Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Critical Pedagogy and Democratic Education

Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Critical Pedagogy and Democratic Education: Critical pedagogies (e.g. Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1993; Shor, 1992; 1996) criticize the imbalance of power between educators a...

Critical Pedagogy and Democratic Education

Critical pedagogies (e.g. Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1993; Shor, 1992; 1996) criticize the imbalance of power between educators and students. Freire (1993) criticizes the “banking” model of education in which the relation between an educator and students is described as a “A over B” relation. In the banking model of education, educators are the primary decision makers and sole deliverers of knowledge. Freire describes the banking approach to teaching and learning as follows:

a) The teacher teaches and the students are taught; b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing; c) the teacher thinks and the students are thought about; d) the teacher talks and the students listen-meekly; e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined; f) the teacher chooses and enforces his [her] choice, and the students comply; g) the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher; h) the teacher chooses the content and the students, who were not consulted, adapt to it. (p. 54)

Freire argues that in the “banking” model of teaching and learning, educators control students’ thinking and action, leading to students’ passivity and inhibiting their “creative power” (p. 58).  For democratic education, Freire (1993) argues, “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction” (p. 72). The contradiction that Freire meant is the hierarchical relationship between the teacher and students in which the teacher is seen the expert who owns the knowledge and knows everything and students know nothing. Rather, Freire emphasizes the partnership between the educator and students. He describes such partnership as one in which both students and the educator learn from each other in a way that “they become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow” (p. 61). To accomplish such partnership, there should be a horizontal relationship between the educator and students in which the role of the educator is “to create, together with students” the conditions of learning (p. 62). Freire argues that dialogue has the power to break the vertical relationship between teachers and students and transform it to a democratic relation in which both teachers and students have a voice. He emphasizes, “Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of the-teacher […] The teacher is no longer merely the one who teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in their turn while being taught also teach” (p. 61).

Much in line with Freire’s ideas, the critical educator Ira Shor (1992; 1996) asserts that students’ meaningful participation in their learning provides an important basis for constructing the fundamental imperatives of a strong democracy. Shor (1992) argues that democracy is a process of open communication and mutual governance in a community of shared power, where all members can express ideas, frame purposes, and act on intentions. Shor (1996) further argues that democratic principles can be fostered and realized in the classroom community when power in the classroom is shared so that students are able to actively participate in the learning process. For Shor, without student active participation in decision-making, the classroom will be a place of undemocratic transfers of information, and students will develop as authority-dependent subordinates, not as democratic citizens. In contrast, Shor explains, when higher education seeks to maximize students’ participation in decision-making, they develop intellectual curiosity, scientific thinking, cooperative relations, social habits, and self-discipline. Sharing the decision-making power with students can serve as an important means to help realize the vital goals of democratic education. 

However, teaching democratically by involving students in the decision making power does not mean that faculty abdicate their authority (Schultz & Oyler, 2006; Weimer, 2002; Oyler, 1996; Brookfield, 1995). Kreisberg (1992) agues, “‘Power with’ is not a zero-sum proposition where one person gains the capacity to achieve his or her desires at the expense of others” (p. 71). Rather, the “power with” relation, Kreisberg explains, manifests in relationships of “co-agency”, in which “individuals and groups fulfill their desires by acting together” (pp. 85-86). Therefore, as Oyler (1996) argues, sharing power with students does not mean that the instructor “moves out of the students’ way to the soft place of abdicated authority” (p. 24). Rather, Schultz and Oyler (2006) explain, the instructor should remain a member of the classroom as decisions are being made. Also, Shor (1992) argues that sharing power with students does not mean students can do whatever they like in the classroom, neither can the teacher do whatever she or he likes. What it does mean, as Brookfield (1995) explains, is that educators make an effort to create conditions under which all voices can be heard, and in which educational processes are seen to be open and genuine negotiation. 

Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Dewey and Democratic Education

Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Dewey and Democratic Education: MODERN life means democracy, democracy means freeing intelligence for independent effectiveness-the emancipation of mind as...

Dewey and Democratic Education

MODERN life means democracy, democracy means freeing intelligence for independent effectiveness-the emancipation of mind as an individual organ to do its own work. We naturally associate democracy with freedom of action, but freedom of action without freed capacity of thought behind it is only chaos. (Dewey, 1903, p. 193). 

Democracy for Dewey means freedom of mind in discovering and proof; it is a free capacity to think for one’s self. For Dewey, democracy entails finding conditions to “the development of individual mental power and to adequate responsibility for its use” (p. 194). Students’ meaningful participation in their learning sets up the conditions for freedom of thought. Dewey argued that the growth of freedom of thought entails that students participate in determining the conditions and the aims of their own work. Dewey explained:

Until the emphasis changes to the conditions which make it necessary for the [student] to take an active share in the personal building up of his own problems and to participate in methods of solving them […] mind is not really freed. (1903, p. 201) 

Accordingly, students’ meaningful participation in their learning is another fundamental principle of democracy (Dewey, 1903; 1938). When it came to democratic education, Dewey (1938) was clear about students’ active participation in their learning. Dewey emphasized participation as the point at which democracy and learning meet in the classroom. For Dewey, participation is democratic when students construct purposes and meaning, carry out plans, and evaluate results. For Dewey, learning material supplied by others is a denial of democracy. He argued, “To subject mind to an outside and ready-made material is a denial of the ideal of democracy, which roots itself ultimately in the principle of moral, self-directing individuality” (Dewey, 1903, p. 199). From Dewey’s perspective, the external and ready-made material “tends automatically to perpetuate the very conditions of inefficiency, lack of interest, inability to assume positions of self-determination” (p. 198). In other words, by creating the environment and learning experiences that bring student to actively participate in making decisions in the learning process, faculty can develop the skills needed to make democracy a reality with their students. Dewey (1903) asserts that the process for reaching democratic education principles should be participatory and inclusive; the student has “a share in determining the conditions and the aims of his own work” (p. 179).

Student Participation & Democratic Education

MODERN life means democracy, democracy means freeing intelligence for independent effectiveness-the emancipation of mind as an individual organ to do its own work. We naturally associate democracy with freedom of action, but freedom of action without freed capacity of thought behind it is only chaos. (Dewey, 1903, p. 193). 

Democracy for Dewey means freedom of mind in discovering and proof; it is a free capacity to think for one’s self. For Dewey, democracy entails finding conditions to “the development of individual mental power and to adequate responsibility for its use” (p. 194). Students’ meaningful participation in their learning sets up the conditions for freedom of thought. Dewey argued that the growth of freedom of thought entails that students participate in determining the conditions and the aims of their own work; Dewey explained:

Until the emphasis changes to the conditions which make it necessary for the [student] to take an active share in the personal building up of his own problems and to participate in methods of solving them […] mind is not really freed. (1903, p. 201) 

Accordingly, students’ meaningful participation in their learning is another fundamental principle of democracy (Dewey, 1903; 1938). When it came to democratic education, Dewey (1938) was clear about students’ active participation in their learning. Dewey emphasized participation as the point at which democracy and learning meet in the classroom. For Dewey, participation is democratic when students construct purposes and meaning, carry out plans, and evaluate results. For Dewey, learning material supplied by others is a denial of democracy. He argued, “To subject mind to an outside and ready-made material is a denial of the ideal of democracy, which roots itself ultimately in the principle of moral, self-directing individuality” (Dewey, 1903, p. 199). From Dewey’s perspective, the external and ready-made material “tends automatically to perpetuate the very conditions of inefficiency, lack of interest, inability to assume positions of self-determination” (p. 198). In other words, by creating the environment and learning experiences that bring student to actively participate in making decisions in the learning process, faculty can develop the skills needed to make democracy a reality with their students. Dewey (1903) asserts that the process for reaching democratic education principles should be participatory and inclusive; the student has “a share in determining the conditions and the aims of his own work” (p. 179).

Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Student active participation in learning

Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Student active participation in learning: Higher education institutions should not be merely training sites that provide students with the technical expertise required to f...

Democratic Education

Throughout my life’s journey, from my childhood to adulthood, I have constantly struggled with undemocratic relationships in Egyptian society. People have power over other people. At home, my father has power over my mother, my sisters, my brother, and me. My brother has power over my sisters, and my older sisters have power over me because I am the youngest one. At my schools, from elementary school to university, teachers had power over me and other students in the class, and the school administration had power over my teachers. Even among students, some students had power over others because of class, gender, or religion. I learned that the world is hierarchical; there is always a group that has power over another group- one group rules, controls and exploits another. I always wondered how to change undemocratic hierarchical culture in my country to a more equitable and just society. Does education have a role in transforming my country to a democratic one? How can education develop people as citizens able to participate and influence democracy? What educational values can develop people as citizens who act democratically?

Coming to the USA as a doctoral student, I searched for answers to my questions. Taking courses in the field of critical pedagogy and reading Ira Shor’s (1992/1996) ideas about empowering democratic education answered many of my questions about how to create a democratic society. I learned that “education is more than facts and skills. It is a socializing experience that helps make the people who make society” (Shor, 1992, p. 15). I realized the important role that higher education can play to develop a democratic culture in society. Students need to practice democratic habits in the classroom, so that democratic habits become a way of living.  Democratic habits cannot be cultivated by listening to lectures about democracy. Rather, democratic habits must purposely be cultivated through democratic educational practices. Creating a learning environment that invites students to actively participate in designing the course curriculum is an example of a democratic educational practice. As a teacher educator in process, I have been inspired by these ideas. I wished to explore educational contexts in which democratic education is encouraged and supported. It is important for me, for Egyptians, and for others to envision a practical example of a kind of democratic education, a new way of being as a teacher, and new patterns of relationships between students and teachers.