From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Total revamp
This article had turned into an advertisement for critical pedagogy, and in my opinion, it was past the point of no-return. An encyclopedia article about critical pedagogy, if one should exist at all, should describe it objectively as an Ed-School phenomenon, and not attempt to romanticize it. Ed-School jargon has no real meaning outside of the closed, highly idiosyncratic Ed-School community, and it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia meant for a general audience. It's time to start over. - Skaraoke 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Although my major edit was reverted (twice), I still think that it's the right thing to do. People have been complaining about this article for a while now, but not much else has been done about it. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, and that's what I was doing. WP policy states that it is better to say nothing about a subject than to convey false or misleading information. The current version of the article is a paean to critical pedagogy. With extraneous quotes from movies like Dead Poets Society and The Matrix, and musicians like Pink Floyd and Rage Against the Machine, the article falsely associates critical pedagogy with every act of free thinking that has ever taken place in public view. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Skaraoke 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Though I was the one who reverted your edit (for other reasons) I agree with the removal of the lyrical quotes. The Pink Floyd one is about Waters' own experiences at school, and, much a I love Rage Against the Machine, this song is about encouraging students to rebel against the teacher's establishment viewpoint, rather than the teacher encouraging them to do so. The article wouldn't miss this section. The other popular culture sections are more relevant, though, especially the movies section; note that movies like Dead Poets Society see educators encouraging students to rebel against the status quo that assumes they cannot achieve. EliminatorJR Talk 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Critique of Critical Pedagogy
The tone of this article is less than objective, I agree. It could certainly use some work. However the "Critique" section is amazingly subjective and should be removed. It shows a lack of understanding of the true praxis of a critical pedagogy and is not only uncited but unfounded. It shows an understanding of the misapplication of this teaching style, but not a true critique of the actual practicioners of this style of education. I maintain that the style critiqued by the author is not one true to this pedagogy, rather a similar style of indoctrination that is misperceived as "critical pedagogy". There may be educators out there claiming to be engaged in critical education, however they are not truly practicing it and the two should be viewed as seperate.--Graham2873 (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah, so those practitioners are not actually of the One True Faith, hmm? Perhaps some true critical pedagogue ought to organize a pogrom in the literacy studies community to purge these counter-revolutionaries. Those critiques in the article are perfectly in line with what nearly every graduate student in my department feels they experienced within the critical pedagogy training programs at my university. They could also be applied to the arguments made by most of the literacy studies articles I have read. If you're talking about a highly contentious subject, then perhaps the best way to acheive objectivity is to enumerate a certain point or set of points as fairly as possible--which the beginning does--and then bring up a series of counterpoints that generally float around the field--as those in the second-half do--and then provide a list of sources so the readers can research further and decide for themselves. That sounds like objectivity. (By the by, I had nothing to do with writing those critiques; they simply took the words right out of my mouth).70.101.220.225 (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)MOB
[edit] Importance
- Noticed that this article has been rated low-importance for philosophy and mid-importance for education. I was wondering what people's thoughts were about this. In the circles I'm in, critical pedagogy is considered to be a very important contribution to educational theory. I'm not a philosopher, so I can't really comment on that, but would love to hear others' opinions. Voyager640 (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
