I don’t know that I have a response to the questions for this week, but I did read both the “Ice, Ice Baby” article and the Keesing-Styles article.
I found both very interesting. I have many thoughts on both, but I’m not sure that I’m comfortable putting those thoughts online and sharing them.
One thing that did strike me in the Kessing-Styles piece was the example of abandoning learning objectives. I have a lot of feelings about this, none of which I’ve had time to sit with yet. I do think it’s important to think about this, especially in the context of a class so thoroughly steeped in the need for and value of learning objectives.
I also feel like I’ll want to spend some real time in the coming months thinking through the ways in which postmodernism and/or deconstruction do (or don’t) ‘fit’ with critical pedagogy.
My biggest question about critical pedagogy has always been how to take into account, in both theory and praxis, the learner with limited ability. Even Keesing-Styles shies away from dealing with this, moving from concerns about “consistent ability” within a group to a rewording about individual student “confidence.” It seems to me a given, and obvious, that groups of students will always have a lack of “consistent ability.” This assumption leads me to all kinds of thoughts and none of which I’ve seen addressed in a way that speaks to my experiences as a learner.