Vivienne Bozalek and I made a presentation at the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal Teachinga and Learning Conference, which was held from the 25 - 27 September 2014, at the Edgewood Campus. There was a fair amount of discussion of issues pertaining in one way or another to social justice. We will be writing this up shortly. There were three very interesting keynotes by Gayatri Spivak, William Pinar and Reitumetse Mabokela. They sparked much debate about what the appropriate responses are to the current inequalities and lack of progress with regard to higher education in South Africa. More information about these keynote speakers can be found on the conference website, at http://tlhec.ukzn.ac.za/.
Sunday 28 September 2014
Tuesday 23 September 2014
A valuable article: "Developing Socially Just Subject-Matter Instruction: A Review of the Literature on Disciplinary Literacy Teaching" by Elizabeth Moje
Thanks to Anne Edwards and Viv Bozalek, my attention was drawn to Elizabeth Moje's review article, "Developing Socially Just Subject-Matter Instruction: A Review of the Literature on Disciplinary Literacy Teaching" (Review of Research in Education, March 2007, Vol. 31, pp. 1–44 DOI: 10.3102/0091732X07300046). Based on reading of a wide range of studies, focusing mainly but not solely on the US and on schooling and post-school youth, she provides an extremely useful introduction to educationists interested in making their disciplines more accessible to students from a range of socio-economic backgrounds. From this point of view, the article is useful for a potential researcher who wants to situate him or herself in this field. It is a long article and I would not like to reproduce it here in any detail, but simply to say why I find it useful for the SOTL @ UJ - Towards a Socially Just Pedagogy research project.
Starting from the idea that we can fuse the 'moral' and the 'intellectual' projects in teaching, she makes a distinction between socially just pedagogy and social justice pedagogy. A socially just pedagogy is one which initiates students in to the powerful knowledges and ways of knowing, and which provides students with the means to engage with and critique these knowledges. On the other hand she writes that 'Social justice pedagogy should, in other words, offer possibilities for transformation, not only of the learner but also of the social and political contexts in which learning and other social action take place (Saunders, 2006)". This is a broader purpose, and I would assume that the former is part of the latter, broader purpose. She covers various approaches:
"It is not enough to talk about developing disciplinary literacy as useable knowledge for the average citizen. Producing and assessing knowledge in the disciplines and in everyday life relies heavily on one’s ability to access, interpret, critique, and produce texts, both oral and written, on both paper and electronic media. Those youth who come to school with high levels of fundamental literacy skill (see Norris & Phillips, 2002) across a range of textual media will be more likely to participate not only in advanced disciplinary study but also in civic conversations and activities driven by the natural and social sciences, by mathematical processes, and by themes and concepts informed via the study of literature (not to mention the domains of visual arts, music, and sports and fitness). Across these different perspectives, scholars agree that knowing how to connect disciplinary knowledge to everyday knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for full societal access. People need to be able to
navigate across disciplinary and everyday forms of representation, including print, numerals, and other inscribed symbols." (p.33)
Starting from the idea that we can fuse the 'moral' and the 'intellectual' projects in teaching, she makes a distinction between socially just pedagogy and social justice pedagogy. A socially just pedagogy is one which initiates students in to the powerful knowledges and ways of knowing, and which provides students with the means to engage with and critique these knowledges. On the other hand she writes that 'Social justice pedagogy should, in other words, offer possibilities for transformation, not only of the learner but also of the social and political contexts in which learning and other social action take place (Saunders, 2006)". This is a broader purpose, and I would assume that the former is part of the latter, broader purpose. She covers various approaches:
- Social Justice as Access to Expert Subject-Matter Knowledge (this, she claims has largely fallen by the wayside)
- Social Justice as the Foregrounding of Everyday Knowledge (this is more of a 'way in' than an endpoint)
- Social Justice as Access to Useable Disciplinary Knowledge and Ways of Knowing (though valuable, this will not lead students to criticality)
- Social Justice as Access to Knowledge Via Access to Ways of Producing Knowledge (thus enhancing students' capacity for synthesis and critique).
"It is not enough to talk about developing disciplinary literacy as useable knowledge for the average citizen. Producing and assessing knowledge in the disciplines and in everyday life relies heavily on one’s ability to access, interpret, critique, and produce texts, both oral and written, on both paper and electronic media. Those youth who come to school with high levels of fundamental literacy skill (see Norris & Phillips, 2002) across a range of textual media will be more likely to participate not only in advanced disciplinary study but also in civic conversations and activities driven by the natural and social sciences, by mathematical processes, and by themes and concepts informed via the study of literature (not to mention the domains of visual arts, music, and sports and fitness). Across these different perspectives, scholars agree that knowing how to connect disciplinary knowledge to everyday knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for full societal access. People need to be able to
navigate across disciplinary and everyday forms of representation, including print, numerals, and other inscribed symbols." (p.33)
Monday 15 September 2014
Indigenous knowledge and cognitive justice: Towards the co-production of knowledge.
A discussion
led by Thea de Wet; Gert van der Westhuizen and Carina van Rooyen
By Puleng Motshoane
These three
academics asked a central question “How do we do justice to the
diversity of knowledge in the curriculum?”
She
highlighted the difference between the ontology and epistemology of knowledge. She
then concluded by acknowledging that there is no individual ownership of indigenous
knowledge but a collective one. The students’ expectations need to be taken
into consideration in order to promote the UJ teaching and learning philosophy,
which is 'learning to be' as opposed to 'learning about'. The slides are provided below.
Thea dealt
with the concepts related to indigenous knowledge and Gert spoke on the issue
of cognitive justice, while Carina related the two to classroom practice. She explained all the concepts and how they can be applied to teaching. Thea alluded to the fact that our knowledge and networks of our
environment are important in order for us to make sense and understand the social
world. The example she gave was that we all have similar brains and we
therefore confront similar challenges in the same way. She stated
two reasons for her interest in indigenous knowledge and those were; firstly,
the politicization of indigenous groups and indigenous rights; secondly,
the practical development agenda, which is linked to questions of emancipation.
Gert
continued the discussion from where Thea left off and spoke about
cognitive justice, emphasizing the fact that there are so many reasons to take
this into cognizance in teaching and learning practices. He argued that
academics are not changing the way they teach and that they are still doing
what was done in the past 20 years without considering the fact that a lot of
things have changed. He therefore suggested that the University of Johannesburg
(UJ) has to transform the curriculum in order to be able to meet its vision (An
international university of choice, anchored in Africa, dynamically shaping the
future) and mission (Inspiring its community to transform and serve humanity
through innovation and the collaborative pursuit of knowledge).
He also
acknowledged that curriculum change would not come without any disruptions. He
further suggested that the UJ community has to problematize our own sense of
agency, and the fact that academics are choosing the content without being
accountable to anyone else. He drew a lot from Visvanathan (2011) who argues, “The survival of knowledge and how some of the
knowledge are downgraded and unrecognized and that such knowledge should be
given a right and not marginalized”. Gert further argued that academics need
to recognize the plurality of knowledge and allow the different forms of
knowledge to co-exist without duress. He concluded
by drawing attention to the SAGE book titled "Indigenous knowledge and research
methodologies" by Bagele Chilisa, which he said is a good source for academics to think about
their roles as intellectuals as well as the research they do and how this
impacts on teaching and learning.
Carina then
brought the practical part to the talk on indigenous knowledge and cognitive
justice as she talked about co-production of knowledge. She drew a lot from
Lesley Green (2008) from the University of Cape Town, who argued, “Knowledge is
contextual and emanates from culture and background that it is produced and
reproduced”. Carina’s argument is about how knowledge is generated and transformed
and not just about the actual knowledge content. She asked a question about how the
principles of cognitive justice could be practiced. She further suggested that
horizons need to be pushed further in order to stop perpetuating binaries. She
said knowledge is not an acquisition of unmediated facts, but a multiple
process of knowledge making with a strong idea of the participation of all the
stakeholders rather than working in isolation. The overall message was to say
that academics should think about asking the “ How” to teach rather than the
“What” to teach, which is the capacity to generate and apply knowledge….
Indigenous knowledge and cognitive justice: Towards a co-production of knowledges (Part 3) from Carina van Rooyen
Wednesday 3 September 2014
Vivienne Bozalek's presentation on a Normative Framework for Social Justice, 29 August 2014 - Report by Bella Vilakazi
The presentation
was enlightening and it gave us areas to think about or consider when it comes
to developing or researching on socially just pedagogies. Vivian encouraged
dialogue among us so that we can think about the projects in relations to social
justice, the capability approach and ethics of care.
Three areas of
interest were presented:
1 .
Social Justice: Nancy Fraser
2 .
The Capability Approach: Amartya
Sen, Martha Nussbaum
3 .
Ethics of Care: Joan Tronto
The premise that Vivienne started from in her
presentation:
“It important to examine moral and normative framework, which put
forward, how things ought to be, as well as the values that underpins policies
and practices in order for us to consider issues of social justice, difference
and care”
Vivienne pointed
out that the analysis of normative framework is important because it
·
points out to what is important
in social arrangements particularly with social justice, difference and care.
The SOTL@UJ project can be guided by focusing on social arrangements that can
enable socially just pedagogies, ethics of care and the capability approach.
·
Social Justice
Socially just
pedagogies in Vivienne’s view means that students and academics should be able to
interact as equals and social arrangements need to be made to make these
interactions possible. Vivian advised the seminar that socially just pedagogies
should not be restricted to teaching and learning only. The SOTL@UJ project
should consider looking at the entire context of higher education policies and
structures. The goals of social justice should be located around participatory parity, human flourishing and abilities to give and receive
care.
There are 3
aspects that Vivian presented on Nancy Fraser’s views
1 .
Redistribution of resources (economic
dimension). This aspect of justice might be problematic because it does not
include difference. This is something
that needs to be unpacked and find ways to make this aspect applicable to
socially just pedagogies.
2 .
Recognition of status (a
cultural dimension): how people are valued or devalued because of their attributes,
distinct characteristics and cultural capital. In the social sphere, economic
and political sphere, teachers might not be valued because the teaching career
it is associated with women or with care or it is a career that does not yield
strong economic benefits.
3 .
Cultural capital and
recognition: These aspects are intertwined but they need to be analysed and
understood separately in an affirmative and transformative way.
4 .
Social belonging and social
inclusion. This is the political
dimension where students can be devalued, misrecognised or excluded and they
cannot claim their rights. Globalisation and technological advances are some of the aspects that highlight who is
valued, recognised and belongs.
Vivienne came up with the 4 R’s that are essential for social justice:
1 .
Resources
2 .
Recognition
3 .
Responsibility: Lotter (2011)
argues that there has to be a justice of accountability and enablement. These
are instances where an academic accounts for students who are under their care
and create enabling environment so that students to can gain capabilities and
flourish in their learning.
4 .
Representation: This is
giving students voice. The feedback practice for instance is a dialogical
practice which gives students voice. Academics however need to be aware of how
their power can supress student voice.
The Capability approach: Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum
This approach is
concerned with human flourishing. In this view students’ particularity,
plurality, context and concrete others as opposed to generalised others, is
important and valuable. Socially just pedagogies need to enable students to gain
abilities, choose the lives they want, do what is valuable and achieve valuable
states.
The capability
approach takes into account where people are positioned and what they are able
to do with their personal, social and material resources. It does not assume
what people need nor decide for them what their needs might be. In the context
of higher education, students bring along cultural capital which must be valued
and built upon, for example their indigenous knowledge’s. The capital that they
bring can only be enhanced to enable them to participate on par with others.
For me the
capability approach however, involves all students; those who are prepared and
under-prepared, who come from diverse socio-economic and schooling backgrounds.
This holistic approach aims to cultivate and ensure students’ flourishing and their
well-being during and after higher learning.
Vivienne shared
a few ideas with us with are worth considering in the capability approach,
social justice and politics of care
·
What are students and academics
able to be and do?
·
What capabilities can they
exercise?
·
How privileged or disadvantaged
are they?
·
What implications does this
have on their lives?
·
Are they able to interact on
par?
Ethics of care: A social practice in Joan Tronto’s
view
Vivienne gave the seminar questions or pointers to think about
regarding the ethics of care
1.
what sort of work is being
done,
2.
which responsibilities
constitute giving of care or caring,
3.
how do power relations affect
the work of caring and
4.
what kinds of practices are
used to ensure that those who need care actually get it.
I found these
questions important because it clarifies what ethics of care mean for higher
education and for the project. Ethics of care are exercised when learning needs
can be identified (Waghid, 2007; 2010) by both the students and academics.
The world does
not always have people who are self-sufficient, independent and equal. Dependency
is an inevitable condition in human life. In higher education students come
with learning needs and social arrangements can be made to enable pedagogies of
care to enhance their learning. Social arrangements can be feedback which
reflects caring and ensuring that capabilities, flourishing and wellness in
learning can develop.
The ethics of
care sees human beings as having a relational ontology which is connection
based rather that individual. In higher education caring for learning needs is academic
discipline specific. A lecturer at engineering might not be able to give
learning care to a student in the humanities. The ethics of care are negotiated spaces; they
consider familiarity and the context of the care giver and receiver. “Care
consist of everything we do to care and repair our world so that we may live in
it as well as possible”
There are 5 phases of care
·
Caring about is noticing that people
have needs. It is an injustice to ignore that people need caring
·
Caring for is taking responsibility to
ensure that people’s needs are met
·
Giving care: the work of giving care and
competencies that go with it.
·
Responsiveness: taking responsibility in
giving care where it is needed. This can be done however within the means of
the care giver.
·
Caring with: Caring is a process and in
this habits and patterns of caring emerge gradually, moral qualities of trust
and solidarity develop and continue.
We need to note
that there is always care that is not always good e.g. bad teaching. In order
for caring to be done well, attentiveness, responsibility, responsiveness,
iteration of the process of care is needed.
The moral
integrity of care means that participation and principle is co-constructed,
dialogical and negotiated. Care also has notions of power e.g. assuming that
you know more than the others, patronising, assuming that you know what people
need. Good caring practices require good practices and dialogue between those
giving and receiving care rather that pointing out what is right and wrong.
It is wrong to
assume that
1 .
misfortune causes care: when
care is regarded is belonging to the needy and the vulnerable. The ethics of
care believe that all people are need of caring
2 .
care givers can determine what
kind of caring is needed. This amounts to patronising, imposes power on care
receivers and unfairly determines who needs care and how responsibilities should be allocated
3 .
Care is a commodity (a
neo-liberal argument). Students are not consumers and should not be viewed in
terms of corporate pedagogy. Student learning is more important than giving a
service. Care should rather be a process than a commodity
4 .
Care receivers can be excluded
because they lack expertise and therefore cannot make judgments. Attentiveness
and responsibility is needed in the giving and receiving care Management
structures need to be close to the requirements and the recommendations of the
ethics of care to avoid being disconnected from needs of students
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)