Engaged Pedagogy and Critical Race Feminism.
Citations
582 citations
Cites background from "Engaged Pedagogy and Critical Race ..."
...While Berry observes, ‘Commonality of race does not produce commonality of self-identity’ (Berry 2010, 24), we believe this to also be true of dis/ability....
[...]
...…Legal Studies), along with Dis/abilities Studies theorists, for laying the groundwork and stimulating our thinking in this endeavor (Bell 1987; Berry 2010; Brantlinger, 1997; Crenshaw et al. 1995; Delgado Bernal 2002; Delgado and Stefancic 2001; Erevelles et al. 2006; Ladson-Billings and Tate…...
[...]
83 citations
Cites background from "Engaged Pedagogy and Critical Race ..."
...Although scholars have underscored the connection between CRF and narratives or storytelling in areas such as teaching and learning (Berry, 2010), we extend this point to research methodology specifically....
[...]
46 citations
33 citations
Cites background from "Engaged Pedagogy and Critical Race ..."
...CRF’s focus on intersections of race, class, and gender (Berry 2009; Wing 1997), as well its interdisciplinary approach to national and international social inequality (Berry 2010), make it a powerful vehicle through which to theorize change for the increasingly diverse and complex challenges faced by schools....
[...]
References
10,052 citations
5,012 citations
"Engaged Pedagogy and Critical Race ..." refers background in this paper
...Rather, it may facilitate the valuation of multiple ways to experience. hooks’ (1994) engaged pedagogy allows for students’ lived experiences to facilitate their understandings, thereby creating an understanding for teacher/teacher-educator....
[...]
...However, hooks (1994) does approach this issue differently....
[...]
...I advocate for and subscribe to the praxis of engaged pedagogy as defined by cultural critic and scholar bell hooks (1994)....
[...]
...bell hooks (1994) speaks elegantly about the process of teaching students “in a manner that respects and cares for” (p. 13) their souls as opposed to “a rote, assembly line approach” (p. 13)....
[...]
4,012 citations
2,687 citations
"Engaged Pedagogy and Critical Race ..." refers background in this paper
...In Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy, Ellsworth (1989) identifies the need for teachers/teacher-educators to “criticize and transform her or his own understanding in response to the understandings of students” (p. 300). Ellsworth contends that by moving critical pedagogy to lived experiences placed into current reality, teachers and teacher-educators can begin to deconstruct the perceived empowerment gained from such a classroom experience. In this way “students would be empowered by social identities that affirmed their race, class and gender positions ...” (p. 300). She seems to suggest that focusing on the understandings of students through their lived experiences detracts from the political singularity of critical pedagogy. In other words, the teacher/teacher-educator is no longer the sole provider of empowerment. The content/material of what is learned becomes affirmed by the students’ experiences. Such valuation “redistribute[es] power to students” (p. 306), delineates “the socially constructed and legitimated authority that teachers/professors hold over students” (p. 306) and understands that students’ lived experiences provide dimensions of knowledge into the classroom that the teacher/professor could not know “better” than the student. However, “to assert multiple perspectives ... is not to draw away from the distinctive realities and oppressions of any particular group” (p. 323). Creating a space for multiple perspectives is in no way designed to oversimplify or homogenize any one’s experiences regarding oppression and conflict in the classroom. Rather, it may facilitate the valuation of multiple ways to experience. hooks’ (1994) engaged pedagogy allows for students’ lived experiences to facilitate their understandings, thereby creating an understanding for teacher/teacher-educator. Ellsworth and hooks appear to agree on these points. A key tool in hooks’ engaged pedagogy that facilitates this experience is dialogue. This is where hooks and Ellsworth distinctly depart from one another. hooks’ engaged pedagogy incorporates passions, dialogue, and interaction through the entrance of lived experiences. Ellsworth has identified dialogue “as a fundamental imperative of critical pedagogy” (p. 314) with rules that include the assumptions that all members have equal opportunity to speak, all members respect members’ rights to speak and feel safe to speak ...” (p. 314). However, among other problems, she feels that critical pedagogy does not alleviate the historical power of the teacher/professor and thereby can limit the freedom of speech in the classroom setting. hooks does not address this dilemma in her engaged pedagogy in this way. Ellsworth refers to this as a problem of “the students’ and professor’s asymmetrical positions of difference and privilege” (p. 315). In hooks’ engaged pedagogy, there is a failure to address these asymmetrical positions and the issues of difference and privilege (or lack thereof) that accompany them. As a result, what also does not get specifically addressed in hooks’ engaged pedagogy is how privilege and difference may silence such dialogue. However, hooks (1994) does approach this issue differently....
[...]
...Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy, Ellsworth (1989) identifies the need for teachers/teacher-educators to “criticize and transform her or his own understanding in response to the understandings of students” (p. 300)....
[...]
...In Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy, Ellsworth (1989) identifies the need for teachers/teacher-educators to “criticize and transform her or his own understanding in response to the understandings of students” (p....
[...]
...In Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy, Ellsworth (1989) identifies the need for teachers/teacher-educators to “criticize and transform her or his own understanding in response to the understandings of students” (p. 300). Ellsworth contends that by moving critical pedagogy to lived experiences placed into current reality, teachers and teacher-educators can begin to deconstruct the perceived empowerment gained from such a classroom experience. In this way “students would be empowered by social identities that affirmed their race, class and gender positions ...” (p. 300). She seems to suggest that focusing on the understandings of students through their lived experiences detracts from the political singularity of critical pedagogy. In other words, the teacher/teacher-educator is no longer the sole provider of empowerment. The content/material of what is learned becomes affirmed by the students’ experiences. Such valuation “redistribute[es] power to students” (p. 306), delineates “the socially constructed and legitimated authority that teachers/professors hold over students” (p. 306) and understands that students’ lived experiences provide dimensions of knowledge into the classroom that the teacher/professor could not know “better” than the student. However, “to assert multiple perspectives ... is not to draw away from the distinctive realities and oppressions of any particular group” (p. 323). Creating a space for multiple perspectives is in no way designed to oversimplify or homogenize any one’s experiences regarding oppression and conflict in the classroom. Rather, it may facilitate the valuation of multiple ways to experience. hooks’ (1994) engaged pedagogy allows for students’ lived experiences to facilitate their understandings, thereby creating an understanding for teacher/teacher-educator....
[...]
...Critical pedagogy, as presented by Ellsworth (1989), presents dialogue as an entrance to multiple perspectives....
[...]
2,556 citations
"Engaged Pedagogy and Critical Race ..." refers background in this paper
...However, unlike CRT adherents, critical race feminism is multidisciplinary as its draws from “writings of women and men who are not legal scholars” (Wing, 1997, p. 5) as evidenced in the social and political writings of Patricia Hill Collins (1990; 1998), bell hooks (1990), and Joy James (1999)....
[...]