Chambers 1

Your Reality is Not My Reality:

Assessing the Merits of Critical Pedagogy in Composition as a Move towards Social Change

By Linda M. Chambers, M.A.

Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana

English 5280

December 5, 2014

AbstractCritical pedagogy is a movement for change in education that has been largely motivated by the emergence of political, social, and economic injustices that have resulted in our lack of trust for public goods and services brought about by the powerful government, financial, and corporate elites “whose strangulating control over politics renders democracy corrupt and dysfunctional.” (Polychroniou). The concept of critical pedagogy, which initially started under the leadership of Paulo Freire, a radical Brazilian educator, philosopher, author, and an advocate of the oppressed, has spread into the North America educational system and across the globe (“Paulo Freire”). While critical pedagogy has been largely addressed as a theoretical concept, its applications and measurement for success among our student populations on all educational tiers—elementary, secondary, and higher education--both in the academic institutions and in programs outside of these institutions--are being closely studied and analyzed. There is widespread belief among scholars that the changing climate of our current educational institutions are not adequately meeting the needs of our student population in a rapidly changing society. Questions are raised about whether these institutions are moving in the right direction with outmoded, traditional practices of standardized education that is meant to produce students who are more like robots rather than critical thinkers. Amidst these concerns is 1) whether the student population will be prepared to take their rightful place as leaders, advocates and activists within a deeply politicized bureaucracy that is increasingly becoming less democratic, and 2) whether Composition studies can be deemed a legitimate space for developing student awareness, literacy, and social consciousness. This paper will assess the merits of critical pedagogy in composition as a transformative approach towards social change. A critical review of literacy applications within a multicultural context, addressing the virtues of critical pedagogy, and providing various frameworks for its integration in and out of the classroom will be provided.

“...the undeniable fact [is] that in the last forty years, the US has launched an attack not only on the

practice of justice and democracy itself, but on the very idea of justice and democracy.” Henry Giroux

Introduction

It is no secret that technology is changing the way we live, work, play and learn. It is also no

secret that technology has brought “…important demographic and socio-political change…occurring in

Chambers 2

the United States and throughout the world” according to Douglas Kellner, a UCLA professor, in his

article “Multiple Literacies and Critical Pedagogy in a Multicultural Society.” As a result, the effects of

technology and living in an information-exchange society is transforming the way we think about

educating our student population.

Critical pedagogy, while not a new concept in education, is a movement aimed at transforming

students from being passive learners in an education system merely designed to be a one-way transfer

of knowledge, to students of critical thinking, social consciousness and activism. The implication here is

that in becoming a critical thinker, one must go beyond the ability to read and write since “Critical

literacy…is a set of cognitive, emotional and sociopolitical skills whereby individuals are able to

understand and articulate relations of power, dominance and hegemony using media, text, artifacts,

oral tradition and experience that both illuminate and disrupt internalized oppression.” (Scorza, Mirra,

and Morrell 23). Paulo Freire, a radical Brazilian educator and father of critical pedagogy, asserts that

critical pedagogy contributes to the achievement of freedom, empowerment, and a sense of identity

(qtd. in Scorza, Mirra, and Morrell 26), and the role of the educator is to act as the facilitator/agent for

change thereby empowering students with the tools of rhetoric as part of an ongoing struggle to “…

become critical producers of meanings and text, able to resist manipulation and domination” according

to Douglas Kellner (qtd. in 21st Century School). This transformation is designed to shift students away

from being consumers of knowledge and assimilation to that of empowerment.

My seminar paper will argue the merits of critical pedagogy as a tool for developing student

literacy and awareness. I intend to provide a critical review of the general application of critical

pedagogy in English Studies within a multicultural environment and make a case for determining its

limitations, its value, and in negotiating options.

Transforming the Composition Classroom

Chambers 3

Student development in social activism and the means of getting them there has created much

debate among education scholars, who feel there is a need to cultivate more critically-oriented and

socially conscious students. As such, a call by scholars to create a new English Studies discipline in

postmodern times is due, in part, because of the widely held notion that “English studies is in crisis”

according to James Berlin’s Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring English Studies” (ix). Thus the

need to restructure the way English is taught in the classroom is addressed. While scholars will agree

that reform in composition studies is necessary, the form this change should take is also up for debate.

Transforming the composition classroom presents many challenges, and many questions

abound about the practicality of integrating critical pedagogies into the classroom. Some of these

challenges begin within the school system, and in large measure, impact the way we teach. Faculty in

secondary education, for example, who are receptive to critical pedagogy, often question whether it is

“counter-productive” in light of the “standardization of schools” (Kress, Degennaro and Paugh). Paulo

Freire has long been an opponent of the “…’banking’ model of education, in which students are seen as

‘receptacles’ waiting to be filled with the teacher’s official knowledge…[and thus becomes] an

instrument of domination…” (qtd. in George 78). Giroux asserts, “Conservatives want public schools and

colleges to focus on ‘practical’ methods in order to prepare teachers for an ‘outcome-based’ education

system, which is code for pedagogical methods that are as anti-intellectual as they are politically

conservative. This type of pedagogy is useful for creating armies of number crunchers and for

downgrading teachers to supervising the administration of standardized tests, but not much more.”

(qtd. in Tristan). We are the by-product of a society dominated by an elite few. In other words, we’re

dealing with a traditional, outmoded education system that is in need of reform if we are to create the

type of literacies designed to empower students and promote multicultural sensitivities in a modern day

democracy. Nevertheless, there are those scholars who feel that “…critical pedagogy would be great in

an ideal world, but in the “…’real world’ of schools, it simply can’t happen because ‘there just isn’t time’

Chambers 4

or ‘it doesn’t align with the standards’ or ‘it would be seen as insubordination by the administration’.”

(Kress, Degennaro, Paugh 1).

Despite having to operate within a standardized school system, however, critical pedagogy

within the composition classroom provides a space for student voices, and as Kress, Degennaro and

Paugh suggests “…teaching critically in any environment…involves tactic and strategy. It involves

knowing when, where, and how to be critical. It involves picking the right battles, carving out spaces for

dialogue, and engaging in tough conversations.” (8). In short, it can go “under the radar and off the grid”

as Kress, Degennaro and Paugh so eloquently puts it. After all, what good is the development of writing

skills to meet the standardization requirements of a given institution if students are not trained to use

those skills to participate in the democratic process?

Additional challenges confronting the transformation of the composition classroom centers

around the question of whether composition studies is the right venue for critical discourse involving

economic, political, or social issues. My answer to this question is an emphatic yes, but it must be

handled carefully. If we view English Studies as a course in Humanities, then clearly these issues have a

place in composition. However, there are scholars who express concern about using the classroom for

critical discourse--among them is Maxine Hairston. In her article “Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching

Writing” she asserts that “…everywhere I turn I find composition faculty, both leaders in the profession

and new voices, asserting that they have not only the right, but the duty, to put ideology and radical

politics at the center of their teaching.” (180). Furthermore, she feels “…convinced that the push to

change freshman composition into a political platform for the teacher has come about primarily because

the course is housed in English departments.” (183). Hairston continues to assert that freshman English

composition classes are a great opportunity for “…a huge captive enrollment of largely unsophisticated

students, what fertile field to cultivate to bring about political and social change.” (185). She feels that

this political and social change comes at the expense of the student, who falls victim to the “radical”

Chambers 5

teacher’s hidden social and political agenda; thus, the move away from a student-centered classroom.

She also indicates that we must not lose sight that some faculty may not be knowledgeable or expert

enough to facilitate critical discourse in certain subject matter.

There is no doubt that the role of the composition class is to develop student writing about

topics that they care about; there is no doubt that the role of the composition class is to “…create a low-

risk environment that encourages students to take chances.” (Hairston 189), and there is no doubt that

the role of a composition class should give faculty and students alike, the freedom of expression, but it

must take place within a multicultural context that reflects the diversity of the group and an instructor

who values and respects student perspectives; otherwise, discourse that is considered one-sided can

hardly be viewed in the context of critical pedagogy since it limits the sharing of others’ perspectives.

At the heart of yet another vitally significant challenge in the transformation of the college

composition classroom is Russell Durst, who through an ethnographic study, wanted to “…investigate

the connection between the ‘social turn’ in composition and the ‘more traditional’ concern in the field

with the teaching of writing…” (qtd. In Fulkerson). He hypothesized that “…what students wanted and

expected from a composition course in college conflicted with what teachers using a critical pedagogy

were mostly interested in…” (qtd. In Fulkerson). There were several points that were born out of Durst’s

study, namely:

1) These students typically enter first-year composition with the idea that what they need to learn

about writing is different from the approach taken by the teacher.

2) These students enter into freshman-college classes as “career-oriented pragmatists.”

3) These students tend to “…resist politically, claiming ‘they are being force-fed a liberal ideology’”

(qtd. In Fulkerson).

Since the possibility exist that attempting to turn freshman composition students into social

activists may produce some resistance, critical pedagogy can be achieved in various degrees within the

Chambers 6

construct of a traditional composition course. I go back, again, to what scholars Kress, Degenarro, and

Paugh have stressed--that teaching critically will involve tactic, strategy and knowing when, where and

how to be critical as well as picking the right battles (8), but it also means letting student voices come

through.

Literacy Issues within a Multicultural Context

Because the American and global social structures are changing so rapidly, the question of

whether students are being adequately prepared for participating in a multicultural democracy have

surfaced, and if they are not being adequately prepared, how do we approach it?

Dr. Rebecca Howard, in her Keynote Address at a Connect Conference in Massachusetts,

articulated what most English Studies scholars seem to widely accept and that is “Writing has changed.”

For those scholars who remain committed to writing, she begs the question “How do we make our

students care about writing? We need to devise pedagogy.” With that being said, the opportunity to

engage students in discourse through writing activities about “hot” topics or issues that are important to

them is part of developing critical education.

Among some of the literacy challenges are those having to do with marginalized students, who

don’t always understand the issues and may not have the literacy skills to engage in critical discourse.

They are often the students coming from communities that are deemed unimportant, who are likely to

be the most affected by literacy issues, and they make up a large segment of the oppressed population.

Scorza, Mirra, and Morrell make a case for this in their article “It Should Just Be Education: Critical

Pedagogy Normalized as Academic Excellence,” by asserting, “Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on

accountability, has particularly detrimental impacts on students of color, as traditionally marginalized

and oppressed communities continue to experience the negative effects of cultural domination through

schooling.” Unless students—particularly those who are considered marginalized--are inspired to rise to

Chambers 7

the occasion, they will remain a fixture in “…a submissive workforce, a neo-slave population in

twentieth-century America” (Schuster 41) by the dominant culture.

The most significant issue of literacy that plagues marginalized students, however, revolves

around language. “…education today needs to foster a variety of new types of multiple literacies to

empower students and to make education relevant to the demands of the present and future.”

(Kellner). The notion here is that without adequate theory of language, educators have no standards

with which to address new literacy approaches, and students will continue to struggle “…with the

prestige language into a new prescriptivism, charging inability to use the prestige language results from

uninformed political views.” (Stygall). Thus it is noted that the strategies teachers employ must consider

cultural and linguistic approaches. According to Scorza, Mirra, and Morrell, this can be done as a

framework “…to teaching and learning by empowering students to actively generate and privilege their

own historical tradition through problem posing activity and the practice of reflection. This type of

pedagogy is both anti-oppressive and counterhegemonic and leads to the development of critical

literacy affording urban youth the opportunity to recognize socially constructed knowledge in order to

inform their experience.”

Scorza, Mirra, and Morrell ultimately demonstrated two different ways that critical pedagogy

can be used with urban youth using a model that puts critical pedagogy theory and practice to the test.

One model involved The Black Male Youth Academy (BMYA) in the south Los Angeles Vernon High

School district and the other was The Council of Youth Research (CYR) involving Latino/Latina and

African-American students from East Los Angeles, South Los Angeles, and Watts communities where

students were products of “…concentrated poverty, systemic racism and underperforming schools, but

also draw strength from deep historical traditions of protest and resistance.” (Scorza, Mirra, and Morrell

22). A summary of the critical pedagogy applications that were used in both programs are provided

below.

Chambers 8

Literacy Applications with the Black Male Youth Academy (BMYA)

This particular program focused on 20-25 African-American male youth in grades nine through

twelve, during the 2010-2011 academic school year. Its purpose was to cultivate critical literacy through

critical pedagogy as it relates to their sense of history, identity, community and power. It was an elective

course designed to use “…critical race theory with the intent to develop critical consciousness and

critical literacy skills.” (Scorza, Mira and Morrell 21). With grade point averages ranging between 1.2 and

3.6, these students were expected to assess the conditions of their community based on their learning

experience and then develop a plan for change. They were taught how to use research methodologies

through interviews and surveys, how to do documentary filmmaking, and propose solutions through

Power Point presentations. They were expected to use their newfound knowledge as leaders within the

community, which helped them develop as thinkers and in developing their writing skills (Scorza, Mirra

and Morrell 21).

Literacy Applications with the Council of Youth Research (CYR)

This program consisted of African-American and Latino/Latina students from a community of

high schools within impoverished areas in Los Angeles. These students were selected by teachers of

each school who felt they could benefit from critical pedagogy and work well in a collaborative effort.

The purpose of this program was to effect change in the urban school system through the voices of the

students. During the year 1999, two professors began their journey to research student perspectives

about their schools. It was a longitudinal study done over a period of a decade and involved students

and teachers who met during the summer months after school to expose the inequalities of their

education. Students were involved in interviews with their classmates, politicians, and other educators

and used power point presentations, blogs, documentaries, and verbal discourse to get the word out

(Scorza, Mirra, and Morrell 21-22).

Chambers 9

What they found in each program was “…an overarching theme for research conducted by the

students….[and]… involved exploration of questions that were centered on topics chosen by the

students.” (Scorza, Mirra, and Morrell 22). Based on the collaborative efforts by these high school

students along with their teachers, and the university professors along with their graduate students,

they amassed “…hundreds of surveys, interviews, field notes, and created work products such as essays,

reflections, blogs, PowerPoint presentations and documentary films.” (Scorza, Mirra, and Morrell 22-23).

Given this transformative experience, educators were able to demonstrate theory with practice not only

within the classroom but outside of the school settings (Scorza, Mirra, and Morrell 23). It was the model

of critical pedagogy.

Virtues of Critical Pedagogies

Developing skills in literacy and rhetoric so that students can have a voice as citizens is a vitally

important function in democracy, and critical pedagogy in the composition classroom is one means of

getting students to that place. The perceptions and realities of other students in a multicultural

environment can lead to a powerful and transformative educational experience since it enables them to

see each other through a different set of lenses. There is a critical need to push students towards

meaningful discourse so that they can become fully engaged in the democratic process. Students must

learn to be aware of, attend to, be inspired by, and take on positions about issues affecting them at the

local, national, and global level. In this section, I intend to address the many virtues of critical

pedagogies as they are presented by authors Scorza, Mirra, and Morrell in “It Should Just Be Education:

Critical Pedagogy Normalized as Academic Excellence.” They assert:

1) These students are describing transformative educational experiences—Experiences that

demonstrate powerful changes in students’ learning, identity development, and views of the

world. These experiences are not inspired by standardized test preparations or through

instruction in basic skills; instead, they arise from enriching learning spaces that push

Chambers 10

students to their intellectual limits and connect them to meaningful, authentic ways to

express their ideas.

2) Critical pedagogy helps us rethink the way we engage students and analyze forms of

learning in non-dominant communities so that effective approaches to learning and

teaching can be applied and understood.

3) As a framework, critical pedagogy can also serve as both an educator’s philosophical and

methodological approach to teaching and learning by empowering students to actively

generate and privilege their own historical tradition through problem posing activity and the

practice of reflection.

4) Critical literacy can be linked to cultural identity and can inform attempts to create

structured learning environments, situated learning and basic literacy development.

5) … [It] engages students in academic activities such as interviewing, transcribing, writing and

teaching among others. It allows a community of learners to become teachers and alter the

educational discourse in and beyond their environment. We believe this creates an enviable

hunger for change and acts as a vehicle to engage students in a learning process that is both

relevant and highly instructive by challenging the traditional educational mold that critical

pedagogy intends to subvert.

6) Critical pedagogy intends to teach students in humanizing and empowering ways, yet it also

seeks to encourage empowered collectives to create change in the world and to challenge

inequitable treatment. (16-20; 29)

Recommendations

It would be virtually impossible to develop a framework for critical pedagogy that would fit all

classroom structures; however, I provide suggestions for its integration into composition studies both

Chambers 11

inside and outside of the classroom. I see three places for integrating critical pedagogies without

resistance in composition studies.

One place is with the traditional composition course where students can be exposed to critical

thinking even at the most basic level—giving them a place for dialogue and introducing them to rhetoric.

Using this approach, the instructor would not need to be expert in the subject matter, per se, but merely

a vehicle for the exchange and sharing of ideas to engage students. In doing so, the teacher puts him or

herself in a position to re-learn “…the object to be known…” with the students. “They meet around it

and through it for mutual inquiry.” (Shor and Freire). In this scenario, the Socratic Method, which is a

line of questioning designed to create open rationale dialogue, is introduced to illustrate the need for

students to learn more about things they may presumably claim to know.

Another approach to integrating critical pedagogy into the traditional classroom involves what

Freire and Shor describe as the “dialogical method of liberatory education,” which involves using

dialogue in the classroom to raise awareness of issues and in developing knowledge. In this approach,

the teacher does not lecture; instead, he or she poses “…critical problems for inquiry” that is “…shaped

by the subject matter and training of the teacher, who is simultaneously a classroom researcher, a

politician, and an artist.” (Shor and Freire). During this collaborative process, students are given the

freedom to express their thoughts on their own terms—using language they understand and in a way

that speaks to the “…aspirations, and conditions of the students.” (Shor and Freire). Bear in mind that

within the context of a traditional classroom, especially in a standardized school system, faculty would

need to look for opportunities to engage students in critical discourse.

However, to fully delve into critical pedagogy, school systems can create and implement an

elective composition course dedicated to research and rhetoric of “hot” topics for development of

literacy awareness and in nourishing as well as arousing student interests in social activism without

interference of either meeting the standard requirements of a school system, for example, or without

Chambers 12

the possibility of student resistance because students will have the opportunity to choose to enroll in

the course. This type of course is likely to be implemented at the college-level, and the instructor who

teaches it, in my assessment, will need to possess a higher level of literacy awareness to navigate

students through discussion.

Finally, critical pedagogy can be integrated into after-school programs such as the one described

in the Council of Youth Research Program. When using this model, there is no need to be concerned

about student resistance because students are carefully selected by their teachers, and there is no need

to go “under the radar and off the grid.” Development of these special programs can easily be enacted

at the secondary level or at the college-level as community-service projects, for example.

Ultimately, it is the critical educator’s responsibility to provide a meaningful curriculum, “…

teachers [must] search for openings within official curricula to ‘teach in the cracks,’ connecting students

with issues relevant to their lives.” (Schultz, McSurley, and Salguero). A perfect example of this model is

taken from the Student Action Curriculum Projects (SACP) whereby “In the classroom experiences of a

SACP the innate curiosities and challenges that young people face in their lives fuel continuous

learning….[this] approach requires that students in the classrooms immerse themselves in the practice

of democratic engagement.” (Schultz, McSurley, and Salguero). Students are allowed to identify the

issues or problems through deliberation and relate it to real life as they work towards identifying

solutions. Students are then expected to use a democratic process of gaining insights to multiple sides of

the issue, which calls for critical thinking skills.

Regardless of which model is used, instructors will need to encourage tolerance for other

students’ ideas and perspectives and act as facilitator in moving the discourse along. What is not an

option is ignoring the implementation of critical pedagogy on some level.

Concluding Remarks

Chambers 13

As Giroux indicates “…academics have a duty to enter into the public sphere unafraid to take

positions and generate controversy, functioning as moral witnesses, raising political awareness and

making connections to those elements of power and the politics often hidden from public view.” (qtd in

Polychroniou). Giroux further asserts that the push and need for critical pedagogy is “…motivated by a

faith in the willingness of young people to fight principally for a future in which dignity, equality, and

justice matter and at the same time recognizes the forces that are preventing such a struggle.” (qtd. in

Polychroniou). He insists that critical pedagogy as a “collective action” can render new hope for the

struggle (qtd. in Polychroniou). What better way to re-indoctrinate our students to resist the control and

manipulation of the majority by the elite few than through a collaborative process of dialogue and

inquiry within the classroom.

Advocates of critical pedagogy are on a mission—to teach students “…to resist oppression,

improve their lives, and strengthen the democratic process for everyone, thus ensuring progressive

social change and social justice.” (“Curriculum & Schooling: Multiculturalism, Critical Multiculturalism,

and Critical Pedagogy”). Since the classroom more often becomes the space for providing a voice for

students and in sharing concerns about racial/ethnic, gender, cultural and socioeconomic inequities and

domination, composition studies is in its rightful place for providing the tools for rhetoric and in creating

multicultural sensitivities.

Chambers 14

Works Cited

Berlin, James A. Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring English Studies. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1996. Pdf.

21st Century Schools. “Critical Pedagogy.” Copyright 2010, 21st Century Schools, 21stcenturyschools.com,

Web, 23 October 2014.

Fulkerson, Richard. “Summary Critique: Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century.” College

Composition and Communication, June 2005, Proquest Education Journals.

George, Ann. “Critical Pedagogies: Dreaming of Democracy.” A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. Gary

Tate, et. al. (editors). Oxford University Press, 2014. Print

Hairston, Maxine. “Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing.” College Composition and Communication.

Vol. 43, No. 2, May 1992, National Council of Teachers of English. Jstor.org, 27 February 2013.

Pdf

Howard, Rebecca Moore. Keynote Address. Connect Conference in Massachusetts, Bridgewater State

Conference, 21 May 2009. Video

Kellner, Douglas. “Multiple Literacies and Critical Pedagogy in a Multicultural Society.” University of

California in Los Angeles, gseis.ucla.edu, Web, n.d. Pdf.

Kress, Tricia M., Donna Degennaro, and Patricia Paugh. Introduction “Critical Pedagogy ‘Under the

Radar’ and ‘Off the Grid’.” International Journal of Critical Pedagogy. 2013, vol. 4, no. 2, Pdf.

Polychroniou, C.J. An Interview with Henry Giroux on Democracy in Crisis. 30 May 2014,

freireproject.org, Web.

“Paulo Freire.” Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org., Web, 13 November 2014.

Schultz, Brian D., Jennifer McSurley, and Mildren Salguero. “Teaching in the Cracks: Student Engagement

through Social Action Curriculum Projects.” International Journal of Critical Pedagogy. Vol. 4, No.

2, pp. 53-68, 2013. Pdf

Chambers 15

Schuster, Charles. “The Ideology of Literacy: A Bakhtinian Perspective.” Relations, Locations, Positions:

Composition Theory for Writing Teachers. Peter Vandenberg, Sue Hum, and Jennifer Clary-

Lemon, editors. The National Council of Teachers of English, 2006. Print.

Scorza, D’Artgnan, Nicole Mirra, and Ernest Morrell. “It Should Just Be Education: Critical Pedagogy

Normalized as Academic Excellence.” International Journal of Critical Pedagogy. Vol. 4 no. 2, pdf.

Shor, Ira and Paulo Freire. “What is the ‘Dialogical Method’ of Teaching?” Journal of Education. Vol. 169,

Number 3, 1987. Reprint.

Stygall, Gail. “Teaching Freire in North America: A Review Essay of Ira Shor’s Freire for the Classroom: A

Sourcebook for Liberatory Teaching.” Journal of Teaching Writing. N.d. Pdf.

Tristan, Jose Maria Barroso. “Henry Giroux: The Necessity of Critical Pedagogy in Dark Times.” Global

Education Magazine. 06 February 2013, Web, 23 October 2014.