Critically Civic Teacher Perception, Posture and Pedagogy: Negating Civic Archetypes

Teachers College Record

Blevins

2020

Self Cite

Background/Context Social studies scholars have suggested that dialogue is vital to helping students develop the skills and disposition for becoming engaged civic participants. More critical interpretations of dialogical education would suggest that dialogue can also help students develop critically conscious understandings of the world to help them see, share, and overcome the oppressive power relationships that often order civic life. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study Our study examined critical social studies teacher engagements in dialogical teaching, looking at what we term the dialogi-cal theory–praxis gap. We claim teachers tend to engage in skills-based or critical dialogue (as compared with dialogue for more transformational intent), and we were curious about how and why some go further—engaging in what we call transformational critical dialogue as part of their civic teaching praxis. Our two research questions were: (1) How do self-identifying critical social studies teachers use dialogue as part of their critical instructional praxis? (2) What types of critical dialogue do self-identifying critical social studies teachers have with students? Research Design We conducted a multisite critical case study of two self-identifying critical social studies teachers to explore how dialogue existed as an aspect of their praxis. Conclusions/Recommendations Our study revealed that both focal teachers used critical historical inquiry as a way to help students develop the foundational knowledge for discussing social studies concepts and to interpret their placement along spatial and temporal axes of existence. Both teachers grounded their dialogical praxis within the sociocultural knowledge that students brought with them to their classrooms. In all contexts, dialogue was unquestionably learner centered, and teachers used critical dialogue to help students engage in society for real-world social justice purposes. We found that participants differed first in their approach to curriculum as it related to the way they understood the purpose of dialogical instruction. Second, critical dialogue as an educational practice/praxis was situated based on real and perceptual instances of power that a teacher experienced. Third, teacher ideology unquestionably informed how dialogue transpired in the classroom. Recommendations Developing dialogical pedagogical content knowledge with new teacher candidates is foundational to their willingness to engage with students in critically transformational dialogue. Teacher educators can encourage teachers to understand and incorporate the sociocultural knowledge of students and ensure that epistemic justice occurs in their dia-logical exchanges. Teachers of privilege may need to shed or reject the problematic and internalized identities that situate their acting to fully engage in material praxis. Reframing the purpose of schooling and dialogue might be grounded more fully in efforts to improve society by incorporating more critically humanizing education and possibilities for social action.

Section: Literature Review Social Studies and Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory–Praxis Gap: Social Studies Teaching and Critically Transformational Dialogue

Teachers College Record

Blevins

2020

Self Cite

“…A critical focus, artifact analysis, and dialogue might provide a space for students to critically interpret culture (Magill, 2019; Cervantes-Soon et al, 2017; Freire, 1993). Simulations can provide such a context for teachers and their students to have these experiences.…”

Section: Ideology and Teacher Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As pre-service teachers become more aware of the dialectical tensions associated with social life, they can begin to engage in more meaningful inquiries and complex historical, sociological and economic interpretations. These inquiries and understandings can become foundations for critical dialogical praxis (Magill andRodriguez, 2015A AND 2015B;Magill and Rodriguez, forthcoming;McLaren, 1988). Without more critical framing of pedagogy and strong pedagogical content knowledge, teachers risk developing unsuccessful and problematic habits informing their practice.…”

Section: Critical Teacher Practices: Artifacts and Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring new teachers conceptualizations of critical simulations in world history, American history, and economics learning experiences

Citizenship, Social and Economics Education

Shanks

2020

Self Cite

In this study we examine early career social studies teachers’ use and understanding of critical simulations. We began work with participants as teacher candidates in their pre-service programs and formally studied them as they began their in-service teaching. We were particularly interested in teacher efforts to use simulation to facilitate a more critical disciplinary consciousness. Data indicate that participant teachers utilized simulations to: enhance students’ ability to critically engage with social studies content, facilitate more democratic dialogue, and critique normalized systems of power. We do not suggest that simulations in and of themselves are “critical,” rather, we argue they can be an effective means of providing a safe environment for considering the complexities of certain issues in social studies. Furthermore, we argue critical social studies teachers and teacher educators can be purposeful in their use of simulation to avoid enshrining the status quo. Finally simulations can help critical teachers illuminate oppression and facilitate a more humanizing vision within the social studies if they possess critical consciousness, strong pedagogical content knowledge and a command of the method.

“…Fear of perceived political stances may lead administrators, parents or teachers to object to instruction around certain topics (Segall, 2003). Further, teachers may not be attuned to the political and lived experiences of their students, teaching an idealized curriculum though impersonal form of citizenship (Magill, 2018). Because of these and other teaching “norms,” teachers are often fearful of attending to differences and commonly succumb to self-defeating mechanisms associated with adopting hegemonic ideology (Gramsci, 1971; Magill and Salinas, 2019; McLaren, 1989; Segall, 2003).…”

Section: Fear Mentorship Ideology and Social Studies Teachingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mentoring beyond the politics of fear

Harper

Smith

et al. 2019

SSRP

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine multiple dimensions of reflexive and reciprocal mentorship as they work through the fear of teaching challenging and politically charged ideas. Design/methodology/approach This piece is a case study of the complex instances of reciprocal mentorship within a teacher education program. Objects of analysis included the informal educational experiences from the bi-monthly meetings and student-teaching experiences. Semi-structured interviews, field notes, interpersonal discussion and the authors’ own reflections were used as data sources. Findings The authors found that having difficult conversations in informal spaces provided social studies teacher candidates with the opportunity to get more comfortable with challenging conversations; that mentorship is helpful when shifting context between formal and informal spaces; and that once these teachers grew more comfortable, they moved from mentee to mentor with support and guidance from their own mentors. The authors conclude by providing several implications for pre-service teachers, teacher and teacher educators, as they help social studies practitioners work with and beyond the politics of fear. Research limitations/implications Limitations such as subjectivity, generalizability and implementation exist. Factors such as personality, program, cultural background, lived experience and other elements played a role in the findings. Therefore, the authors do not suggest these are monolithic claims about the nature of mentorship, teacher education or teaching, but rather the authors wish to share these findings and recommendations. Practical implications The authors argue that three major findings emerged from the data. First, informal spaces are valuable for initiating difficult conversations among mentors and mentees. Second, shifting between formal and informal spaces can be uncomfortable, but allow for mentoring opportunities during these challenging instances of becoming. Third, moving from mentee to mentor includes valuable reciprocal mentorship within a learning community. Originality/value This research project is grounded in the needs of the participants and researchers. To the authors’ knowledge, a project of this type with similar participants has not been done.