《Critical Rhetoric and Pedagogy：ReconsideringStudent-英语教育毕业论文.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Critical Rhetoric and Pedagogy：ReconsideringStudent-英语教育毕业论文.docx（12页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、Critical Rhetoric and Pedagogy: Reconsidering Student-Centered Dialogue Teaching摘要 如果学生们要学会如何大胆、冒险，如何养成对老师的授课产生一种健康的怀疑，如何认识给他们提供一些特殊的方式表达机会及效果，如何才能使他们能自愿地把自己的角色当作挑剔的公民，从而能使班级产生一种民主、活跃的氛围，学生们就需要明白自己的主人翁地位，在班级中所处的主体地位，老师往往起着次要地位而且往往置身于外。 在实践中（课堂上）这种关键的修辞寻求是弄清楚课堂上话语的作用。目的是理解社会上知识的完整性，即，什么样的干涉策略被认为能恰当地影
2、响课堂的变化。总的来说，对于教学关键性的方法的根本目的是创造一种氛围，在此环境氛围中学生们能养成一种关键的意识。这种培养关键意识的教学法步骤涉及向学生们展示如何认识和评价这种作用的结构。这种教学法聚焦于培养同学们关键性的意识，也就是说学生们能够明白他们在班级中是活跃的主体使他们能够在不公正的社会政治结构的变化中辨别、创造可能性的条件。并引以为培养学生们关键性意识变得容易方面的基本方法。然而，既然这种关键以学生为中心的对话教学在相对比较小、中等的班级中是比较容易操作的，可以实施的。但在学生人数比较多的班级中，对此理论提出了挑战。缺乏这种我们经常研讨的教学理论指向的一种需要，即在一个人数比较多的班
3、级中如何培养学生们学习英语关键的意识并使之上升到可行性高度，在这篇论文中，我主要的目的是通过呈现一个调查研究以此证明关键性的学生自我学习英语意识，能够在人数超过百人的班级里得到实现。 AbstractIf students are going to learn how to take risks, to develop a healthy skepticism towards all master narratives, to recognize the power relations that offer them the opportunity to speak in particular
4、 ways, and be willing to critically confront their role as critical citizens who can animate a democratic culture, they need to see such behavior demonstrated in the social practices and subject positions that teachers live out and not merely propose. In practice, critical rhetoric seeks to unmask o
5、r demystify the discourse of power. The aim is to understand the integration of power/knowledge in society-what possibilities or change the integration invites or inhibits, and what intervention strategies might be considered appropriate to effect social change.In general, a principle aim of critica
6、l approaches to pedagogy is the creation of conditions within which students are able to develop a critical consciousness. The pedagogical process of developing critical consciousness involves showing students how to recognize and evaluate structures of power. This pedagogical focus on developing cr
7、itical consciousness means that students can begin to understand themselves as active agents, enabling them to identify and/or create conditions for the possibility of change in oppressive sociopolitical constructs. As part of this pedagogical approach, student- -centered dialogue is cited as essent
8、ial in facilitating the development of critical consciousness. However, since critical dialogue is most easily facilitated within a relatively small, seminar-like class structure, larger class populations present a considerable challenge. The absence of critical pedagogy literature that discusses th
9、is challenge points to a need for theorizing how critical conscious- -ness might be developed with a large number of students. I aim, in this essay, to contribute to that literature by presenting a case study analysis that demonstrates how critical consciousness development can be enabled in a class
10、room with over 100 students. Critical Rhetoric and Pedagogy: Reconsidering Student-Centered Dialogue TeachingThesis: The paper illustrates on student-centered dialogue from the perspective of an application critical rhetoric in rural areas. OutlineIntroduction. A brief overview of critical pedagogy
11、as it relates to student-centered dialogue. Mckerrows praxis-oriented aspects of a critical rhetorical.A. Case study overviewB. Analysis. Possible implication for theorizing critical pedagogy when student-centered dialogue is not available option.A. Cultural critiqueB. Participation assignmentC. Clo
12、sing thoughtsConclusionCritical Rhetoric and Pedagogy: Reconsidering Student-Centered Dialogue TeachingIntroductionIn general, critical pedagogy has been described as an approach to teaching that, through a focus on students interests and identities, attempts to move away from teacher- and text-cent
13、ered curricula. By drawing subject matter from students own lives, language, and cultures, a critical reading of dominant sociopolitical constructs is included and situated within students experiences to provide a sociohistorical context from which to envision and enact social change. In short, crit
14、ical pedagogy aims at developing students critical consciousness. Even though the specific means engaged to do so vary among pedagogues in this area, affording a privileged status to student-centered dialogue is a familiar theme.The advantages of critical dialogue in the classroom have been a focal
15、point in recent educational theory and research and much has been written explicating the transformative potential of including a student-centered dialogic aspect in critical approaches to teaching . These scholars point to the constitutive aspects of dialogue as the primary means for helping studen
16、ts develop an awareness of their agency in affecting change in oppressive circumstances. Performing as critically thinking and speaking subjects in the classroom provides, for students, the basis for performing as citizen-critics outside it, as well. Scholars have addressed how dialogue can offer st
17、udents an opportunity to rehearse social criticism, how sociocultural and identity issues can be treated during dialogic processes, and how issues related to gender and sexual orientation can be critically engaged when dialogue is student-centered. It seems clear from these accounts that students be
18、nefit when they are offered opportunities to engage in critical dialogue with peers.While acknowledging the value of a student-centered approach to dialogic pedagogy, an equal acknowledgement of the contingencies of institutional, sociopolitical, and ideological constraints must be considered alongs
19、ide the aims of a critical approach to teaching.One of those institutional limitations is class size, an aspect of classroom organization that is rarely, if ever, a part of the scholarly discussion of student-centered dialogue. It should go without saying that each classroom context is unique and ea
20、ch intrinsically possesses its own promise and potential; on the other hand, each also presents distinctive contextual challenges. This recognition of context contingency-specifically as it relates to the number of students in a particular class-is nonexistent in scholarship advocating a critical ap
21、proach to teaching that utilizes learner-centered dialogue as the means to attain critical consciousness.Facilitating critical dialogue is not an easy task, even with a relatively small number of students; it is a complicated process-usually among one facilitator-teacher and many students-that requi
22、res constant communicative (re)negotiation. For those critical pedagogues who find themselves in the context of a large classroom, that communication process becomes nearly untenable. It is crucial for those teachers, then, to develop specific, situated, and localized strategies in order to retain t
23、he critical character of their teaching approach while adjusting their teaching strategies to accommodate a large number of students. Dr. Michelle Wolf is one such teacher, and this study represents a starting place for theorizing those strategies employed in her classroom.The theoretical material i
24、ntroduced in class was interspersed with frequently affective, sometimes graphic, and always controversial media; and, these cultural fragments were offered with a healthy measure of Dr. Wolfs own sociocultural critique. Even though I regularly found myself disagreeing with particular positions she
25、took in the course of introducing the material, her obvious enthusiasm for, commitment to, and engagement with students and teaching facilitated a welcoming classroom environment that invited critical exploration of the course material in connection with the life experiences we all brought to the ta
26、ble. Choosing to study Dr. Wolfs pedagogical style for this project was motivated by my own interest in critical approaches to pedagogy, approaches I assumed necessitated a central focus on student-centered dialogue as the way to foster critical engagement. Initially, I viewed the project as an oppo
27、rtunity to learn how to facilitate a critical discussion with a large number of students (over 100) from a teacher whose critical perspective, like mine, also informs her pedagogy. I learned during the course of this project, however, that my own presuppositions about critical pedagogy-significantly
28、 influenced by those assumptions found in much of the literature- were in need of (critical) reconsideration. In the following section, I offer a brief sketch of the theoretical framework within which those reconsiderations are situated.Critical RhetoricCritical rhetoric serves, according to McKerro
29、w, to de-mystify and connect, through an engaged and subjective critique, seemingly unrelated forces of knowledge/power in society in order to recognize how they can create conditions of oppression and marginalization. More than that, McKerrow points out that a critical rhetoric “establishes a socia
30、l judgment about what to do as a result of the analysis and serves to identify the possibilities of future action available to participants”As it relates to a critical approach to teaching, particularly with a large number of students, critical rhetoric can be conceived of as a way to foster the dev
31、elopment of critical consciousness on the part of students when critical dialogue is not a practical option. In a large classroom setting where a lecture-type format is most appropriate, a teacher who practices critical rhetoric becomes a “specific intellectual” to borrow Foucaults notion. S/he is a
32、ble, through her/his performance of critical discourse, to “advocate a critique as a sensible reading of the discourse of power”, thereby opening up the potential, on the part of students, for reflecting on this critique and envisioning alternatives to oppressive status quo constructs. This pedagogi
33、cal function of critical rhetoric acts as a “model” of critical consciousness for students and creates the conditions for students own critical engagement without having to prioritize student-centered dialogue in the process.Also, when situated in a critical pedagogical approach, the open-ended, con
34、tingent nature of normative possibilities in McKerrows critical rhetoric can be particularly effective in engaging students in the cognitive and affective processes necessary for critical classroom engagement. The non-privileging normative approach, with respect to the choices created in the critica
35、l process, leaves room for students own cultural, sociopolitical, and historically-located analyses and applications. In other words, critical rhetoric employed by a teacher need not prescribe what students should believe or do. Instead, critical rhetoric employed in McKerrows sense challenges stude
36、nts to examine the taken-for-granteds that may preclude their own critical reflection on and evaluation of those beliefs or (in)action. It is the process-the critical rhythm of permanent criticism-not necessarily the content of the critique that students might begin to approximate when a teacher emp
37、loys critical rhetoric.Case Study OverviewMy observations of Dr. Wolfs teaching strategies in BECA 422 took place during the Fall 1999 semester and consisted of approximately 15 total hours of logged, in-class observations. During the course of those observations, I came to realize that facilitating
38、 discussion with this large group of students was an impractical approach. The setting-a large auditorium-like classroom with fixed, theatre seating-contributed to the difficulties in that the students were focused on the front of the room and the physical environment was less than conducive to disc
39、ussion and more so to a lecture or performance approach. More than that, the number of students in this class significantly limited her ability to manage a critical discussion that would allow for interaction among students, a key element of student-centered dialogue. Although some limited discussio
40、n was accomplished, Dr. Wolf primarily focused on employing other strategies to critically engage her students.My observations and analyses, then, shifted in order to discern how it was possible that, without the benefit of student-centered critical dialogue, her students were able to critically eng
41、age with the material performed in lectures and how that engagement facilitated the process of critical consciousness. In general, I observed that the level of critical engagement that would usually be reserved for smaller, more dialogically-centered classes was attained in this large student popula
42、tion. Those means-as illustrated by the categories in the following section- offered the students in Dr. Wolfs class an opportunity to critically connect to the material presented in BECA 422 without having to frequently vocalize their thoughts in class.AnalysisThis section illustrates three concept
43、ual categories of teaching strategies employed by Dr. Wolf: explicit cultural critique, personal self-disclosure, and spontaneous, provocative participation assignments. Each strategy, I suggest, served to facilitate critical consciousness processes on the part of this large population of students w
44、ithout student-centered dialogue. I offer an exemplar in each of the three categories and analyse them utilizing McKerrows praxis principles of critical rhetoric. I move to tease out the ways that Dr. Wolfs strategies acted as a critical rhetoric and, at the same time, connect those with her student
45、s processes of critical consciousness development.Cultural CritiqueIn addition to a lively lecture about censorship precedents and implications, we watch part of a cable program featuring a woman applying lotion to her enormous (silicone) breasts, a graphic and emotional clip from a 1970s Vietnam do
46、cumentary, and a short videotaped modern primitive performance in which a man recites poetry while impaling his scrotum with needles and filling it with saline. In the last few minutes of class, we watch as a man performs oral sex on his well-endowed male partner while masturbating himself. For a cl
47、ass of approximately 100 students, the room seems unusually silent during the last clip. At the end of the class period, the students begin leaving the room; some are very quiet, others giggle as they make their way to the door, while still others are talking to friends in hushed, somewhat frenetic
48、tones. Its just another day in BECA 422.Dr. Wolfs utilization of controversial media in combination with the lectures she performs afterward act as a model or demonstration of cultural critique for her students. As McKerrow (1989) suggests, a critical rhetoric unapologetically takes a stand against something and Dr. Wolfs provocative media choices and analysis of them constitute her perspective via her cultural criticism. The critical rhetorical performances stimulate her students critical engagement and reflection processes thereby facilitating development of the