SGarza.AfterReadingTate4 History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output - Cancel

Added lines 232-245:
----
John L. After Tate

Sometimes I worry. When I read an article like Critical Pedagogy, my first instinct is not sympathetic. My first instinct, in fact, is to wonder how such articles can be taken seriously, to the extent that they are a cornerstone of composition theory. Is it a problem with me or the field as a whole?

People should not come to college to share what they already know with one another. Students do not need to pay tuition for that. They can head to a coffeehouse if they want to share their opinions on their life experiences. What is the point of composition classes? Is it to enforce a justice? What is social justice? How are you stopping indoctrination of political views by indoctrinating your students with political views? And why are we assuming that students have something worthwhile to say? I know less than any professor in the English Department about English studies. I want to be taught English studies, not necessarily in a Socratic method, but at least to where I learn things I have on my own.

Here is my response to the Feminist Pedagogy article. All of the inequities of the past have been remedied sometime earlier and anyone still talking about feminism is an embittered, power-hungry woman who wants to men (125).

In all seriousness, I must have missed the portion of this article where Jarratt actually mentions how a feminist pedagogy helps female composition students become better writers. Can feminism detail how patriarchy is built into language? Sure. What should be done about it? *shrug*

In my pre-reading response, I referenced how perhaps a feminist pedagogy is used by teachers to mask an inability to teach composition that it is easier to critique writing than to actually write. the primary question asked by composition teachers be: does this make students better writers? Feminism makes students better critics, but that the same thing.

And as we discussed with Connors Chapter 1, telling women more irenic (aka docile) and handle a more agonistic (aka competitive) method of learning is about the worst thing a teacher can do. Telling women that they do not have the skills to be equals and then deriding such skills as meaningless is cowardice and bigotry at its most hypocritical.
Added lines 219-231:

****

Michele Mora-Trevino

Critical Pedagogy

chapter is by far the most intriguing chapter. pedagogy envisions a society not simply pledged to but successfully enacting the principles of equality, of liberty and justice for (92). This vision of critical pedagogy appears progressive; however, the tactics and methods appear radical and aggressive and therefore unreceptive by those who are empowered to make change. These aggressive methods such as attempt to use her power as an instructor to push her critical pedagogy agenda upon her students; and, attempt to have contest conservative definitions of education and (96) are challenged and put aside. I respect the work being done in critical pedagogy; however, I understand its place in teaching composition or for that matter its place in English departments.


Feminist Pedagogy

This was a very interesting chapter and I appreciated the historical review of feminism and composition. Like all of the chapters Tate has presented, Tate provides the reader with multiple theories, is no different. So, I will focus on the section that really struck a chord with me, (and reading) Differently? I believe that composition should be gender-biased and yet feminist pedagogy appears to drive composition in that very direction. Feminist pedagogy, to some degree, reinforces gender differences and seemingly establishes how women should write e.g. write more often about relational topics and men about topics that focus on the (123). I am fearful that feminist pedagogy unconsciously limits a writing capacity. Scholars to teach a form of in composition classes (Junker) (123) reinforces the idea that women have an expected o writing style.
Added lines 199-218:


'''Yvette E.'''
Critical Pedagogy:

I enjoyed the writing style of Anne George, it was very easy to read and conversational. She still implemented interesting and insightful ideas, but it was much easier to understand, digest and comprehend. I found the reading exciting, as it described critical pedagogy as pedagogy, empowering pedagogy, radical pedagogy, engaged pedagogy or pedagogy of (92).

This description carries a very strong connotation and with the further explanation from Giroux, that task of critical pedagogy is nothing short of democratic public (93). Then linking it all the way back to Dewey made the stratification of this pedagogies definition even thicker. The fact that it is up to us (teachers and citizens) to decided whether we want education to be a function of society or a society as function of education. Thus, with this level of loaded information, it made me question how controversial this type of pedagogy is, and how it is being implemented in the high school level? What other issues have stemmed from it, and how does it affect us as citizens? Teachers?

I also see and understand that there is always another point of view at deliberates against this pedagogy. That implementing this pedagogy into the classroom can be very tricky, since it is dealing with issues of discrimination. Such as Jay and Gramm who feel that this critical pedagogy is and should not be used in the classroom.

Feminist Pedagogy:

I enjoyed the historical value of this text and especially how it brought forth and explained the different types/level of feminism. I believe that before even going further and reading the text, one must first understand that there are all sorts of feminists. When I was a sophomore in college and Dr. Talley asked us if we were feminists, I was the only one to raise my hand, but then when she read us the definition that it just meant a person seeking equal rights for both sexes, practically everyone raised their hand. There are different interpretations of a feminist and there are different values each feminist feels strongly about. (sorry for the tangent)


Also, being a girl I loved the definition part. I know that sometimes we may pay a little too much time and energy towards what the word means and how it is simply a nuance from other words, but I do feel it is important that we are all on the same page; as people can also misunderstand/miscomprehend the connotations that certain words carry.

Overall, what I gathered from this text was that as teachers we try to enforce or force the feminists practices, and attempt to convert everyone to become feminists, however rather to integrate the principles, ideas and ideologies into the curriculum. On interesting question that has stayed with me, is whether or not we should adapt the contemplation that males learn differently than females and thus, should we teach
differently to the two???
Added lines 188-198:
'''Sami H.'''
'''After reading Tate'''
I think that very interesting to see how Ann George compares the relationship between pedagogy and democracy. I liked Roger quote, propose pedagogy is to propose a political . George then claims that critical pedagogy students in analyses of the unequal practices and institutions, and it aims to help students develop the tools that will enable them to challenge this . It is also described as, for or .

We hear the name Paulo Freire again, this time for his work pedagogy for the oppressed. His purpose was to create what he calls a - or . Basically, he wanted students to have the ability to , analyze, and problematize the economic, political, and cultural forces.

The 1980s brought a rebirth of the progressive educational reform movement. The to the pedagogy comes up again in this chapter. Reports surfaced that announced a crisis in the American education system, which would deeply affect ability to compete in the world market. Sounds like a current problem as well, huh? Some thought that popularity and success of conservative educational reform was not just a crisis in education, but also in American democracy itself.

Like anything else studied in education, there was and is much debate revolving around critical pedagogy. At least this is the first time read were equal attention was paid to education and democracy. Very tricky subject to

The feminist pedagogy in Susan chapter is described as the of feminism, in to the first wave of the 19th . Jarratt explains that what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive is investment in a view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, and of the complicity of reading, writing, and teaching in those conditions. This sums up what I expected when I heard the term .
Changed lines 167-170 from:
to:
Ben

Tate: Critical Pedagogy

Empowering Education (1992) and When Students Have Power (1996), are frankly inspirational - funny and provocative and so full of handy tips and interesting assignments that even the most bamboozled among us will be reassured that we, too, can be effective critical teachers. (98)

I found this to be the sentence that really sums up my opinion of Critical Pedagogy. We have been spending a great deal of time on Critical Pedagogy, specifically in Basic Writing (stories like Mike Rose's Lives on the Boundary), on how to effectively teach "nontraditionally" in order to "empower" our students. I could go on forever about all the problems I see with this theory, but the more I read about it, the more I see that my only problem with it is its advocates. Critical Pedagogy isn't anything crazy, but as Ann George explains, advocates of it tend to see the teacher as some kind of super hero tasked with changing the face of the world, and within these stories, the teachers seem to be unstoppable. That's why I like the fact that she points out that they're inspirational stories more than anything.

Like any other theory, this one tends to be way too extreme for its own good, but unlike the other theories, it tries to be all encompassing at the same time, which is a good step. I like the fact that Critical Pedagogy tries to include all of the other theories because it's obvious that no one theory by itself does a whole lot of good due to the diversity of students personalities and ways of learning. My main problem with Critical Pedagogy comes from the idea that to create a well functioning democratic society, students have to be trained to resist change, as if education is the only thing that stands between members of society and government. If we teach them, they will go out and function in society and fight radically to change things that aren't right. This is true to an extent, but I really don't think we're going to change a whole lot as long as people still have plenty to be busy with. The problems within our democracy stem more from the fact that it's grown to large to function as a democracy, regardless of what education does. Because the country is so diverse, and educational practices can change so much from one area to the next, I really think education should worry more about education and less about changing the world. It doesn't seem practical to me.

On the topic of feminist pedagogy:

There is one big flaw here. I have argued in other classes that Feminist theory as a whole has outgrown its use. Feminists are no longer fighting for any unified goal. This isn't to say that the equal rights movement is over, but everythings evolved in such a way at this point that a radical theory fighting man as the oppressor isn't really relevent. Feminist arguments now seem to focus on knit picking more than anything, and simply prolonging the existence of feminist theory. That said, how better to alienate an entire classroom of students than by teaching them using only Feminist theory?

Jaratt refers to Feminist Pedagogy as questioning oppression on all fronts, but I really don't see how that is necessarily feminist in nature at all, harkening back to my idea that feminism is merely trying to find new ways to stay existent. The basic ideas that I get out of this are all either fundamentally flawed, or seem to achieve the opposite of what they are trying to achieve. Feminist teachers decided that arguing is agonistic and violent and suited towards men. So... women shouldn't do it, only men should, because it's suited for men, not women. Feminist teachers should be nurturing and take positions of power in their classrooms... how is this different than what any teacher should do? Why should everything in the class go back to the struggles of womankind, and how is a feminist teacher going to teach a class of mostly women (as is the case at most universities) without alienating the men in the class, who look around them and see themselves as the minorities? Why should they even have to?

She concludes with "anyone who's paying attention today is a feminist." Well, wouldn't that kind of make the use of the term feminist irrelevant? Doesn't this kind of signify that feminism has assimilated into society as a whole?
----------------------
------------------------
Deleted line 68:
<<<<<<<
Changed lines 154-158 from:
to:
---------------------------

'''Jennifer G'''

After Reading

Tate

Critical: This went along pretty well with my current knowledge of critical pedagogy. I knew most of the names, and they have been a part of the in many other classes. not sure how much of this was new, other than that taking on this pedagogy means sacrifice and making changes both personally and in ones academic life. We have seen that in Shor and Rose, but I am not sure that it is always possible. I am not against this pedagogy, it fascinates me, but I am also not sure about the idea of presenting some of the political ideologies, but I like the idea of empowering the students. I am still working this one out, it is my favorite, so far, to

Feminist:

I almost would rather not write on this. So much of this aggravates me. This is going to be short. I can see the place of feminist pedagogy in a gender/feminist studies classroom, I just see the need for a great deal of it beyond that. My problem is, that while Shor, and some of the others, are trying to get people to see and empower them, Feminism still comes across, to me, as disjointed and with an ulterior motive. Early she begins to discuss all of the things that Feminism now incorporates and encompasses, and then she talks about how they are trying to break away from stereotypes. Was she really advocating the individual that instills fear in, instead of nurturing her students; not every quality is insulting, personally I find this insulting. I have read feminists discourse, and I find some of the past restrictions, and even some of the less obvious current restrictions, something that needs to be worked through, but I disagree that everything we have come to know as female is a form of patriarchal bondage. (Ok enough on that)
-----
Changed lines 153-158 from:
'''Feminist Pedagogy:''' Well this chapter was exactly what I thought it would be, however I did get some clarification on what constitutes feminist pedagogy. It was nice to read some familiar names (Gilbert&Gubar, Cixous, Kolodny, etc...) and learn how this pedagogy developed. She provides a mini-history of how this came to be and also provides a definition. According to Jarrat, "feminist pedagogy is a practice...but what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive is its investment in a view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, and of the complicity of reading, writing and teaching in those conditions" (115). I also thought it was interesting that she mentioned both men ''and'' women teach in the field. Its not that I'm completely shocked, but its nice that she acknowledges men ( I was unsure as to what type of feminist Jarrat was). She even mentions that men could fare better than women because their students "won't be as tempted to read his pedagogy as a self-interested choice..." (116). In other words, he
to:
'''Feminist Pedagogy:''' Well this chapter was exactly what I thought it would be, however I did get some clarification on what constitutes feminist pedagogy. It was nice to read some familiar names (Gilbert&Gubar, Cixous, Kolodny, etc...) and learn how this pedagogy developed. She provides a mini-history of how this came to be and also provides a definition. According to Jarrat, "feminist pedagogy is a practice...but what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive is its investment in a view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, and of the complicity of reading, writing and teaching in those conditions" (115). I also thought it was interesting that she mentioned both men ''and'' women teach in the field. Its not that I'm completely shocked, but its nice that she acknowledges men ( I was unsure as to what type of feminist Jarrat was). She even mentions that men could fare better than women because their students "won't be as tempted to read his pedagogy as a self-interested choice..." (116). In other words, he might choose the best literature for his course based on the curriculum and not on his gender or hi personal beliefs. At the end of the essay, Jarrat mentions that despite "taking a lot of heat" for teaching feminist pedagogy, they do it because they must (126).
Changed lines 153-162 from:
'''Feminist Pedagogy:'''
=======
----

>>>>>>>
to:
'''Feminist Pedagogy:''' Well this chapter was exactly what I thought it would be, however I did get some clarification on what constitutes feminist pedagogy. It was nice to read some familiar names (Gilbert&Gubar, Cixous, Kolodny, etc...) and learn how this pedagogy developed. She provides a mini-history of how this came to be and also provides a definition. According to Jarrat, "feminist pedagogy is a practice...but what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive is its investment in a view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, and of the complicity of reading, writing and teaching in those conditions" (115). I also thought it was interesting that she mentioned both men ''and'' women teach in the field. Its not that I'm completely shocked, but its nice that she acknowledges men ( I was unsure as to what type of feminist Jarrat was). She even mentions that men could fare better than women because their students "won't be as tempted to read his pedagogy as a self-interested choice..." (116). In other words, he
Added lines 147-154:
<<<<<<<
-----
'''[+%bgcolor=violet%Andrea Montalvo+]'''

'''Critical Pedagogy:''' Okay, so as I mentioned in the "before reading section," I thought this esay might discuss critical theories (i.e. literary criticism) but I was wrong. Actually, I like this essay and I agree with Ann George that student-centered pedagogies are key because she wants to "empower students, to engage them in cultural critique and make a change" (92). The two authors she seems to focus on the most in this article are Ira Shor (who we've read in Basic Writing) and Paulo Freire (who I've read in Research & Bib). She chose these authors, I believe, because they focus on what she favors: student-centered pedagogy. A quote I found interesting in this essay was from the seventeenth century govenor of Virginia, Sir William Berkeley, in regards to the "dangers" of mass literacy, "I thank God there are no free schools nor free printing [in this land]. For learning has brought disobedience, and heresy, and sects into the world and printing hath divulged them...God save us from both" (94). I think this quote is still very applicable today, in a sense, because there are those who still feel students should be limited in what they are taught. In other words, there are still composition courses that are not student-centered and rely on the traditional-teacher-spits-out-info method of teaching how to write. Getting back to Freire, George mentions that his notion of the liberatory teacher "will, thus, train students yet simultaneously problematize that training-will, for instance, teach standard English and correct usage while also problematizing their status as inherently superior to other dialects or grammars" (102). I took this to mean that the liberatory teacher will teach the basics, but reinforce why they are such and how they can be usefel to the students. I'm glad I read this essay because it clarified the title; if I hadn't read it, I would be sitting here still thinking it was about literary criticism. I guess Lit. Crit. scarred me for life :)

'''Feminist Pedagogy:'''
=======
Changed lines 157-161 from:
to:
>>>>>>>
Changed lines 125-126 from:
*
to:
I found this chapter interesting because as I had stated in the pre-reading, I was aware of feminist theory, but not pedagogy. I studied feminism in the theory class, so familiar with the concept and all. The text begins to break down for me when Jarratt writes about the of women as composition (114). Unfortunately, women do have a status at the work place, whether they like it or not, I for one do not like that it is sometimes like this. I can see how confusing it can be with defining the term feminism, and I think that is the reason others may comment on it in a negative way. pedagogy can be describes as a practice. But defining this practice is vexing because of desire not to reinscribe an orthodox, disciplining those who fail to (Jarratt 115). I can also see the connection between feminist pedagogy and rhetorical, cultural and critical because each pedagogy is interrelated. Rhetorical in a sense is the power to persuade, which is something feminists, women, have had to do in order to get their voices heard and taken seriously; cultural is basically part of a everyday life, their background and culture has a lot to do with who they are and what they stand for; critical is the stance in which feminists must practice to be able to make sense of certain situations so they can achieve the goal of being equal to men. I think I can write a paper on it, but for now, this is just tid-bits on my thoughts on this topic.
Deleted lines 129-133:



-----
Changed lines 147-151 from:
to:
----
Changed lines 137-138 from:
I really enjoyed the first article, the Ann George piece. There was a lot of Marxist influence in it, and I relate strongly to Freire's and the others' notions that public schools and community colleges often serve simply as training grounds for obedient citizens rather than critically thinking citizens with the ability to affect political change. I like the ties made between thought and writing and how you can't really have political writing without political thought. On that note, people have to realize that they have political power, something the existing scenario in public education and community colleges keeps at a minimum.
to:
I really enjoyed the first article, the Ann George piece. There was a lot of Marxist influence in it, and I relate strongly to Freire's and the others' notions that public schools and community colleges often serve simply as training grounds for obedient subjects rather than critically thinking citizens with the ability to affect political change. I like the ties made between thought and writing and how you can't really have political writing without political thought. On that note, people have to realize that they have political power, something the existing scenario in public education and community colleges keeps at a minimum.
Added lines 133-156:
-----

'''James'''

I really enjoyed the first article, the Ann George piece. There was a lot of Marxist influence in it, and I relate strongly to Freire's and the others' notions that public schools and community colleges often serve simply as training grounds for obedient citizens rather than critically thinking citizens with the ability to affect political change. I like the ties made between thought and writing and how you can't really have political writing without political thought. On that note, people have to realize that they have political power, something the existing scenario in public education and community colleges keeps at a minimum.

Of course, this article gets to the question of what is really practical. Do we teach students that they can make a change when the system will not allow it and when we don't even really practice what we preach (often being members of the same group of politically inactive people who are content to go home and watch "ER or the X-Files" as George writes)? Also, shouldn't we acknowledge that they (and we) may be the current/future oppressors?

I think it makes sense to teach students that they can be agents for change and social justice (which I assume to be, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and all that other Declaration of Independence rhetoric :)

However, I also think that they need to be taught a sound understanding of the extant system itself in order to effectively change and/or undermine it if it is ever determined that it indeed needs changing and/or undermining.

All that said, I don't really think that any particular political ''agenda'' should be taught - we are talking about comp/rhet courses after all. I do think that students should be taught that they can have a voice in democracy, and they should also be taught how to most effectively use that voice in order to reach the goals that they desire for themselves and for society. This entails teaching them how to write knowledgeably, critically, and persuasively among other things, but it also has to do with thinking critically about their own views and beliefs (which may or may not have been knowingly or unknowingly formed in them by very subtle oppressive structures as Freire identifies in schools and colleges).

So, even with all these good ideas, again, I see this theory as another theory that has some really good ideas but also as easy to take to a ridiculous extreme if one subscribes solely to it and uses nothing else on which to base a syllabus. This approach can work for some students who are ready for it, but I think that if enough students are uncomfortable with it, it would be good to have something else worked into the syllabus for them to choose.

As for the chapter on feminism, I agree with Susan Jarratt that it seems most useful for awareness building, especially in the male-female communication styles and in the dominance of patriarchy in schools and the literary canon through the ages. The reason I say this is that there seems to a bit of confusion as to what feminist pedagogy is or probably more of an unwillingness to define it and thus classify it in the way the patriarchal system would have, but it still has some good ideas and uses for a class I think. Gender issues really provide stimulating and often enlightening conversation, but I am not sure about constructing a syllabus or conducting a class based on a pedagogy that doesn't want to define itself. I don't think it would be wrong to say that it is rarely if ever possible to be an authority in a class, essentially the foundation of a class, and not have a solid sense of what you or your class is all about. I would definitely work some of these ideas into my classes, but there just doesn't seem to be enough substance to them in and of themselves to base a whole class around.

What can I say? I'm an eclectic when it comes to just about everything, and theory is no exception.



Changed line 117 from:
By having students engage in the classroom and their communities, we avoid the disconnection that often occurs when a teacher is doing what Paulo Freire calls the the concept of education (93). I read about these types of comments where students admit that when a professor is talking they eventually tune out because they just lose focus. I think when writing a course, one should keep in mind that the best way to achieve student success is to have the to define, to analyze, to problematize the economic, political, and cultural forces that shape, completely determine their (93). The author, Ann George, uses Freire in her pedagogy style because he puts the students learning communities before anything else. the role that a teacher has in a life. Even though she/he is there to teach, it should mean something more than just a paycheck.
to:
By having students engage in the classroom and their communities, we avoid the disconnection that often occurs when a teacher is doing what Paulo Freire calls the the concept of education (93). I read about these types of comments where students admit that when a professor is talking they eventually tune out because they just lose focus. I think when writing a course, one should keep in mind that the best way to achieve student success is to have the to define, to analyze, to problematize the economic, political, and cultural forces that shape, completely determine their (93). The author, Ann George, uses Freire in her pedagogy style because he puts the students learning communities before anything else. the role that a teacher has in a life. Even though she/he is there to teach, it should mean something more than just a paycheck.
Changed lines 107-108 from:
>>>>>>>
to:
----
----
!!!Edith

* What we should do in writing classes?

I think the way the writer approaches her pedagogy is similar to the discussions we have in Basic Writing and that is to empower students to engage them in cultural critique so that one day they will make a change. Often, I believe that instructors/professors forget the reason why they went into teaching in the first place. In a previous reading, an author wrote that it is important to be knowledgeable and up to date with going on the field of their specificity. One example is the theory of pedagogy, noticed through some of NCTE and CCCC that there are always things changing in the Composition field. And in the end, back to the question, it depends on the knowledge the instructor/professor has so that he/she may empower the students to write things that they never imagined and act upon something they believe will help them achieve their goal. One of the things I think we should all do in writing classes is definitely keeping the students engaged. I think when they see consistency it helps them see that instructors/professors are serious about helping them learn the meaning of being empowered.

* Goals of a writing course

By having students engage in the classroom and their communities, we avoid the disconnection that often occurs when a teacher is doing what Paulo Freire calls the the concept of education (93). I read about these types of comments where students admit that when a professor is talking they eventually tune out because they just lose focus. I think when writing a course, one should keep in mind that the best way to achieve student success is to have the to define, to analyze, to problematize the economic, political, and cultural forces that shape, completely determine their (93). The author, Ann George, uses Freire in her pedagogy style because he puts the students learning communities before anything else. the role that a teacher has in a life. Even though she/he is there to teach, it should mean something more than just a paycheck.

* Where does your understanding of the text begin to break down/become confusing?

I think the text begins to break down by page 94 because in the first couple of pages George uses a lot of of the as an outline of the pedagogy she believes is most helpful to her students. From that point she breaks down the meaning of the and how they influenced the institutions function to reproduce the ideology and power of dominant (George 95). As the years pass, George also breaks down the events that occurred in the late 1950s and late 1970s in which liberal art colleges prepared students for roles as future problem-solvers and decision makers; community colleges with their vocational curricula train students to follow orders and accept subordinate roles in (George 95). Sadly, there are still some colleges, rather advisors, who encourage students to go into vocational studies instead of helping them achieve other better or higher goals. Although this is not all the points covered, they are some of the points that stood out for me, plus my posting is not a synopsis of the reading, now to the next reading.

Feminist Pedagogy- Susan C. Jarratt

*

----
----

Changed lines 2-4 from:
""Kathy H""
Reflection: This article explains the various aspects about critical pedagogy and offers scenarios of what is good about it and what the challenges are when attempting to teach impressionable minds.
to:
!!Kathy H!!
* Reflection: This article explains the various aspects about critical pedagogy and offers scenarios of what is good about it and what the challenges are when attempting to teach impressionable minds.
Changed lines 2-18 from:
to:
""Kathy H""
Reflection: This article explains the various aspects about critical pedagogy and offers scenarios of what is good about it and what the challenges are when attempting to teach impressionable minds.

What critical pedagogy aims to do is enable students to envision alternatives, to inspire them to assume the responsibility for collectively recreating society. teachers need to conceive of schools as democratic public where they learn knowledge and skills to live in a democracy. (97)

The theorists Paulo Friere, Henry Giroux, and Ira Shor, are recognized as the in critical pedagogy. They criticize traditional public schools which teach social conformity and cultural uniformity. These passive, compliant citizens are heavily influenced by the culture. These and others like-minded educators seek to dominant ideology and revitalize democratic practice. (97) democracy is use of democratic means to reach democratic - Ann ideal but she sees the flaws in the practice itself. Arguments about how far is too far in this practice letting students direct their own education is - cornerstone of critical but there needs to be a balance to teaching critical writing. Social needs and professional needs are necessary to produce who live in the real world (professionals such as lawyers, doctors, etc.). Not every one in university is predisposed to accepting a revolutionary agenda. Well meaning radical teachers dance around complex issues and often propose ideas that are outside the boundaries of their expertise. A composition teacher is not a political science teacher, and imposing his/her personal agenda in a classroom is unethical. Again, there needs to be a pragmatic approach between teaching / assisting students in developing writing skills and the push for politicizing the composition course.

Even Freire has reservations concerning the fine line between teaching and living in the real world. Teachers must allow for freedom in the classroom and at the same time realize that has not been achieved in society. We must with one foot in the (reality) and foot outside the system, in the future (109).

I think that there is a place for critical pedagogy in the composition classroom, but all authority must not be relinquished to the students. They need to learn to think critically and also prepare to live and work in the real world.

*Kathy H - After Reading Tate: Feminist Pedagogy

This article asks and attempts to answer the question of makes a composition pedagogy feminist? It is distinctive in that its view of contemporary society is sexist and patriarchal, and is manifested in reading, writing and teaching conditions. It asks, men and women write differently; what experiences are different in life because one is female or male and how does that affect their bias and persuasive approaches in writing; is argument a male attribute observed in writing and do women only write about describing their feelings towards a subject (i.e. relational issues)? Although there are differences of opinion between the inclusions of the people who are among pedagogues, generally they have a few common interests: social justice and antiracism. A teacher need not necessarily be - to teach feminism, but rather a good composition instructor should strive to get the students involved in the conversation of what sexist literature/writing is and the different viewpoints on the subjects to invite reflection on whether or not something is or sexist and patriarchal, and hopefully create a way for to learn and listen alternately and respectively to the ideas of others. (121) My experience in the literature / composition classroom has been that there are still sexist views in the student body at large, but compared to the , overt sexist attitudes have largely been diminished and a lot more men today have revised their thinking about what means (either by force through or by choice). Men, and most women, do not always view feminism as a state of mind, and often they can see the logic of bringing the issues of feminists to the table to talk about them. Susan closing sentence summed up the aim of teaching feminist pedagogy neatly: we teach our students to shape their words, teaching them to reshape our world. (126) I can see that some progress has been made in the last few decades concerning sexism, racism and social injustice, and of course, there will always be more work to do.

----
Changed lines 61-62 from:
'Critical Pedagogy: Dreaming Democracy'
to:
"Critical Pedagogy: Dreaming Democracy"--
Changed lines 70-71 from:
'Feminist C. Jarratt'
to:
"Feminist Pedagogy"
Added line 58:
Changed lines 70-71 from:
C.
to:
'Feminist C. Jarratt'
Changed lines 57-61 from:
*
Reading

Pedagogy: Dreaming
to:
* '''Lorena'''
'''Tate
Reading Response'''

'Critical
Pedagogy: Dreaming Democracy'
Added lines 53-76:
<<<<<<<
From what I could tell, Jarratt said that most feminist pedagogues are less about integrating feminist ideology overtly into the curriculum and more about integrating the underlying principles of feminism and equality. She says, writing teachers bring historical and political knowledge of the feminist movement, sexism, and patriarchal structures, along with tools of gender analysis, into the not about forcing all the students to subscribe to a particular political position but rather engaging with students on the terrain of language in the gendered world we all currently (118). I suspect this is a hard balance to strike for any well-meaning feminist comp teacher, especially (as Jarratt points out at the end) in an era of backlash against feminism.

-----
*
Reading

Pedagogy: Dreaming

I feel that I mostly understood what Critical Pedagogy is from the essay, and had wondered how politics would play a role in this type of pedagogy. pedagogy (a.k.a. liberatory pedagogy, empowering pedagogy, radical pedagogy, engaged pedagogy, or pedagogy of possibility) envisions a society not simply pledged to but successfully enacting the principles of equality, of liberty and justice for (92). I find it interesting that with what this type of pedagogy is supposed to represent, critical pedagogy is based on the teachings of group of white, middle-class (93).

This essay discusses the evolution of critical pedagogy and the impact that different teachers had on literacy, and composition along with the growth of the community college. In addition, as with most things, there is another side to these arguments. Others believe that critical pedagogy is a to undertake in the school system because of how teachers view it. Some, like Knoblauch, feel the classroom can be a site for social human agency (98). Others, like Jay and Graff, feel that critical pedagogy is is, (100).


When the argument moved on to white, middle-class students writing on oppression within the classroom, the question of what these students are to be liberated from is brought up. I believe anyone can feel oppression regardless of race, sex, or social status and this is a common thread that we can all draw upon for writing.

C.

not surprising to find that feminist pedagogy is not as well defined as some of the others pedagogies we have read about. It better represented as a set of questions than a list of (124-125). This essay attempts to give a better understanding of the topic and the struggles faced by women within the field of academia. There are differing views on whether or not feminist pedagogy can be a field of study for men, and some believe that students gain advantages from the gender inequities built into everday conversational (119).

There is also a question of the difference in writing between men and women and what each gender writes about. Women tend write more often about relational topics and men about topics that focus on the (123). This comparison leads to the argument that women are more emotional and therefore not as as men to teach on a more professional level than personal and therefore as desirable or worthy of equal pay. These controversial arguments began when women were able to enter the college culture and receive the same education as their male counterparts. Maybe this ability of women is why we tend to fight more for other rights mentioned in this reading, such as racism, gay rights, etc...

-----
=======
Changed lines 90-91 from:
to:
>>>>>>>
Changed lines 53-54 from:
From what I could tell, Jarratt said that most feminist pedagogues are less about integrating feminist ideology overtly into the curriculum and more about integrating the underlying principles of feminism and equality. She says, writing teachers bring historical and political knowledge of the feminist movement, sexism, and patriarchal structures, along with tools of gender analysis, into the not about forcing all the students to subscribe to a particular political position but rather engaging with students on the terrain of language in the gendered world we all currently (118). I suspect this is a hard balance to strike for any well-meaning feminist comp teacher, especially (as Jarratt points out at the end) in an era of backlash against feminism.
to:
From what I could tell, Jarratt said that most feminist pedagogues are less about integrating feminist ideology overtly into the curriculum and more about integrating the underlying principles of feminism and equality. She says, writing teachers bring historical and political knowledge of the feminist movement, sexism, and patriarchal structures, along with tools of gender analysis, into the not about forcing all the students to subscribe to a particular political position but rather engaging with students on the terrain of language in the gendered world we all currently (118). I suspect this is a hard balance to strike for any well-meaning feminist comp teacher, especially (as Jarratt points out at the end) in an era of backlash against feminism.

----
'''Holly C. - Post-Reading - Tate'''

In the critical pedagogy chapter, the thing I got most out of it was that critical pedagogy has a lot to do with the idea of turning composition class into a class of trying to liberate students and introduce them to new idea. Of course, the problem in trying to teach these students new ideas is that there has to be a how. Also, there is an issue of what should be taught and of whether or not teaching the students is indoctrination. Also, there is a problem over what should be used. Should the X-Files, as the author mentioned be used, or should the more literature be used because it is the classic. To me, this brings up the constant issue of what should be in the canon and also of whether the canon should be at all.

There was a lot of discussion of Freire in this chapter. Freire believed that the majority of teachers place make their classrooms places of oppression and that they turn their students into receptacles of knowledge into which knowledge must be deposited. In critical pedagogy, students are supposed to be empowered by what they are being taught and to feel as if the composition class they are taking is a method of learning how to express themselves and not of being just taught to again.

The other individuals that are supposed to be liberated within critical pedagogy are the teachers. Under the assumption that George is making in this article, the teachers are being oppressed by teaching within the box. Critical pedagogy allows the teacher to be freed because they are supposed to be able to teach what they want. Going back to a discussion we had last week in class, I am uncertain of whether or not this is is something that always should happen. We had considerable discussion over whether was really something that does make good fodder for teaching a class or not. Additionally, when a teacher is just teaching what they want, there is a concern that they may not be teaching something that is pedagogically sound. I know, at least in high school classes, that there are teachers who just show and read certain novels because they like reading or watching it without any plan over what exactly they are using the content for. Basically, the rationale is, just have them read this and then we write a paper, because I like that book so much.

The chapter on feminist pedagogy was not what I expected at all. Instead of discussing the plethora of theories that make up feminist theory as a whole, the article only focused on why feminist pedagogy was used in classrooms. There also seemed to be a contradiction between what we have read in Connors and what Susan Jarratt is saying. Jaratt says that opportunities in college were slightly limited in the nineteenth century, but Connors has made the argument in the first chapter of his book that the main reason for the change from oral rhetoric to written rhetoric. At least, the way that her quotation on page 114 seemed to read. I suppose my understanding might be breaking down a little bit at this point of the chapter.
I did see a little bit of the chapter that would seem to be lending itself to the idea that there is a lack of focus in the feminist pedagogy. The lack of clarity over who created the knowledge and practices in the field is an example of that.
Deleted line 0:
Deleted lines 14-15:
*
Added lines 1-31:

----

!!!Steve S.

"Critical Pedagogy" by George:

I found this particular chapter another one that was difficult for me to slog through. Not because I didn't understand it (well, mostly I feel I did), but because I have a certain amount of what George would label as "resistance" to her idea of critical pedagogy. She is right that resistance is a valid concern to her idea of what critical pedagogy is, given what in all it involves.

Once again, I feel the need to question what "social justice" is to the Tate authors and why the discipline should be involved in this. George constantly refers back to her idea of "social justice" as a goal of critical pedagogy, but doesn't really explain what it's supposed to be or why it's desirable. To be fair, however, George does tangentially address this late in the chapter, where she describes student resistance to pedagogy and even questions how much exposure to the instructor's mindset becomes indoctrination. She then falls back on this, citing "social justice" once again as the guiding principle, but then fails to adequately define what "social justice" is. This creates a sort of circular train of thought that offers some valid points, but doesn't reach a concrete answer.

Much of her foundational support is built upon the work of Paolo Freire, specifically his ''Pedagogy of the Oppressed'', where he challenges the traditional "banking" method in favor of a more dynamic system that questions and challenges the dominant culture. The Freirean system was since picked up by what George describes as "radical" educators. George seems to favor educational radicalism, following on the ideas of Freire; she eventually goes on to describe what she calls a more "authoritarian" conservative movement within the 80's towards a "back to basics" approach. She echoes some of the information we read about in previous chapters, particularly the origins of the "radical" pedagogies that sprung out of the 1980's.

One particularly interesting point is that George delineates a difference between "authority" and "authoritarianism". She claims that a teacher must have clear authority without being authoritarian and becoming the oppressor through indoctrination. This is one of the better points in the article, I found, though again she falls back on "social justice" as a guidepost.

*

"Feminist Pedagogy" by Jarratt:

I found that I liked this chapter fairly well, and certainly more than the George article. In the overall view, Jarratt approaches it a little closer to Connors (offering a broader historical context and an explanation for how the pedagogy evolved) but without the negatives of the Connors approach.

The interesting thing about feminist pedagogy is that it doesn't have a clear definition for what it is, exactly. It seems to be a loosely associated grouping of pedagogical ideas centered around the feminist principle, but it isn't any kind of strictly defined doctrine. (Perhaps this may be due to the fracture within feminist criticism that took place following the 1960's, but Jarratt doesn't thoroughly address the causes of this.) The principles in question include "decentering or sharing of authority", "the recognition of students as sources of knowledge", and "a focus of processes... over products" (Jarratt 115). Beyond that, the practice appears fractured and made up of various diverse ideas.

Jarratt seems to focus on the idea of feminism as empowering women through the empowerment of language itself. She particularly addresses this in the last page or so, where she claims that "as we teach our students how to shape their words, we're working together to shape the world" (Jarratt 126). She also seems to take a nod to the aforementioned "social justice" concept, which she applies to feminist pedagogy. Within the discipline, feminism ranges from how to teach writing in the classroom, to whether men and women write differently (and if so, how), and to even how male students might react to the presence of a woman as teacher. Jarratt acknowledges the flexibility of feminism on some level, especially where she claims that "anyone who's paying attention today is a feminist" (126).

Jarratt also remains aware of some resistance to the idea of feminism among students, but still advocates it. While I credit her with trying to address both sides of the issue, she exaggerates the opposing position just a little bit. She's correct that students very likely do question the relevance of feminism with the past advances that society has made, but to claim that they think that "anyone still talking about feminism is an embittered, power hungry woman who just wants to 'bash' men" is a reach and just a bit unfair. This is a question worth debating, admittedly, and Jarratt asks some fair questions about this. However, the language needs to be clarified and placed in its proper context before there's a satisfactory answer that can be reached about this.

All in all, I found this to be a solid, thought-provoking chapter. I don't quite subscribe to some of her ideas, but they're at least worth considering further.

----
Added lines 1-26:
!!!Darcy L.

''Critical Pedagogy:''

This article was well written in terms of walking away with a clear understanding of what makes up critical pedagogy. Having read some of ''Pedagogy of the Oppressed'' last semester, I was familiar with the Freirian basics and the idea of the banking method. I think seen a lot of these pedagogies either implicitly or explicitly invoking some of these ideas, from process pedagogy to expressivism to collaborative to cultural. George indicates that critical pedagogy can be distinguished from other closely tied pedagogies by its commitment to education for (93).

The idea behind critical pedagogy seems to stem from Marxist theory, especially in the as public model and the notion of self-empowerment and critical consciousness being the end goal of the classroom experience. All this is made possible only through a reinvention of the roles of students and teachers, leveling the hierarchical relationship and integrating discussion of social criticism. In terms of the classroom, I found questions to pose to students very is good writing?; do you become a good writer?; and questions do you have about good writing? I think a great idea to have students think about why they are in the classroom, what they are working toward and to what end. However, I tend to agree with Villanueva about turning the classroom into a and the ramifications that can have on the real work to be done, which is simply to teach composition. In particular, I liked his quote that students in school to fulfill a dream, a longtime American dream of success through education. They were not in school to have their dreams (99). While many critical pedagogists are probably very well meaning and have the best interests in mind, it is not up to a teacher to decide for the student what his or her goal is.

I think the most important idea I personally take away from critical pedagogy is notion (paraphrased) that important to distinguish between authority, which teachers must have, and authoritarianism, which is the abuse of (105). I think hard to argue with on any level. College level instructors have to be imbued with some semblance of authority (at the very least, an authority of the material at hand) or the students will not trust that they are their or being educated whatsoever. Especially in terms of a composition class, there has to be some guidance and facilitation without being heavy-handed or oppressive. On the one hand, deplorable when teachers pose their political positions as factual and impose themselves on a bunch of kids. On the other, pretty obnoxious as a student to ask questions and not get any answers. Personally, I like the middle ground between the radicals and the traditionalists.

''Feminist Pedagogy:''

There were a lot of ideas bounced around in this essay, proving that feminist pedagogy (like many of the others seen) have a clear-cut definition or set of pedagogical principles, per se. Jarratt does try to nail down some that unite feminist pedagogues:

1. The decentering or sharing of authority

2. The recognition of students as sources of knowledge

3. A focus on processes (of writing and teaching) over products

4. Investment in a view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, and of the complicity of reading, writing, and teaching in those conditions.

Within these ideas, the feminist pedagogy can manifest in many different classroom experiences. For feminist teachers, Jarratt cites Susan Stanford Friedman as bringing up the posed by a choice between adopting masculine authority and thus reproducing the existing hierarchies of educational institutions versus opting for a feminine role, and in so doing, reproducing the denial of the mind to (119). This mirrors the same conundrum about whether or not to embrace or reject the idea that women and men write differently and whether it is appropriate to adopt classroom practices that acknowledge or rebuff that. The notion of male writing as more argumentative and rational versus female writing being more personal and emotional relates back to argument that women entering universities is how composition classes came about in the first place, with women being more and narrative-driven in writing and men being more agonistic and argument-driven in oral competition.

From what I could tell, Jarratt said that most feminist pedagogues are less about integrating feminist ideology overtly into the curriculum and more about integrating the underlying principles of feminism and equality. She says, writing teachers bring historical and political knowledge of the feminist movement, sexism, and patriarchal structures, along with tools of gender analysis, into the not about forcing all the students to subscribe to a particular political position but rather engaging with students on the terrain of language in the gendered world we all currently (118). I suspect this is a hard balance to strike for any well-meaning feminist comp teacher, especially (as Jarratt points out at the end) in an era of backlash against feminism.