Of particular interest to me is Alexander's notion of centralized vs. decentralized educational systems. In his book, Alexander notes how “standardized” pedagogies and curriculums of a decentralized educational system like the U.S. are more open to resistance and opposition by teachers at the classroom level; Alexander argues that every act of teaching is an act of curriculum transformation and that, for US classrooms, this transformation is often conscious and more radical than in other school systems. Accordingly, Alexander illuminates how the conflict between standardizing pedagogies (pedagogies of cultural reproduction and nationalism) are always at conflict with pedagogies of critical awareness (563). But the questioning of curriculum and pedagogy seems a caveat currently privy to decentralized systems alone, as Alexander notes the seemingly indifferent or “at face value” opinions of curriculum and pedagogy held by teachers in centralized educational systems like
Furthermore, in Chapter 17 Alexander makes an interesting argument that in decentralized educational systems like America, there exists certain "borders" or conflicts between curriculum and pedagogy, in particular that pedagogy is subsidiary to curriculum (550). In systems like Central European education, Alexander argues "pedagogy frames everything else" (550); significant to note is that Alexander favors this latter paradigm. However, it seems that the ideas of resistance and curriculum transformation that Alexander discusses are at conflict with his claim that pedagogy is subsidiary to curriculum in American education. Indeed, for critical pedagogues, it seems pedagogy is everything.
In trying to work out this cognitive dissonance between the revolutionary/resistant teacher and the curriculum-driven US educational system, I would like to pose the following food for thought:
a. Do you see pedagogy as subsidiary to curriculum, or vice versa? Or, do you perhaps see them related in a different way than discussed by Alexander?
b. In what ways do you see RCTE as a program vested in “comparative pedagogy”? If so,
how does that complicate ideas of pedagogy as subsidiary to curriculum in our discipline?
c. If pedagogy is still largely seen as subsidiary to curriculum (and, I think it is possible to argue that is largely is outside our program), how do scholars like us work to perhaps invert, or transform this paradigm? Is that perhaps even necessary?
d. How does pedagogic inquiry, say, comparative pedagogy, open up possibilities for inclusion and democracy in education work, rather than traditionally exclusive and hegemonic practices of learning?
2 comments:
I want to respond to item "c" about the hierarchy of pedagogy and curriculum. I argue that pedagogy must be a subsidiary of curriculum, not because we are privileging standardization or centralization of educational institutions, but rather I see curriculum as the framework that supports our pedagogy. It defines the field of potentials for my students and gives me a target.
As a teacher, I don't know how I would shape my pedagogy if I didn't have some framing of what that pedagogy should aspire to. What's worse, if I don't aim at some progressive goal, I could end up reproducing or subverting the very goals that I want to aim for.
Transforming this hierarchy could be very dangerous, indeed. We see this in practice when so-called "critical pedagogues" show up to "teach" a class and say to a group of bewildered students "I'm here for you... what do you want to talk about in regards to subject X... what do you want to do? I will help you." A colleague took a graduate seminar with such a pedagogue and it was antithetical to any educational goal. Instead, it inspired a cult of personality around this laissez-faire instructor who became more of a celebrity in the classroom than a radically progressive instructor.
Does this make sense? So while I would support strengthening the alignment between curriculum and pedagogy, I would not want to flip this paradigm on its head to say that the pedagogy should mandate or articulate the curriculum.
Is this the discussion you were hoping to have? Sorry if I have taken it off topic.
However, by making curriculum the over-arching frame does not mean that it is more important than pedagogy nor does it mean that it stands on its own without some real praxis.
a. Do you see pedagogy as subsidiary to curriculum, or vice versa? Or, do you perhaps see them related in a different way than discussed by Alexander?
I like Rebecca's response to this question (although actually she said that it was to question c). I am reminded of a teacher that I had my first semester as a grad student (not here). She gave us a syllabus, but she did not indicate what we were to discuss in the course (which was organized around a very general cultural theme). Classes consisted only of grad student discussion, which often devolved into an argument between me and another student, whose philosophy excluded my perspective from consideration based strictly on my race. The feud that began therein persisted throughout the remainder of my time at that U and grew to encompass her friends on her "side," whether they agreed with her philosophy or not. (So thank goodness I'm not there anymore, just due to that.) After the end of the course, the professor promised several times to return my term paper to me, but I never got it, nor any comments about it, until I tried to submit it for publication thereafter and got some feedback that way. That professor also won a University teaching award before I left.
d. How does pedagogic inquiry, say, comparative pedagogy, open up possibilities for inclusion and democracy in education work, rather than traditionally exclusive and hegemonic practices of learning?
I see it as one of the good things about the field of English in general. We can and do take a multitude of approaches which problematize and complicate and complement and improve one another. Often we're left with no answers at the end of the day, but I think that we're less likely to be able to become complacent as a result.
Post a Comment