Mezirow, Jack. (1990). In J. Mezirow & associates (Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 1-20). San Francisco & Oxford: Jossey-Basse.
Mezirow argued that central to adult education is reflecting upon prior learning to determine its validity against present circumstances. He called this critical assessment of assumptions critical reflection, which bases reflective action. He stated, "the most significant learning experiences in adulthood involve critical self-reflection--reassessing the way we have posed problems and reassessing our own orientation to perceiving, knowing, believing, feeling, and acting" (p. 13).
In this light, he classified two distinctive learning paths: instrumental learning and communicative learning. Instrumental learning occurs while involved in task-oriented problem solving. In the process, Mezirow asserted, "reflection is significantly involved when we look back on content or procedural [sic] assumptions guiding the problem-solving process to reassess the efficacy of the strategies and tactics used." (p. 7) It also involves "the process of learning to control and manipulate the environment or other people," thus the results can be empirically demonstrated. (p. 8). On the other hand, communicative learning involves understanding the meaning of others' values, feelings, decisions, and such abstract concepts of justice, love, democracy and commitment. Mezirow emphasized that this learning has even greater significance in adult learning. It focuses on achieving coherence rather than exercising more effective control. It is like a "building block of understanding" (p. 9) by integrating further insights, which involves "hermeneutic circle," which move back and forth between parts and a whole of what we seek to understand. Thus, reflection in this learning ensures identifying similarities and unfamiliarities in order to give them coherence.
Precisely, Mezirow defined as critical reflection "challenging the validity of presuppositions in prior learning" (p. 12). He argued that although critical reflection may be an integral part of making decision, it cannot be an integral element in the immediate action process. He contended that this transition requires transforming their own perspectives. He argued that perspective transformation occurs in response to "disorienting dilemma"(p. 13): a divorce, death of a loved one, job change, an eye-opening discussion, book, culture shock, etc. He put it:
"Anomalies and dilemmas of which old ways of knowing cannot make sense become catalysts or "trigger events" that precipitate critical reflection and transformation." (p. 14)
Mezirow pointed out psychic distortions as something that hinders adults from learning: unwarranted anxiety that impedes taking actions, which resulted from traumatic events in childhood (Roger Gould, 1978, transformation: Growth and change in adult life). Mezirow wrote, "Adulthood is a time of regaining such lost functions. The learner must be helped to identify both the particular action that he or she feels blocked about taking and the source and nature of stress in making a decision to act" (p. 17). In this light, educators "can provide skillful emotional support and collaborate as co-learners in an educational context" (p. 17).
Mezirow defined as transformative learning the process of learning through critical reflection via either instrumental or communicative learning, and acting on the learned insights derived from transformation of their perspectives. Emancipatory education is "an organized effort to help the learner challenge presuppositions, explore alternative perspectives, transform old ways of understanding, and act on new perspective" (p. 18).
Looking at educational approaches, Mezirow asserted that they are adaptable as research methods for study the nature, significance, and changes in perspectives. He wrote:
"In transformative learning, the line between learning, education, and research often becomes mercifully blurred. The educator becomes a co-learner, helping the learner explore alternative ways of interpreting his or her experience." (p. xix-x, Preface)
Showing posts with label adult education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adult education. Show all posts
Friday, November 5, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
The search for a separate theory of adult learning
: Does anyone really need andragogy? Hanson, Ann. (1996). Boundaries of adult learning (pp. 99-108)
Hanson pointed out the self-conflict of Knowles's andragogy: while it demonstrates "a strong humanistic and individualistic commitment," it simultaneously may dehumanize children (p. 100). For Hanson, the distinction between pedagogy and andragogy is artificial, for the rationale for andragogy is also relevant to pedagogy. More, andragogy is problematic, she argued: it effectively moved the issues of knowledge, power and control. Centered on autonomous, self-directed learners, andragogy obscure the system of their learning as a social, cultural and political construct. Hanson wrote: "Theories of adult learning which do not take account of culture and power do adults little service, even if they aim to produce self-directed learners." (p. 101) [WHY? she doesn't explain]
More critically, Hanson argued that the goal of self-direction, a western value presented as universal, left unexamined. Even critical self-reflection is not always beneficial, for they are characteristics of seriously depressed people, she argued.
In contrast, Hanson called for reflective learning, in which learners "reflect critically on a situation or piece of knowledge, to understand its meaning, to be able to incorporate the new concept into their own understandings sufficiently to transform perspectives." (p. 106) To do so, Hanson emphasize contextualizing learning within questions of culture and power.
[Why do learners need to transform their perspectives? Does this author say anything about it?]
Hanson pointed out the self-conflict of Knowles's andragogy: while it demonstrates "a strong humanistic and individualistic commitment," it simultaneously may dehumanize children (p. 100). For Hanson, the distinction between pedagogy and andragogy is artificial, for the rationale for andragogy is also relevant to pedagogy. More, andragogy is problematic, she argued: it effectively moved the issues of knowledge, power and control. Centered on autonomous, self-directed learners, andragogy obscure the system of their learning as a social, cultural and political construct. Hanson wrote: "Theories of adult learning which do not take account of culture and power do adults little service, even if they aim to produce self-directed learners." (p. 101) [WHY? she doesn't explain]
More critically, Hanson argued that the goal of self-direction, a western value presented as universal, left unexamined. Even critical self-reflection is not always beneficial, for they are characteristics of seriously depressed people, she argued.
In contrast, Hanson called for reflective learning, in which learners "reflect critically on a situation or piece of knowledge, to understand its meaning, to be able to incorporate the new concept into their own understandings sufficiently to transform perspectives." (p. 106) To do so, Hanson emphasize contextualizing learning within questions of culture and power.
[Why do learners need to transform their perspectives? Does this author say anything about it?]
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Radical adult education and learning
Griff Foley. (2001). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20 (1/2), 71-88.
"Radical adult educators are those who work for emancipatory social change and whose work engages with the learning dimension of social life." (p. 72)
Foley acknowledged the democratic imperatives of Carl Rogers's approach to humanistic education, in which meaningful experiential learning was emphasized; yet, Rogers, unlike critical and radical educators, ignored social analysis and political commitment. More, Foley finds the root of the confusion in defining power in Rogers's approach to non-directive teaching. In Foley's definition, empowerment in education takes place when educators use their power to create educational situation in which learners can exercise power. For him, it is neither something that educators can do for the learners nor something that can be obtained by abandoning the educator's power. Foley suggests the educator's active role in empowering the learners. In this regard, he put it:
This will involve educators in recognizing the invasiveness of their work and struggling with learners to build a different sort of relationship, one that is based on a notion of solidarity rather than on a patronizing notion of service. (p. 75)
In an triumphal capitalism, Foley argued, radical adult education needs to be more strategic. One of the strategies is the action research method. He said that it is "ordinary yet radical... because it uncovers, and acts on, what is generally hidden and untouched. (pp. 82-83)
"We learn as we act, and our learning is both tacit and explicit" (p. 86). Foley emphasizes the understanding of the complex learning process that takes place in places where we work and live. [How is this statement related to the participatory research?]
"Radical adult educators are those who work for emancipatory social change and whose work engages with the learning dimension of social life." (p. 72)
Foley acknowledged the democratic imperatives of Carl Rogers's approach to humanistic education, in which meaningful experiential learning was emphasized; yet, Rogers, unlike critical and radical educators, ignored social analysis and political commitment. More, Foley finds the root of the confusion in defining power in Rogers's approach to non-directive teaching. In Foley's definition, empowerment in education takes place when educators use their power to create educational situation in which learners can exercise power. For him, it is neither something that educators can do for the learners nor something that can be obtained by abandoning the educator's power. Foley suggests the educator's active role in empowering the learners. In this regard, he put it:
This will involve educators in recognizing the invasiveness of their work and struggling with learners to build a different sort of relationship, one that is based on a notion of solidarity rather than on a patronizing notion of service. (p. 75)
In an triumphal capitalism, Foley argued, radical adult education needs to be more strategic. One of the strategies is the action research method. He said that it is "ordinary yet radical... because it uncovers, and acts on, what is generally hidden and untouched. (pp. 82-83)
"We learn as we act, and our learning is both tacit and explicit" (p. 86). Foley emphasizes the understanding of the complex learning process that takes place in places where we work and live. [How is this statement related to the participatory research?]
Power in practice
: adult education and the struggle for knowledge and power in society. Ronald Cervero & Arther Wilson (Eds.). (2001). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Preface (xv-xxi)
The authors pointed out that the literature of adult education lacked an examination of power relations manifested in adult education, although adults became more engaged in learning activity and the issues of knowledge and power are pervasive. Within this context, they ask, "who benefits from and who should benefit from the programs, practices, and policies of adult education?" (p. xv)
The authors empathized that adult education is concerned not only about knowledge distribution but also social, cultural, and economic power, which they called 'material effects' (p. 2). Holding this position, they reviewed three different conceptions of the political in adult education practice:
1) "The political is personal" (articulated by Freire's partner, Knowles's andragogue, Mezirow's emancipatory educator, Daloz's mentor, Belenky's mid-wife, and Brookfield's skillful teacher): the authors critiqued this learner-centered view romanticizes learners. In this view, they argued, "the highest professional and moral principle for adult educators, then, to involve learners in identifying their needs" (p. 5). They further described:
"Key metaphors are those of building on the experience of these potential adult learners; hearing their "voice", which has often been silenced; or giving them access to learning opportunities that historically have been denied" (p. 5)
The authors argued that lack of social structural reference in this view only addressed universal purposes and failed to approach the political in the context of adult education.
2) "The political is practical": This view is concerned primarily about getting things done from the perspective of educators. Thu, the authors argued, this perspective "lacks an analysis of adult education's relationship to the wider systems of power in society, this view of politics does not usually have an explicit social vision of whose interests should be served by adult education" (pp. 7-8).
3) "The political is structural": This view is not concerned about generic adult learners but learners who are oppressed by socially structured power. As a pitfall of this approach, the authors pointed out that it failed to provide concrete direction for micro practice. There exists a structural framework, but it lacks "applied, middle-range work" (Apple, 1988, p, 200, "Teachers and text", as cited p. 10). [My research, by probing this approach at work through participatory research practice, will contribute to suggesting such applied knowledge to address power relations in the context of adult education.]
Within these strands of the political, the authors finally proposed three propositions:
1) There is a reciprocal relationship between power and adult education: They argued, "power relationships both provide the grounds for action in adult education and are also always acted on by adult education" (p. 11). In other words, the power relations structuring our lives are played out in adult education; at the same time, adult education contributes to redistributing the power.
2) Adult education is a site of struggle for knowledge and power:
[Foley (1993, The neighborhood house: site of struggle, site of learning, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14(1), 21-37, p. 20) wrote, "A major problem, though, with much supposedly critical adult education theory is that it is often very abstract; it has generally failed to develop analyses of adult learning in particular social contexts" (p. 20).]
[A thought: my research allows looking at adult learning at a micro level.]
The authors empathized that the struggle for knowledge and power define the politics of adult education and stated that this standpoint recognizes multiple interests at stake in adult education activity and requires negotiations of these conflicts, which leads to the question,"who benefit?"
3) All adult educators are social activists in practice (regardless of his or her particular perspective on society). In this light, the authors refuted adult educators as neutral knowledge facilitator, but knowledge-power brokers, who constantly question who (should) benefit from this education.
/// epilogue
The authors took the stance that adult education is a critical site for the struggle of knowledge and power, yet noted the limit of the current research after compiling the empirical studies:
"We share, however, a continuing concern that our actual practices in distributing knowledge, reshaping structures, and changing who benefits remain idiosyncratic and undeveloped" (pp. 268-69)
[Can this limitation overcome through participatory research as a form of adult education?]
Preface (xv-xxi)
The authors pointed out that the literature of adult education lacked an examination of power relations manifested in adult education, although adults became more engaged in learning activity and the issues of knowledge and power are pervasive. Within this context, they ask, "who benefits from and who should benefit from the programs, practices, and policies of adult education?" (p. xv)
The authors empathized that adult education is concerned not only about knowledge distribution but also social, cultural, and economic power, which they called 'material effects' (p. 2). Holding this position, they reviewed three different conceptions of the political in adult education practice:
1) "The political is personal" (articulated by Freire's partner, Knowles's andragogue, Mezirow's emancipatory educator, Daloz's mentor, Belenky's mid-wife, and Brookfield's skillful teacher): the authors critiqued this learner-centered view romanticizes learners. In this view, they argued, "the highest professional and moral principle for adult educators, then, to involve learners in identifying their needs" (p. 5). They further described:
"Key metaphors are those of building on the experience of these potential adult learners; hearing their "voice", which has often been silenced; or giving them access to learning opportunities that historically have been denied" (p. 5)
The authors argued that lack of social structural reference in this view only addressed universal purposes and failed to approach the political in the context of adult education.
2) "The political is practical": This view is concerned primarily about getting things done from the perspective of educators. Thu, the authors argued, this perspective "lacks an analysis of adult education's relationship to the wider systems of power in society, this view of politics does not usually have an explicit social vision of whose interests should be served by adult education" (pp. 7-8).
3) "The political is structural": This view is not concerned about generic adult learners but learners who are oppressed by socially structured power. As a pitfall of this approach, the authors pointed out that it failed to provide concrete direction for micro practice. There exists a structural framework, but it lacks "applied, middle-range work" (Apple, 1988, p, 200, "Teachers and text", as cited p. 10). [My research, by probing this approach at work through participatory research practice, will contribute to suggesting such applied knowledge to address power relations in the context of adult education.]
Within these strands of the political, the authors finally proposed three propositions:
1) There is a reciprocal relationship between power and adult education: They argued, "power relationships both provide the grounds for action in adult education and are also always acted on by adult education" (p. 11). In other words, the power relations structuring our lives are played out in adult education; at the same time, adult education contributes to redistributing the power.
2) Adult education is a site of struggle for knowledge and power:
[Foley (1993, The neighborhood house: site of struggle, site of learning, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14(1), 21-37, p. 20) wrote, "A major problem, though, with much supposedly critical adult education theory is that it is often very abstract; it has generally failed to develop analyses of adult learning in particular social contexts" (p. 20).]
[A thought: my research allows looking at adult learning at a micro level.]
The authors empathized that the struggle for knowledge and power define the politics of adult education and stated that this standpoint recognizes multiple interests at stake in adult education activity and requires negotiations of these conflicts, which leads to the question,"who benefit?"
3) All adult educators are social activists in practice (regardless of his or her particular perspective on society). In this light, the authors refuted adult educators as neutral knowledge facilitator, but knowledge-power brokers, who constantly question who (should) benefit from this education.
/// epilogue
The authors took the stance that adult education is a critical site for the struggle of knowledge and power, yet noted the limit of the current research after compiling the empirical studies:
"We share, however, a continuing concern that our actual practices in distributing knowledge, reshaping structures, and changing who benefits remain idiosyncratic and undeveloped" (pp. 268-69)
[Can this limitation overcome through participatory research as a form of adult education?]
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Synthesizing Gramsci and Freire: possibilities for a theory of radical adult education
Peter Mayo. (1994). Int'l journal of lifelong education, 13(2), 125-48.
Mayo proposed a foundation of a radical theory of adult education grounded in the concepts and practices of Gramsci and Freire. Here he suggested:
1) "[R]adical adult education initiatives should be rooted in a commitment to confronting oppression" (p. 140) and it should aim at emancipation from oppression.
2) Radical adult education should recognize the importance of cultural activity as a site of struggle by problematizing the taken-for-granted reality and exposing the underlying ideologies.
3) Radical adult education should be seen in the context of social movement against different forms of oppression across gender, class, race, and ethnicity.
4) The aspect of culture is important to radical adult education. Mayo argued that for Freire, "the dominant language be taught by radical adult educators in a problematizing manner, whereas Gramsci thought "subordinated people should learn the dominant language in order to survive in the power struggle" (p. 143) [This interpretation is not so convincing.] Anyhow, Mayo argued that radical adult educators should critically incorporate the dominant culture in order to empower the learners.
As a limitation of their perspectives, Mayo pointed out (1) the failure to take account of the complexity of the nature of oppression. In particular, Freire has been criticized by feminist scholars for his lack of sustained analysis of race, gender and sexuality. In particular, Weiler (1991, Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 61, No. 4,
pp. 449-474.) criticized the simplicity of the dichotomy between oppressor and oppressed overlooked the multiplicity of subjectivities involved in learning. Thus, Mayo suggested, radical adult education should include feminist and anti-racist education.
Lastly Mayo pointed out global capitalism, in which business climate takes over democracy (Ross and Trachte's (1990), cited 144). According to him, it can devastate adult education by limiting public funds to social programs. Given that situation, he argued that the locus of power should be given to international forces beyond the dynamic of national-popular and called for international alliance.
As Coben rightly pointed out, Mayo does not clearly state the purpose of the education in this essay. He talked about emancipation from oppression, but doesn't talk about whether the oppression originate and which end we go at the end... Here, emancipation is no more than a romanticized idealistic myth.
Mayo proposed a foundation of a radical theory of adult education grounded in the concepts and practices of Gramsci and Freire. Here he suggested:
1) "[R]adical adult education initiatives should be rooted in a commitment to confronting oppression" (p. 140) and it should aim at emancipation from oppression.
2) Radical adult education should recognize the importance of cultural activity as a site of struggle by problematizing the taken-for-granted reality and exposing the underlying ideologies.
3) Radical adult education should be seen in the context of social movement against different forms of oppression across gender, class, race, and ethnicity.
4) The aspect of culture is important to radical adult education. Mayo argued that for Freire, "the dominant language be taught by radical adult educators in a problematizing manner, whereas Gramsci thought "subordinated people should learn the dominant language in order to survive in the power struggle" (p. 143) [This interpretation is not so convincing.] Anyhow, Mayo argued that radical adult educators should critically incorporate the dominant culture in order to empower the learners.
As a limitation of their perspectives, Mayo pointed out (1) the failure to take account of the complexity of the nature of oppression. In particular, Freire has been criticized by feminist scholars for his lack of sustained analysis of race, gender and sexuality. In particular, Weiler (1991, Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 61, No. 4,
pp. 449-474.) criticized the simplicity of the dichotomy between oppressor and oppressed overlooked the multiplicity of subjectivities involved in learning. Thus, Mayo suggested, radical adult education should include feminist and anti-racist education.
Lastly Mayo pointed out global capitalism, in which business climate takes over democracy (Ross and Trachte's (1990), cited 144). According to him, it can devastate adult education by limiting public funds to social programs. Given that situation, he argued that the locus of power should be given to international forces beyond the dynamic of national-popular and called for international alliance.
As Coben rightly pointed out, Mayo does not clearly state the purpose of the education in this essay. He talked about emancipation from oppression, but doesn't talk about whether the oppression originate and which end we go at the end... Here, emancipation is no more than a romanticized idealistic myth.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Demystifying literacy: reading, writing and the struggle for liberation
By: James, Michael D., Convergence, Vol. 23, Issue 1, 14-25.
James argued that the prevailing tendency in literacy programs was remedial and they aimed at adaptation in spite of the illusory notion of empowering people. Unlike the prevailing assumption, he stressed that "knowledge itself is not power. Power occurs only in material relationships" (p. 18) and "Literacy by itself does not and cannot change oppressive conditions". He argued "Literacy is a part of liberation only when it is consciously linked with the process of "rupturing colonial domination, recovering democratic life, or revolutionary triumph."(p. 24)
This article makes me think of the OP. It does not declare "adaptation" as its goal, but "liberation". Yet, does it envision material relationship or "an instrument of struggle" (p. 24)?Doesn't it enlarge the mystification that freeing mind would free one from material constraints?
Then, how this educational approach would be contrasted with my approach to education through participatory research?
James argued that the prevailing tendency in literacy programs was remedial and they aimed at adaptation in spite of the illusory notion of empowering people. Unlike the prevailing assumption, he stressed that "knowledge itself is not power. Power occurs only in material relationships" (p. 18) and "Literacy by itself does not and cannot change oppressive conditions". He argued "Literacy is a part of liberation only when it is consciously linked with the process of "rupturing colonial domination, recovering democratic life, or revolutionary triumph."(p. 24)
This article makes me think of the OP. It does not declare "adaptation" as its goal, but "liberation". Yet, does it envision material relationship or "an instrument of struggle" (p. 24)?Doesn't it enlarge the mystification that freeing mind would free one from material constraints?
Then, how this educational approach would be contrasted with my approach to education through participatory research?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
