

This is re-blogged from my article at PLP Voices.

How to Gain Parent Buy-In for Classroom Technology Integration

Posted by  on Dec 14, 2012 in Making The ShiftTeacher Leadership 2.0The How of 21st Century TeachingVoices | 3 comments

Every teacher who has attempted to integrate technology into the classroom knows that getting parents on board can sometimes be a challenge.

It’s not uncommon for the parent of a struggling child to be on the phone with you asking questions like: “Why do you need to use technology to teach math/social studies/English/biology?” or “This is an AP history class  — not computer science!”

Your efforts to engage students and develop important 21st century skills can become the scapegoat explanation for problems that have nothing to do with tech.

So, how do we as educators get these parents into our corner? Here are some strategies I’ve used successfully to gain parent buy-in.

Start Early

The first time that parents hear about technology use in the classroom should not be when that child goes home with a tech-related assignment in hand. Instead, start early. “Back to School Night” is a great time to introduce the concept of technology integration to parents. You don’t need to go into detail: a few words about the importance of technology in the “real world” and the opportunity it allows for collaboration and communication can be enough to get parents excited. This can also be a great time to introduce them to digital citizenship anddigital portfolios.

Emphasize Skills

Instead of emphasizing the content side of technology and the Internet, focus on skill sets and career readiness!

Using creative hardware and software, students learn to adapt to different tools, harness social media, solve challenging problems, overcome obstacles, and showcase their knowledge and cutting edge skills.

While a parent might balk at their child learning to “make a movie,” they all want their child to develop core skill-sets that will help them both in school and “the real world” of college and careers.

Keep Up the Communication

At the start of every new project, send a note out to parents about what you will be doing in your classroom, including your technology plans. Outline the skills that their student will be developing and be sure to invite questions and promise follow-up. Most parents like to stay in the loop and know what’s happening in the classroom. Trust me, they will appreciate the effort. Most important: keep it brief! A short email of just a few lines is more likely to be read than a two-page treatise on pedagogical theory. Just keep it simple and to the point.

Be Transparent

Be open to sending parents your project instructions and any rubric you will use to assess their child’s work. Like it or not, parents care about grades. If you can show them what you will be looking for and exactly how their student will be graded, they’ll feel more comfortable with the project as a whole.

Enlist the Aid of Your Administrators

Bring administration into the loop. As much as it may bother teachers, parents will often go to administrators first with any concerns about your classroom. If your principal knows about the assignment, the learning objectives, the grading rubric, and the pedagogical theory behind your approach, they will have your back with the parents. This can only work to your advantage as you push beyond traditional models of teaching.

Provide a Lot of Time in Class

Not all students have access to a computer or the Internet at home. Provide as much time in class to work on the assignment as possible. Not only will this limit their out-of-class work, it will make you readily available to students who are struggling with the nuts and bolts of their assignments. Parents are more likely to feel okay with a project if they know their child has a lot of face time with their teacher.

Don’t Grade “the Tech”

Whatever rubric you develop, make sure that you aren’t grading “the tech.” Focus on the skills they develop, the effort they make, the research they do, etc. A student with a lot of fancy equipment and know-how will produce a more polished product than a student with virtually no resources who is developing new skills.

And focus on “traditional” skills as well as new and innovative ones. Grade appropriately, but grade the skills and development, not the bells and whistles.

Follow Up with Parents

Keep parents in the loop throughout the year. If their child has just finished an impressive project, drop them a note and suggest that they sit down to see the finished product with their child. Even the most reluctant parents tend to be excited when they see the work their student has produced.

Even if you follow all of these steps to the T, you likely won’t get 100% of parents to buy into your digitally infused pedagogy. This is where the teamwork mindset you develop with your administration can become a true asset, as you present a united front to parents about the valuable education their child is receiving in your technology-savvy classroom. Often, even the most reluctant parent can be brought around if they can be convinced that educators in their school are making well-thought-out decisions with the best interests of their child in mind.

Photo 1: Talladega County Schools
Photo 2: Creative Commons
Photo 3: Bigstock

Hybrid Pedagogy: A Digital Journal of Teaching & Technology

My boyfriend, who knows and kindly tolerates my passions in education, recently linked to me an amazing resource that I cannot believe has escaped my notice until now: Hybrid Pedagogy: A Digital Journal of Teaching & Technology. The one of a kind community promotes academic involvement, innovative peer-review, and real-time and invested participation from its community. See it’s “Call for Participation” Below:

Call for Participation:

Hybrid Pedagogy is an open-access journal that
: connects discussions of critical pedagogy, digital pedagogy, and online pedagogy;
: brings higher education teachers into conversation with K-12 teachers and the open education community;
: considers our personal and professional hybridity;
: disrupts distinctions between students, teachers, and learners;
: explores the relationship between pedagogy and scholarship;
: invites its audience to participate in (and be an integral part of) the peer review process;
: and thus interrogates (and makes transparent) academic publishing practices.Hybrid Pedagogy presents a new academic publishing model influenced by digital culture. As a scholarly journal, we encourage participation in the composition and peer review of articles across disciplinary and professional boundaries. In lieu of a more traditional “call for submissions,” Hybrid Pedagogy requests authentic engagement with our community and its methods. We invite provocation, experimentation, and improvisation.To participate in the community, you can: 
1. Read the most recent articles featured on the home page. For more information on the project of the journal, start withHybridity, pt. 3: What Does Hybrid Pedagogy Do?.
2. Comment on the articles, which are meant to be the start to productive conversations and not static reservoirs. This is an integral component of our review process, letting authors see what questions and further thinking their articles generate.
3. Participate in our regularly scheduled #digped chat on Twitter. Or search #digped for the archive of recent conversations about digital pedagogy.
4. Tweet relevant digital and pedagogical media from across the web to @hybridped.
5. Follow @hybridped@jessifer@allistelling@rswharton@slamteacher, and our contributing authors and editors. You can also find us on Facebook.
6. Visit our concordance of digital tools, which offers a growing annotated list of pedagogical tools discussed within the journal and/or recommended by contributors.
7. Share Hybrid Pedagogy content across your own personal learning networks.
8. Help support the work of the journal.

We look for material that explores the space between progressive pedagogy and digital culture, whether in physical or virtual environments. We’re open to publishing anything related (even loosely) to digital and analog pedagogy, including multimedia work, scholarly essays, anecdotal narratives, and practical tips.

If you’d like to contribute something to the journal, you should:
1. Participate on the pages of the journal, joining the conversation by engaging with other contributors.
2. Compose an 800 – 1200 word article in a Google Doc with hyper-links built-in.
3. Send an email to Jesse and Pete at hybridped@gmail.com introducing yourself and your relationship to the ideas of the journal. Include a link to the document that we can open and comment upon (if you give us editing privileges, we can also make small non-substantive corrections).
4. Be prepared to engage with the community of readers who will respond to your work.

Finally, if you’d like to participate as a member of our Editorial Collective:
1. Build a practice of commenting on the articles published on the site.
2. Participate in the discussion forum designed for specific journal or community issues.
3. Solicit article submissions from your network of colleagues and students.
4. Contact us at Jesse and Pete at hybridped@gmail.com to learn how else you can contribute.

I have now added them to my newsfeed, begun reading their articles, and hope to be submitting more substantive content in the near future. Be sure that you check out the Journal here and follow them on twitter!