This paper represents the thoughts and reflections of one professor and five students. We share our experiences of having been in a learning environment together that was constructed and drew upon ideas from postmodern thinking and critical pedagogy. We provide descriptions of how the classroom operated and also of the process of coming together to reflect upon and write about our learning experiences. We highlight the challenges and possibilities inherent with this, in relation to social work education.
As a social worker my clinical and research practice have been influenced by postmodern theory that suggests a “not-knowing” stance, privileging client and participant knowledge and encouraging a dialogical interaction (Anderson, 1997; White, 1995). It has also suggested tentativeness, openness to multiple truths and recognition of the fluidity of identity (Foucault, 1977; White, 1995; Chambon et al, 1999). This has resulted in honoring and useful interactions for clients and participants. Initially, however, I experienced mixed responses from students as I attempted to integrate these positions within my teaching practice.
The “postmodern classroom is an emerging space of intensity for articulating endless uncertainty about the professor’s and students’ positions, identities and stances” (Irving & Moffatt, 2002: 2). As Irving and Moffatt (2002) point out, this type of classroom provides the space to reflect upon complexities, learn from events that occur within that classroom, allowing for a working against norms and structures that may be suffocating for some students. Intellectually we may agree that this type of space that encourages critical thinking may not always feel “safe” due to its unsettling nature and that we perhaps need to develop a method of coping with this unsettling sensation. However, this uncertainty can be so anxiety provoking for both students and newly appointed professor1 that it has been tempting to revert to the more familiar.
Following the completion of my first two years of university teaching within a school of social work, I asked my third year classes if there were any students who would be interested in spending time in critical reflection of our classroom experiences. This was in order for us to learn from one another, but also in order to present our reflections within a conference setting (Béres et al, 2005; 2006) and for possible publication. Both times a small group of students who were interested in this type of experience self selected. Each year I met together with the students in a group for two meetings, where I circulated a couple of articles to begin the process. Each student identified particular areas of interest and pursued their own literature search to assist them in critically reflecting. The two presentations that resulted from these projects were well received, and have been integrated into this one article.
My approach to teaching has been inspired by a range of writers such as Freire (1970), Giroux & Simon (1989), hooks (1994), Irving and Moffatt (2002), Shor (1993) and Simon (1992). Having had some difficulty at first in translating this inspiration into a practice that worked for me and the students in my classes, we decided to work together to understand in more depth what it was that had been useful for us in these classroom experiences and what I could adjust for future classes. As Ares says, “while critical theory offers important insights and calls to action in teaching, the translation to practice can be difficult to negotiate for a variety of reasons” (p. 1).
I begin by reviewing some of the influences that have shaped my hopes for engaging in a form of pedagogy that opens up opportunities for developing social work skills while at the same time developing critical reflection of the “taken-for-granted”s (Chambon, 1999) that underpin social work theory and practice. I believe there is a certain level of tension in the professional programs within university settings, like social work. This is because there is pressure one the one hand to teach the “skills” of social work intervention, while at the same time I believe there is the need to reflect upon mainstream accounts of professional discourses and therefore encourage greater levels of critical reflection.
I describe some of what I have attempted in the classroom and the interactions that occurred, but most importantly I have included the written reflections by students of their experiences with me. Each student has focused her remarks on a particular area. For example, one student writes about her reactions to my unwillingness to take on the position of expert, another reflects on what it feels like to be taught social work “skills” in a couple of different ways and the last student comments on her reactions to the act of grading. It has been important to me to invite these students to reflect with me at conferences (Béres et al, 2005; 2006) and to also include their writing in this article. I am making a commitment to attempt to teach in a way that does not privilege my knowledge over the students’ knowledge, but rather creates a space where all our knowledges can be circulated. I believe, therefore, also in attempting to present and write about this teaching in a way that is consistent with these hopes. This means that we took turns sharing our observations at the conferences and that we are each writing about our own ideas in this paper. The students were all given the opportunity to put the paper together and take on the role of primary author if they wished. Due to work loads as they continued their studies it was decided that I should take the role of primary author and that they would focus on developing their own sections to be included.
Fook (2005) suggests, “social workers can never assume an ‘innocent’ or non-implicated position and must therefore work with this tension and contradiction in all relations and settings. One of the challenges that this reflexive position poses for critical social workers is that they must constantly be both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ – to construct themselves as social workers at the same time as deconstructing their position” (p. 232). This is partly what these students and I have attempted as we have reflected on our experiences together. As educators and students we are in these roles even as we choose to deconstruct the subject positions inherent with them. These reflections may be useful for other professors who teach within formal academic settings, who also wish to problematize and unsettle some of the “taken-for-granted”s that are interwoven within these settings.
I recently met with a graduate student and her field instructor to discuss her field practicum. She commented that a group of practitioners in her practicum setting had been planning to begin a series of meetings for students, despite the seminar groups the university offers to their students, because they believed that professors and universities were out of touch with what was truly going on in the field. The student described standing up to these assumptions and suggested that the program she was involved in included professors who continued to practice in the field at the same time as they presented academic ideas and encouraged critical reflection. I wonder though how common this traditional view of “professor” still is. Is there the chance that we become comfortable in our “ivory towers” and end up removed from the real world? Are we seen as having the power to shape the ideas of students without linking theory to practice? In social work programs is there the danger of teaching each distinct theory, with their specific skills, as a bag of tricks, without situating them within the context of social demands and changes? Taking on the role of professor, I was interested in building upon the thoughts of others who had reflected upon what is required of educators who wish to make a difference rather than reinforce the status quo. Simon (1992) suggests,
Perhaps the more dangerous (more invisible) impact of power is its positive relation to truth; that is, in the ‘truth effects’ it produces. This is a matter of which sets of practices make or produce social facts; which technology of meaning-making practices establishes the existence of particular notions of what is true and right . . . I begin with the rather basic assertion that educational practice should participate in a social transformation that is aimed at securing fundamental human dignity and radically reducing the limits on expression and achievement imposed by physical and symbolic violence. (Simon, 1992: 17).
Postmodern thought encourages the problematizing of singular accounts of the truth. Rather, it encourages consideration of context, multiple truths and multiple fluid identities and can inform a critical pedagogy that is aware of the need to use power ethically (Chambon et al, 1999; Simon, 1992; hooks, 1994). Postmodern and critical theories are therefore aimed at transforming practices – not merely talking about theories and practices differently but embodying a commitment to interact with others through caring and dignity. Simon goes on to say that teaching for transformation is not about having others think and act like we do, but rather it is about engaging people in challenging their existing views or their taken-for-granted’s. This is done through the use of questions, developing a comfort with sitting with questions with students rather than moving too quickly to simple solutions. I believe that students may go through a stage of feeling unsettled by these questions and analyses. However, if we engage in discussions with our students about underlying assumptions of various social work practice theories, we can assist them in developing their own visions for their practice and finding approaches that are consistent with those preferences. 2
Roche et al (1999) describe social work education as usually occurring in hierarchical instructor-student relationships, but offer a description of the potential for a liberatory learning and teaching approach to question and analyze this hierarchy and to also begin to blur and dissolve traditionally respected boundaries (p. 36). Also influenced by hook’s (1994) work they define “liberatory” as “tending to set free” as opposed to “liberating” as “having the effect of setting free” (p. xiii). Their writing is consistent with hooks’ as they describe the process of thinking through how to develop a learning environment that does not reinforce existing systems of domination, but they also discuss the tensions of attempting to teach in a different way.
They go on to suggest five principles associated with their liberatory approach to learning and teaching; focus on power and empowerment, promotion of full participation, development of collaborative structures, responding to unfolding events and the integration of field and classroom learning (p. 40). They believe that opportunities for further critical examination will arise from an examination of the terms “instructor” and “student” and of the “relationship” between instructor and student.
As Irving and Moffatt (2002) point out, “the educator is constantly tempted to provide the classroom with ‘content;’ ‘content’ is assumed to be other than the classroom participants’ way of knowing. By invoking content or the correct answer, however, the professor in many cases invokes an historical constant” (p. 3).
I do not believe that Roche et al (1999), or Irving and Moffatt (2002) are suggesting that we do away with “content” all together in our desire to develop a different form of classroom where student knowledge is honored and interactions provide learning. Rather, I believe, they are suggesting that we do not so focus on content that we miss the opportunity to teach “from a student’s humourous interaction, the professor’s sigh, or a prolonged silence” (Irving and Moffatt, 2002: 4).
For me, this approach to teaching also allows me to pursue my own visions and preferences for how I want to be as a professor.
When we teach, we are always implicated in the construction of a horizon of possibility for ourselves, our students, and our communities. Remembering such a perspective in conversations about practice means finding a way of discussing practices that reference not only what we, as educators, might actually do but as well the social visions our practices support. (Simon, 1992: 56).
hooks (1994) has suggested that “progressive professors working to transform their curriculum so that it does not reflect biases or reinforce systems of domination are most often the individuals willing to take risks that engaged pedagogy requires and to make their teaching practices a site of resistance” (p. 21). As she goes on to say it is one thing to express a commitment to freedom and justice for all, but quite another thing to put that into practice in our lives, values and habits.
I believe that I cannot be touched by the ideals of postmodernism and critical theories, especially with their commitment to praxis, and not attempt to test these ideas in my daily lived practice. I am reflecting upon the ability to achieve congruence in the various areas of my practice. I cannot express a wish to be de-centered in my actions within a narrative therapy approach to direct practice, engage in participatory forms of research and then take on, without question or reflection, the position of university professor. Yet, as hooks goes on to say,
many feminist progressive professors . . . begin their careers working to institutionalize more radical pedagogical practices, but when students did not appear to ‘respect their authority’ they felt these practices were faulty, unreliable, and returned to traditional practices. Of course, they should have expected that students who have had a more conventional education would be threatened by and even resist teaching practices that insist that students participate in education and not be passive consumers. (hooks, 1994: 143).
One of the students comments on her reaction to seeing me move away from the expected position as expert. Although she indicates this was initially unsettling, she began to appreciate the possibilities this opened up for her. This was not the reaction in the first class I taught in the first year of my teaching, where students in one class, after the fact, described their reactions to me as showing a lack of respect to me. The experience was unnerving and so I began wondering whether my practices were “faulty and unreliable” in line with hook’s analysis. Sometimes the easy route involves returning to traditional hierarchies and strict boundaries that can protect us from the critical gaze of our students. However, after this first unpleasant experience, engaging a group of students in reflecting on our experiences led to further learning for us in terms of the interplay of our expectations of one another and an ongoing commitment to continue to attempt to develop a style of teaching that could be consistent with my vision of a critical pedagogy for social work.
Mishna & Rasmussen (2001) suggest that a professor may model helpful social work skills through her responses to disjuncture in the classroom. In the spirit of reflective practice, where we can often learn from what has not worked perfectly, it can be helpful to reflect with students on what has been learned from the tension in the classroom. I describe some of the unsettling experiences in my first term of teaching and then provide a more detailed description of how I have attempted to develop my approach within the classroom based on ongoing reflections with students.
Although five of six half courses appeared to flow without too much difficulty during my first year of full-time teaching, I experienced some difficulty with the sixth. With hindsight, I believe that a major contributing factor was my ambivalence with the course content and the text book. While the majority of the courses I taught were focused on social work practice skills and the integration of social work theory into practice within the field, this sixth course was a required human development course.
On the one hand, the text book that had been “handed down to me” was not in keeping with my ideas about critical and postmodern social work. It reviewed psychological theories of human development through ages and stages, providing information about the impacts of physical growth, but not positioning these comments within broader systems of social work understanding. I felt like an imposter trying to teach an introduction to psychology course when I wanted to talk about the impacts of discourses on people’s meaning making.
I also had the structure of the room with which to contend. As Foucault suggests (1997), if we were to write a history of the development of spaces then we would be also writing about the history of powers being exercised, “from the great strategies of geo-politics to the little tactics of the habitat, institutional architecture from the classroom to the design of hospitals, passing via economic and political installations” (p. 149). The classroom setting suggested certain power relations that I was attempting to unsettle, but it felt at times as if the classroom structure itself had more power than I did over the climate of the classroom interactions. The physical setting positioned me at the centre of a lecture hall behind a bank of technological devices, using power point presentations and films to provide information, but, I had been hoping they would also stimulate critical thinking.
Both the text/content of the course and the structure of the classroom suggested a hierarchical relationship between expert professor and passive receiving students. Although I provided background in the first class regarding my hopes for teaching in a manner which might take into account postmodern ways of thinking and privilege student knowledge, later in the course students stated that they had not fully understood what this would mean in practice in the classroom.
For example, when a handful of students complained to me about the text and said they felt as though they already knew these theories from their psychology degrees, I was transparent with the class about the feedback I had received, while maintaining anonymity for the students who had spoken to me. I explained that this was one of the challenges of these required courses. The program was expected to include this content, yet some students already had a background in psychology. I attempted to respond to this concern by including more social work case examples and prompting classroom discussions about how these theories might or might not be useful in relation to these cases. At the same time I also attempted to problematize the theories, which were presented in the texts as “truth,” and encouraged students to make a link to their own experiences in order to reflect on the usefulness of these theories.
Finally, a student came to me to complain about his fellow students’ behavior in class, which he found disrespectful to me and therefore disrupting. He was reacting to some students talking through a showing of a piece of film and also some coming and going from the classroom during class time rather than waiting for breaks. This gave the classroom a feel of “carnival” to use Moffatt and Irving’s (2002) phrase. I did not feel the need to control this behaviour and believed that some of the talk through the film and later interrupting while discussing the film could have been due to engagement with the ideas being presented. However, it appeared as though he might have been picking up on a growing tension in the classroom. I decided to use a reflecting team approach to discuss these concerns in the class.3 The purpose of this interaction was to air some of the issues regarding interactions in the classroom, while students also learned a new direct practice approach. I assumed this would have primarily raised further concerns about the content of the course. However, it also brought to the surface some underlying problems between various students, and tears from some of them.
Although my interactions with students in the classroom were motivated by a wish to engage with them from a position of “not-knowing,” which honored their knowledge, I believe that the text, content and structure of the classroom all suggested something more “traditional.” It was unsettling for students when I did not fulfill these traditional expectations, and I apparently lost their respect, which then further contributed to unsettling me. In reflecting on interactions together afterwards we were all better able to understand and learn from these experiences. Now that I know to take more care in selecting readings, choosing a conducive classroom structure and thoroughly reviewing postmodern ideas at the beginning of a course to provide the skills necessary to critique truth claims, my “not-knowing” stance appears to be better understood and appreciated.
Anne: I believe that for the most part I was like the majority of third year social work students. I approached my courses with a “tell me what I need to know” attitude. My unacknowledged biases were firmly entrenched in the philosophies of expert driven models. I had been educated as most people are, in a system of hierarchies which equate knowledge with power and socialize students by rewarding competitive and individual outcomes.
The tumultuous aspect for me took place on different levels. I describe myself as being broad minded and so my reaction to the change in the classroom was perplexing. I found myself uncomfortable with an approach to teaching I had not experienced before. I found myself clinging to and defending discourses about students, teachers and learning.
Although it was never overt, my response to the offer of intellectual equality and interplay was based on the discomfort of trying to go forward into uncertainty: consciously wanting to embrace change that would lead to personal growth, but at the same time hesitant to relinquish the reassurance of the known. I believe that I, and perhaps this class, reacted with collective panic as a means of resisting change – resisting the uncertainty of transformation. This professor invited us to change our commonly accepted ways of learning – to rework our old knowledge and socialized boundaries from a new place. Our response was not one of strength but rather of anxiety. As so eloquently summarized by Chambon (1999), this invitation “shook our complacency, rattled our certainties and unhinged us from secure moorings” (p. 53).
Heidi: I have realized, looking back, that I had internalized my “student identity” after several years as a student. This was a position that was disempowered by the structural components and historical imbalances of traditional pedagogy. I was in a position of “less than” subjected to examination and expected to meet with great care and competency the objectives that had been identified for me.
As I look back on this course, I see, in contrast, the postmodern classroom embraced concepts of social justice where “every person matters as much as any other.” This professor took a stance of “not knowing,” appreciating other ways of knowing and she created a space of freedom and equity where all those participating in the dialogue were equals. Wisdom, experience and expertise were accepted and validated “from below” as well as “from above.” I came to understand and appreciate the relevance of a dialogical conversation within the practice of anti-oppressive social work. There must be a horizontal exchange rather than a vertical imposition, if we, as citizens and social workers want to be congruent with our beliefs and values. This professor was congruent in her teaching, values and practice.
The education system, like other institutions and policies reflect the dominant culture. This may account for some of the reactions class members had to this style of teaching. Upon critical reflection, I believe sexism and ageism had played out in our class. Our professor was a young female and she would not have experienced this same reaction had she been fifteen years older and male.
Threatening the norms of hierarchy challenges worldviews by creating uncertainty that results in fear, negative feedback and power plays. But it can also prepare future social workers to work from a position of uncertainty that is an everyday reality in these turbulent times.
Mullaly (2002) states modern day oppression is often systemic, hidden, rationalized and unintentional. His understandings resonate within me because historically education places students in a one-down position, requiring examination to ensure value. This is entirely incompatible with anti-oppressive social work practice, reproducing dominant-subordinate relations. This leaves the student ill-prepared to go out and fight those same dynamics that dismiss the marginalized, powerless and exploited among us.
He goes on to suggest that there are three broad approaches to anti-oppressive social work: 1. helping oppressed persons cope with their oppression, 2. attempting to modify/reform the system so that the oppressed can better fit into it, and 3. contributing to a total transformation of society. I believe transforming education, ideologies and social processes can begin in the classroom. We must not reproduce the inequalities of the larger society within the classroom, but rather create opportunities for consciousness raising, critical thinking, reflective practice and the deconstruction of dominant discourses that perpetuate social injustice.
This classroom experience offered me the opportunity to reflect on my experience, and critique the value I had placed on traditional pedagogy and the acquisition of knowledge. I have walked away from this experience feeling empowered, not because someone gave me power, but rather I feel powerful knowing now what I can give.
Having been able to engage with these students in discussion about their reflections has confirmed my commitment to continue attempting different postmodern approaches in the classroom. The following year, however, I was able to exchange the human development course for a family theory course. Being able to teach courses that I am more interested in has helped considerably. Although the family theory class that I took over the following year appeared to proceed without too many tensions, feedback from students suggested they were uncomfortable with a school policy on attendance and were continuing to be affected to a certain degree by the physical setup of the classroom.
When I taught again, after the family theory course, I introduced a couple of changes which the students appeared to appreciate and find helpful. First of all, I decided to respond to their concerns about the attendance policy, by including a participation mark. In this way I did not have to monitor their attendance, but they realized they would have to be present and involved to gain participation marks. I realized that quieter students might be challenged by the need to participate, so I explained I would consider their participation based on written reflections each week. I gave them all index cards each week and asked them at the end of each class to write a few lines about the idea that most interested or challenged them that week. I find this useful because I am provided a much clearer glimpse into their learning process as it is occurring and am able to respond to questions and clarify confusion at the beginning of the following class.
The other change I made was introducing a mindfulness exercise and a compassion exercise in the first class (Gerhart, 2005). The mindfulness exercise involves a guided and mindful act of eating a piece of chocolate, which provides an experience of being in the moment. The compassion exercise involves five minutes of silently looking into a partner’s eyes while I guide them through reflections of this relative stranger’s life from birth to death .By reviewing the underlying philosophies and then practicing these exercises, the ideas of reflective and mindful practice are embodied and privileged in the first class. This appears to have set the tone of compassion for one another in the learning process also.
One student reflects on the use of index cards as a way of breaking down boundaries. She also comments that it was as I was reviewing the index cards one week that she was unsettled by my “not-knowing” stance that she noticed for the first time.
Jessica: From the perspective of administrators, some faculty and even some students an attendance policy has been considered necessary in order to ensure students are making the most of their learning opportunities in the classroom. This was seen as a way to level the playing field since some students have been known to miss a number of classes but still go on to pass the course with flying colors. Many students, however, felt that an attendance policy that denies our right to self-determination and assumes the worst of us is not fair and not in the spirit of basic social work values. In response to this dilemma, our professor used an interesting approach. Through providing a participation grade she was able to integrate the impact of attendance while also providing a space for students to be more involved in their learning experience. Knowing that not all students are comfortable with speaking up in class, our professor handed out index cards each week on which we were asked to write our thoughts about the topic that week, any questions we had, or give feedback about a presentation. This allowed us to express ourselves as well as jot down questions that we would like answered but for which we did not have time in that class.
In reflecting on this aspect of the class, I appreciated being able to voice some thoughts and questions anonymously and have them discussed in the following class. Not only did this method of grading and attendance-taking transcend boundaries around school policy, it also transcended a different kind of boundary; that of time.
It seems that often in the university setting, one class session is reserved for one topic of discussion and at the end of the allotted time, the topic is closed for discussion and a new topic is presented the following week. Students divide their notes according to date and if they miss a class, they miss an entire topic. With the practice of using index cards as catalysts for discussion, conversation flowed week to week, as one topic melted into another. As students, we did not have to worry that a topic was dropped if time ran out rather we were comfortable in knowing that we could continue the discussion through index cards and into the beginning of the following class.
Questions asked on the index cards led to, from my perspective, some rather unexpected responses from our professor. The first time I heard her respond. “I don’t know. What do you think?” I felt surprised, even cheated, that my professor did not know the answer to a question. Irving and Moffat (2002) suggest that we should think of teaching as an uncertain and indeterminate activity. Our professor refused to take the expert position, thus removing herself from a power position over the students. As someone used to the typical university professor who has a vast expanse of knowledge and graciously imparts particles of this knowledge unto his poor, unknowing students, this was naturally shocking to me. As time went on, I began to realize the method behind this madness, so to speak. Our professor’s tentativeness in answering questions as well as presenting new ideas allowed me as a student to feel free to accept or reject what she was saying. I was freed to think for myself and not simply rely on the word of a person placed at the front of the classroom.
This tentativeness was an attempt to problematize the notion of expertise. When a professor stands in front of the classroom and declares that what she or he has to say is truth, the knowledge and experience of the students are negated and deemed inconsequential. Expertise also leaves no room for exceptions or personal judgment. By being tentative with new ideas and in her responses to questions, our professor encouraged students to put forth their own ideas and in doing so, our conversation created shared meanings and new experiences within the classroom.
Another manner in which I believe our professor transgressed usual boundaries in the classroom was when she challenged the split between mind/body/spirit through a mindfulness/empathy exercise she facilitated. This initially generated some discomfort as people giggled and felt uncomfortable looking into one another’s eyes, but as we debriefed this exercise, we realized how this truly provided an example of unsettling the expected, bringing the whole self into the classroom, and creating a greater sense of empathy with one another.
I have begun to reflect more recently about the tensions involved with teaching within a “professional” program in a university setting. I believe practice skills should not be falsely separated from theory. They also should not be privileged over values, ethics and the critical reflection of the philosophical underpinnings of various approaches. I believe students should be assisted in the process of reflecting and choosing those practice skills and theories that most closely align themselves with the underlying values of social work. This also involves students beginning to develop a sense of how they wish to develop as social workers with their own unique preferences and hopes.
Nicole: For the most part, social work students aspire to be able to practice and become just as good as their social work professors. Traditionally, social work skills have been taught using the Enlightenment principles of scientific thought and reason. As a result, courses that have taught skills have promoted what Rossiter (1995) describes as a disempowering pedagogy and a “version of social work that uncritically reproduces the rationalizing and technologizing effects of Western capitalism” (Rossiter,1995: 9 ). As part of the curriculum, professors must teach their students to understand the idea of empowerment and to empower their clients, yet in doing so, the professors end up disempowering their students by following mainstream textbooks and teaching in a mainstream manner. “All too frequently, we teach empowerment in disempowering processes” (Rossiter, 1995: 10). In order to transcend boundaries and forge alliances between professors and their students, social work education must move beyond the teaching methods passed down from the Enlightenment and past the disempowerment that occurs in the classrooms and develop empowerment environments inside and outside the classroom.
Allowing for both students and professor to feel valued, heard, understood, respected and most importantly, empowered, is the key to creating a better learning environment which allows for students and professors to practice, teach and learn in their own ways. Rossiter (1995) describes three elements of the ideal speech situation: equality of participation and equality of enjoyment of access and participation. What is implied and not said directly is that once all three elements are present and active in a classroom, students and professor can be at ease knowing that there is a sense of equality. This in itself makes many feel empowered, just knowing that they are playing on the same field as others.
In class, with this professor, students were provided many opportunities to speak and be heard. This was done through presentations, comment and question cards, de-briefing sessions, general feedback, outside of class contacts . . . and the list goes on. This professor was transparent with her students and made it clear to us that she was not placing herself in an expert position. She readily accepted knowledge that students had. Students were encouraged to share their knowledge with the entire class, positioning everyone in the class as students, even the professor. When she introduced the class to postmodern theory and narrative therapy she made it clear she was also involved in ongoing learning with us. There was not a vertical hierarchy in her class, but rather a horizontal one. As such, I always felt empowered to speak my mind in class and felt valued and respected by my professor and fellow classmates.
Rossiter (1995) discusses the manner in which “social work education takes place in the academy, where norms of hierarchy, competition and accumulation shape the classroom” (Rossiter, 1995: 20) Although I agree with Rossiter, I do not agree that it is our fate to follow pre-set ways of being, teaching and learning. There need not be any preset rules on how to teach social work skills, Approaches can develop through practice and become unique and vary depending upon the individual. It is ourresponsibility as students, professors and social workers to make changes to the system. Yet in order to do this we need to come together, transcend boundaries and forge alliances.
The last area I wish to discuss has to do with the impact of grading on both student and professor. The focus on grading can lead to a preoccupation in students with whether or not something will “be on the exam” versus a full engagement with the learning process. Yet, even those times, when I have provided students with the option to present in class versus writing a paper, and have suggested that we negotiate a topic which will be helpful for them and still be connected to the purposes of the course, students often continue to be anxious about whether there may be hidden expectations and worry about performing in a manner which will result in a high grade. Moffatt’s (2006) recent argument that “students are in a double bind of expressing desire in a classroom context that produces lacking” (p. 1) is helpful in providing some further insights and understandings about these complexities.
Amanda: I have walked into a classroom and wanted to turn around and walk back out because it feels impossible to do well with a professor who has the reputation of being a hard marker. Within the first twenty minutes of the first class we find out that the exam is worth 70% of our final grade and the paper 30%. I cannot help but wonder what it would feel like to not be consumed with stress during classes over the ways in which we are to be graded.
I have caught myself asking others how they did on exams and what they got on that paper, but why does it matter? Well, it does matter at the present time. The system that has been created sets up an environment of competition; I want to get into graduate school, I need this grade for a scholarship, I need to maintain these grades to stay in the program. But surely there is more to learning than simply regurgitating information on paper or circling the right answer out of four similar and confusing statements.
I rarely miss class. I only missed one class, and that was due to giving birth to my son, so where does my dedication come into play? I’m not the best at writing papers, so is there not some other way for me to demonstrate my knowledge? How about the fact that I’m a nice person and help others as much as I can and participate fully? I get frustrated because I put a lot of work into the program and these things don’t usually count as a part of your overall grade. But, why can’t they? Why get stuck in traditional ways of grading?
I appreciated that this professor gave me a chance to shine in her class, as she stood down from being in power and learned from her students as much as we learned from her. She gave a chance for the quiet students to have a voice through the use of index cards/comment cards and a way for those with stronger verbal communication skills to achieve through presentations rather than through having to write a paper. Instead of pointing out when were mistaken about something it seemed as if she just used different language and guided us down a different path, creating an environment in which it was safe to speak freely and to enjoy the opportunity to learn.
These comments and questions about the grading system highlight some of the issues Moffat (2006) raises, regarding “desire for success and recognition” (p. 3). As he goes on to say, this type of desire is not necessarily “about the student’s personality traits such as ambition, greed or narcissism, nor can it be fully understood as the student’s complicity in capitalist notions of success based on competition” (p. 3).
Drawing upon the work of Deleuze and Guattari, Moffat (2006) points out how capitalism relies on “lack or anti-production” (p. 6). “Lacking in the classroom is constructed in terms of a limited number of students who will be successful. The success of some students is based on perception of lacking in other students” (p. 7).
While professors often assume that we are engaged in new growth through the development of student intellect, in fact, as educators we are involved in a complicated play of forces that include both production and anti-production, and which lays at the heart of capitalism. The lacking inherent in the capitalist dynamic ensures the capitalist ethos of striving and competition is present. Students strive to avoid being characterized as illiterate or weak. As professors, we are not passive observers of the academic worth of our students. We are actively engaged as agents of capitalism in creating the strong and the weak student, as well as the literate and illiterate student. (Moffatt, 2006: 7).
This reminder is unsettling, yet helpful, as it suggests to me the need for me to unpack my desire as professor. This is a confusing territory for both student and professor. I have chosen to teach social work in a university setting, because I am committed to the values of social work and the growth and development of social workers who are interested in reflecting upon their practice. There is the space for academic freedom here as well as the pressures that have already been discussed. So, within this setting that I have chosen, I am expected to teach and grade. I want to be part of the production of strong students that Moffatt describes, but am concerned about being part of the anti-production, or the production of weak students, that comes about through the act of comparison.
Moffatt’s concluding remarks suggest some hopeful possibilities when the student’s desire and the professor’s desire can “create the possibility of connection as well as tensions and clashes . . . the interaction can be tense, emotional and difficult, but can also contribute to the creation of a territory since we remain connected” (p. 11). This reconfirms for me the notion of relationship and a dialogical process in teaching/learning/grading. I am thrilled when students have engaged sufficiently with the ideas in a class that they are interested in discussing the thoughts and reactions they have expressed in their papers rather than merely picking up their papers to check on their grades.
I have overheard students saying that they will consider one elective over another because they have heard that a certain professor allows them to self-grade and they need the highest grades possible to continue with their studies, so self-grading is not necessarily the answer to this dilemma if our desire as a professor is to encourage learning and reflective practice. I have experimented with including a portion of a grade that is student driven, and have also graded the transcripts and review of a counseling session based on the students’ understanding of what they were attempting and where they perhaps slipped back into former ways of doing things, rather than based on the actual “performance” in the session. I’m wondering if grading this commitment to “attempting and reflecting” is part of the solution for me, since it responds to the process more than some sort of outcome. This may still not address fully the concerns regarding comparison to lacking, since I may still judge some students to not be making as much effort as others, but it may be more congruent with my desires/values for reflective practice. No doubt my thoughts and practice regarding grading will continue to change and develop also.
I have stated that after my first year of teaching in a university setting I was unsettled by students’ reaction to my wish to incorporate a “not-knowing” stance in my role as professor. I would agree with Heidi, who has suggested that part of the difficulty I had with the students’ reactions may have been partly due to their reactions to me as young-looking female at the time. An older male professor with many years of teaching experience may be more respected when he takes on this stance. He can be seen as playing with the role whereas I may have been seen as truly incompetent. On the other hand, it is quite noticeable how an extra year of teaching brings a level of confidence and comfort that perhaps the students can sense and which contributes to a lessening of the anxiety when the postmodern classroom is attempted.
I have appreciated the time the students have contributed to reflecting upon our experiences together. It is their articulation of how they have learned that has contributed to my ongoing commitment to continue to attempt this unsettling work that opens up new horizons for each of us engaged in this work.
Thanks to Ken Moffatt, who kindly read an earlier draft of this, providing very helpful comments and questions that assisted us in becoming clearer in our descriptions.
Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, Language and Possibilities: A Postmodern Approach to Therapy. New York: Basic Books.
Ayers, N. (2006). Political aims and classroom dynamics: generative processes in classroom communities, Radical Pedagogy, 8 (2), 26 pages. http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issues8_2/ares.html
Béres, L., Cowling, J, LaRochelle, N., Mullaly, K., Mulligan, C. & A. Taylor. (2006). Transcending Boundaries in an Educational Setting: Reflecting on opportunities. CASSW Conference at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, York University, Toronto, Canada.
Béres, L., Allan, D., Bartholemew, A., Braaksma, H., Bradley-Swan, A., Collins, H. and D.
Harrisgreen. (2005). Poetry and Science: Attempting A Postmodern Classroom. CASSW Conference at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, King’s University College at the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Chambon, A.S. (1999). Foucault’s approach: making the familiar visible. In Chambon, A. S., A. Irving & L. Epstein (Eds.), Reading Foucault for social work (pp. 51- 81). New York: Columbia University Press.
Chambon, A. S., A. Irving & L. Epstein (Eds.) (1999). Reading Foucault for social work New York: Columbia University Press.
Fook, J. (2005). Challenges and directions for critical social work. In S. Hick, J. Fook & R. Pozzuto (Eds.), Social Work: A critical turn (pp. 231 - 237). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc.
Foucault, M. (1977). Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972 – New York: Pantheon Books.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gerhart, D. R. (2005). Mindfulness in therapy: integrating Buddhist concepts in therapy. Catching the winds of change conference, Halifax, Nova Scotioa.
Giroux, H.A.., R.I. Simon & Contributors. (1989). Popular culture, schooling and everyday life. Toronto: OISE Press.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
Irving, A. & Moffatt, K. (2002). Intoxicated midnight and carnival classrooms: The
professor as poet, Radical Pedagogy, 4 (1), 14 pages. http://radicalpedagogy.org/content/issue4_1/05_irving-moffatt.html
Mishna, F. & B. Rasmussen. (2001). The learning relationship: working through disjunctions in the classroom, Clinical Social Work Journal, 29 (4): 387-399.
Moffatt, K. (2006). Grading as the coding of student desire in the context of lacking. Radical Pedagogy, 8 (2), 14 pages. http://radicalpedagogy.org/content/issue8_2/moffatt.html
Mullaly, B. (2002). Challenging oppression: a critical social work approach. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.
Roche, S.E., Dewees, M., Trailweaver, R., Alexander, S., Cuddy, C. & M. Handy. (1999). Contesting boundaries in social work education: A liberatory apporach to cooperative learning and teaching. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Rossiter, A. (1995). Teaching social work skills from a critical perspective, Canadian Social Work Review, 12 (1): 9-27.
Shor, I. (1993). Education is Politics: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy. In McLaren and Leonard (Eds.) Paulro Freire: A critical encounter. New York: Routledge.
Simon, R. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for a pedagogy of possibility. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
White, M. (1995). Re-Authoring Lives: Interviews and Essays. Adelade: Dulwich Centre
1. As a student reflects later, the fact that I was a newly appointed female professor, and one of the youngest faculty members at the time, potentially contributed to students interpreting my postmodern stance as being due to personal tentativeness and lack of confidence rather than a thought out decision.
2. These ideas about moving toward preferences and possibilities have come out of my engagement with Micahel White’s Narrative Therapy approach (White, 1995).
3. The steps of reflecting team practices, or outsider witnessing practices, are discussed fully in relation to Narrative Therapy (White, 1995).