RMA+(Fall+2008+Research+Notes)

GNA, Thank you for recording your insights as you journey into what ever you can find to operationalize the "radical" in radical methods of facilitation adult learning. I have visited this record often over the past month, sometimes just for a "hit" and others for longer visit with jaunts off to a link or two, and then have found myself juggling thoughts, usually on walks in the woods with the dogs, trying to make sense of my own experiences in light of what I am learning here. I am in a funk with regards to my own efforts to empower students, and have thought lately I could just make life easier for myself if I went back to grading students based on performance outcomes. I think of Brookfield's challenge to having any sort of system in place that herds students one way or another, even if one of those ways is what I would label "empowering." Who am I to decide that having students submit their own final grade is empowering for students? What of the students who are uncomfortable with or prefer not to engage in this process, who would prefer that I grade them? How can I logistically customize my work with 12 different students in ways that for each are empowering, even if some of those ways are not what I would consider empowering. I think what has happened is that I have come to challenge my motives for what might be labeled "radical" methods in andragogy. Triggered in no small part, I am sure, by my learning here in this wiki. When I purposefully imbed choice in activities, and students do not chose in ways I deem as yielding the greatest opportunities for learning, and I get disappointed with these students, then what was my motive? How can I balance my own beliefs about the nature of adult learning and optimal methods to support it with enabling (through application of what might be labeled "radical methods in anadrogogy) conditions that result in sometimes far less than optimal learning (according to my standards and values). What if the methods do not justify the outcomes? What if I have not got the methods down yet to a point where the likelihood of supporting optimal learning (the way I see it) will be maximized. Or, (and more like it), what if the methods are not independent of the context (particularly the students, individually and collectively) and the outcomes are truly dependent upon the interaction of the two. Can there be a set of "radical methods in adrogogy" that exist separate from the context in which they are employed, and invariably modified by whatever forces are present in that particular context? So that's where I am. Maybe it is just end of the semester burnout, but I don't think so--maybe partially. GNA, I know you know it, but I will say it nonetheless, that I share these questions not as a direct challenge to your endeavors to explore and find for yourself what are "radical methods in androgogy." I pose them as a way to make meaning of a "disorienting dilemma" I have been experiencing related to your studies and my "reality", in a friendly, and perhaps empathetic, social setting.

Sandy

=[NOTE: THIS IS A WORK SPACE. NOTES, MUSINGS, DEEP THOUGHTS, POETICS, ETC. BEWARE IN ADVANCE OF POOR SPELLING, CHANGES IN FONT, JAGGED MARGINS, AND ALL OTHER MISS-HAPS WHICH FIND THEIR WAY ONTO THIS COLLAGE. ]=


Henry Giroux (1988) wrote in "Teachers as Intellectuals," The necessity of hope as a precondition for radical thought and struggle is not generally characteristic of prevailing forms of radical education theory in North America" (p. 204). He goes on to critique the broad ideologies and operational cynicism of many critical and radical education theorists. He wrote: "Instead of developing a political project and ethics that embody critique //and// hope, that connect schools and other institutions to forms of ongoing struggle, these newly emerging strains of critical educational theory appear to be suffocating in ideological narcissism, tied more closely to the self-serving tenets of vanguardism and despair than to anything else” (p. 206).


The most recent print edition of Lapham's Quarterly (Volume 1, Number 4, Fall 2008) entitled, "Ways of Learning," is an entire issue dedicated to historical and contemporary text and commentary on education. One particularly thought-provoking text piece in the journal is titled, "Crossing the Stream," by F. Nietzsche. Written in 1874 under the title, "Schopenhauer as Educator." [See here for a pdf of the text I found online [[file:Nietzche_Schopenhauer as educator_1874.pdf]]. In this piece Nietzsche described educators. He wrote, "Your educators can be your only true liberators." Going on, the author stated educators are the only ones who can reveal to you what the "material of your true being is." The piece also focuses on critical reflection (although he does not use this label) as the way a youth can unveil, rediscover, and take inventory of what may be closest to their "true nature" (which he contends is buried through one's experience as a social-cultural being). Nietzsche a true Humanist!

This edition also includes many photos, poems, and other works of art which presents visual images of learning e.g. The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaus Tulp, by Rembrandt van Jijn, 1632

And this photo of Elizabeth Eckford, one of the first black students admitted to Little Rock High School in 1957, on her first day of school.

After going through the entire issue I was moved to consider other texts in my search for defining the radical. I thought of movies, songs, poems, and visual images. Could one not create an annotated bibliography that was multi-media in its form? And would that not be "radical"? Radical in the sense of unconventional and out-of-the-ordinary? I believe so, however, what place within the academy as we know it would publish an annotated bibliography which included various types of texts? This raises questions of legitimacy, naming, and "owning" theory and the way theory (new and old) is re-presented to readers. Which is a perfect segway to probably the most radically thought-provoking text I've read so far.

A multi-media annotated bibliography makes great sense to me! I see annotations as a way for one peer to assess the characteristics and potential shortcomings and values of resources (from print sources or otherwise) and communicate his or her assessment too other peers so that they can decide whether or not they would like to investigate a resources further. Still photos, video clips, threaded discussions, songs, poems, etc. all seem like fair game as resources.

"The ‘radical’ in ‘radical teaching’: pedagogy now," Jennifer Cotter, Kimberly DeFazio, Brian Ganter, Deborah, Kelsh, Amrohini Sahay, Julie Torrant, Stephen Tumino, Rob Wilkie, for The Red Collective in //Textual Practice// [15(3), 2001, 419–429]

This article was written as a critique of exploitation and fetishization of "radical teaching" which the authors' witnessed at the State University of New York at Stony Brook Memorial Conference for Michael Sprinker (‘Seeds of liberation: sowing radical ideas in conservative times’, 5–7 October 2000). I found the critique typical of intra-academic paradigm battles, however the authors position themselves within a version of radical (and they use lower case 'r' radical) aka paradigm of radical teaching which fevorishly apposes the radical pedagogy and radical teaching as exemplified and propogated by journals such as //Radical Teacher// and //Radical Pedagogy// (both journals I've cited here).

For some reason, the saying "People in glass houses should not throw stones." came to me as I tried to digest this article. It seems to me the authors harbor a very singular operational definition of "teaching." They state on page 427: "Teaching in all its forms is an act in class struggle. The question for ‘radical teaching’ is whose side is it on: its radicality – as we have said several times – is not a matter of tone, approach, rhetoric, but a question of taking sides. To pretend teaching is not partisan is to be partisan for the ruling class." To me this defines teaching and the "teacher-student" or "workers" and "owners" (p. 419) relationships within a social context where sides can be taken because sides exist. I can envision many "learning" (as apposed to "teaching") contexts where the primary relationship is "learner-learner" (better, yet: "learner-learner-learner" in a reciprocal and interdependent set of relationships) that transcends greater social power structures, where, however briefly, individuals share power and generate it, and construct new knowledge, previously not "owned" by anyone or anything. And if that knowledge was totally dependent upon the context in which it evolved, then, by definition, it cannot be separate from the individuals who contributed to its generation at that time and place, and cannot be owned, stored, or manipulated by others in power. Sandy

__IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RED COLLECTIVE___

== [|The Red Collective] formed in 2001 (the only members identified are those who publish in //The Red Critique,// their journal published between 2001-2006. ==

From their website they define themselves: "Formed on the occasion of the one hundred and fiftieth year of the publication of //The Manifesto of The Communist Party//, the RED COLLECTIVE is an international cadre of revolutionary Marxists committed to class struggle and producing class consciousness across national boundaries by means of a "ruthless critique of everything existing" under the regime of capital and wage labor. One of the goals of the RED COLLECTIVE is to produce critique-al knowledges that guide all wage laborers in their unyielding struggles to end private ownership of the means of production and usher in international communism. //"// They describe their web-based journal as, "//The Red Critique// takes the partisan position (following Lenin) that "without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." It further argues that //only// Orthodox Marxism provides the revolutionary theoretical understandings capable of educating and guiding vanguard fighters of the proletariat in internationalist praxis to overthrow capitalist private property for profit and found a new socialist society based on meeting the //collective needs// of //all// people globally."

With the above caveat about The Red Collective, their views about the (d)employment of radical in pedagogy and culture are worth commenting on as they question the facile use of radical and contend its use by Leftist educators (et al) aka "critical pedagogues" (read andragogues) represents political cache. They being their critique with their own defining of radical teaching they state, "Radical teaching, in other words, works to lay bare the constitutive inequality in the existing (capitalist) social arrangements which are based on the priority of profit over needs." They further state, "Radical teaching is interventionist teaching." They counter radical teaching to "retrograde pedagogies." Most exemplory of their critique of how radical teaching has been co-opted by what they label as the "ruling class" in the academy is found in the following: "...'radical pedagogy' has become a ruling class pedagogy that uses 'radical rhetoric' to replace the historical struggle for emancipation from class exploitation and class society with local tactics involving undecidabilty, hope, friendship, faith and various forms of conjunctural microactivisms."

The main critique leveled by the authors focuses on what they name as "deflective pedagogies" e.g. "activist pedagogies" (service learning) and subjectivism, which they claim keeps students questioning versus concluding via theory (Orthodox Marxism). The subjectivity critique is actually one also employed by Brookfield (1995) as he proposed the use of theory to help adults (esp. teachers) ground their subjectivities in the greater socio-historical world. He stated, "Theory can help us 'name' our practice by illuminating the general elements of what we think are idiosyncratic experiences. Studying theory can help us realize that what we thought were signs of our personal failings as teachers can actually be interpreted as the inevitable consequence of certain economic, social, and political processes" (p. 36).


 * WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH RADICAL METHODS IN ADRAGOGY?**

In __Teaching to Transgress,__ bell hooks (1994) wrote, "The classroom remains the most radical space of possibility in the academy" (p. 12). bell hooks also reminds us of the power associated with naming (which is evident in the above work by The Red Collective). She stated, "...the privileged act of naming often affords those in power access to modes of communication and enables them to project an interpretation, a definition, a description of their work and actions, that may not be accurate, that may obscure what is really taking place" (p. 62).

Using hooks' analysis, I call the questions on all of the naming taking place in the literature of radical pedagogy (andragogy). As The Red Collective has attacked Derrida, de Man, McLaren, Cohen (and other well-known radical/leftist/progressive andragogues), I level the same critique against them. How does one paradigm (or one interest group) own an entire theory/word/paradigm/phenomenon? It may be naive of me, but my version of intellectual freedom makes me believe they cannot. No one paradigm owns radical or Radical. Thus, as the task of this independent study is to create an annotated bibliography, my work must focus on capturing the boundaries and what lives within them. The diversity of naming, practicing, and theorizing radical teaching (pedagogy and andragogy), like that of most socio-cultural, historical phenomenon, is too broad to concretize in any way.

November 10, 2008
[|Defining Radical Pedagogy]

I've been a reader of "Radical Pedagogy" a journal published twice (sometimes thrice) yearly. Their debut issue, published in 1999, includes the editorial commentary "What is Radical Pedagogy?" [see above link].

Most saliently, the author and editor at the time Tim McGettigan (1999) states, //'The concept, “radical pedagogy,” has many different meanings. For some, a discussion of radical pedagogy implies an analysis of the deeply politicized aspects of educational institutions, policies and practices—and, further, that education can and must be oriented towards radical social change (Freire, 1970, 1997; Giroux, 1997; McLaren, 1998; Shor, 1992). For others, radical pedagogy refers to cutting edge developments in the field of education: the latest theories, methods and practices that promise to reinvent fundamentally the processes of teaching and learning. Different as these perspectives may appear to be, they are, nevertheless, linked quite closely. Radical pedagogy is all about knowledge and education, and how they can (or// //should) change to best serve the purposes of both educators and the educated. Since the one constant in the universe is change and because education has come to be among the most important social institutions in the world, then it is very important to consider as broadly as possible the nature of education as it exists today—as well as how it might change as we move into the future. That will be the task of this journal.// //Radical Pedagogy will be a forum for the discussion of education and change."//

McGettigan's definition of "radical" pedagogy attempts at reconciling the various usages of the word radical in literature critiquing the enterprise of education; a task I've taken up in this work as well. Most importantly to the work I'm attempting here is his statement, //"Radical pedagogy is all about knowledge and education, and how they can (or// //should) change to best serve the purposes of both educators and the educated."// It seems commonsensical, however there is much to be implied in the statement "best serve the purposes" of educators and students. Ruminating upon this reminds me of a review I wrote critiquing the usage of "good teacher" in a text by Linda Darling-Hammond. It appears the usage of radical implies those doing the radical work have the best intersests of students in mind, however can we assume those interests, just because they are unconventional, are actually to the benefit of the student (and his/her interests and agency)? For example, if I'm teaching adults and I've got a student or two who, on the surface w/n a group of 12-15 others, appear socially what we would label as "shy" or reserved, am I behaving radically as an educator by promoting their practice of more extroverted social behaviors? Or is this my agenda and potentially one which may disturb their affective (and cognitive) responses to the material of the course.

As a Radical Humanist, I do not believe human agency looks the same on all people, therefore I must honor the variation of students' ways of being in the learning environment. I must operate assuming and assessing whether students are learning and participating in authentic ways that may not look like the ways of the majority of the other students. I believe the later task, performing authentic student-centered assessments of learning is a radical act. Thus I'm asking myself right now, as I write this, how does my definition of R/radical Andragogy align with, and critique that found in the literature?

In a very recent (fall 2008) issue of __Radical History Review__ titled, **History and Critical Pedagogies: Transforming Consciousness, Classrooms, and Communities** the editors, in a review of radical change within academia in the 60s quoted Ira Shor who stated of those radical academics and teachers: "Some began to demonstrate that 'when students have power,' exciting things happen that have important political and epistemological ramifications. [Ochoa, Enrique C.,Lassalle, Yvonne M.Radical History Review; Fall2008 Issue 102, p1-7]

[|Radical History Review issue focused on radical pedagogy]

The authors go on to state: //Since the 1960s, critical pedagogies have developed providing innovative empowering models of education. The popular education approaches of Paulo Freire and other theorists have influenced classroom and grassroots activism, leading many to employ transformational forms of education aimed at linking theory to practice for community empowerment and action. This tradition builds on earlier revolutionary attempts to link education to community. Karl Marx called for an integral education to produce “full human beings,” and Mikhail Bakunin urged that integral education would prepare children for “a life of thought as well as of work.”//

From this citation I appreciate the focus on the transformational aims of education via linking theory to practice. Could this T2P be one of the main tenets of Garcia's definition of R/radical Andragogy?

In the same issue of "Radical History Review" Margaret Power in her essay "Revolutionary/Critical Pedagogy and Me: Is Democracy in the Classroom Possible?" states: "Most of all, though, I think that as radical professors we need to continually question the relations of power we maintain or challenge with our students."


 * RANDOM NOTE:** From "Ivan Illich: True Learning and the Leisure Pursuit of Free People," Alfonso Valenzuela-Aguilera wrote, "Scholè, the Greek word from which school derives, means “leisure” and is precisely what Ivan Illich defined as the condition for true learning." Wow! This is really interesting to me--I never knew this and suddently Dewian philosophy makes even more sense!

In "Critical Pedagogy: Radical History in Two Spaces," Ian Christopher Fletcher asked, //"What is critical pedagogy? How and where can we practice it? These questions remain pertinent, despite the spread of progressive teaching methods emphasizing active learning, critical thinking, writing across the curriculum, and so on in colleges and universities. The adoption of these methods does not necessarily signify a concomitant change in the relations between students and teachers, a deeper critique of the nature and purpose of higher education, or a political and ethical engagement with interpreting and changing the world."//

I really dig Fletcher's point of teachers employing radical (read progressive) methods __does not__ necessarily mean they are Radical educators. Jason Stephens has brought this point up a few times in the context of our research on the "good teacher." He asks, "does a good teacher (methodologically) have to be a good teacher morally?" My working response, as its developed over the last couple of years distinguishes between a "good teacher" and a "righteous teacher." Righteous teachers in my world understand and accept responsiblilty for the moral endeavor of teaching and learning; intentionality exists in their practice.

Fletcher makes another good point here regarding the conspiratory nature of radical teaching and learning, he states: "Practicing critical pedagogy in this space is **a daily experiment that depends on everyone’s willingness to participate.** At the end of the day, I share the classroom with the students, who arrive with a variety of assumptions and expectations and depart, I hope, with more (sophisticated) questions than (conventional) answers."

Sara Quezada, in her essay, "Critical Pedagogy: Dynamic Thinking and Teaching within the Confines of No Child Left Behind" describes NCLB as potentially "radical." She states: "Educators continue to be shackled by the suffocating policies of the euphemistically named national education program. For the past five years, what little critical pedagogy existed in public schools has collapsed under the growing fetish of standardized testing presumably designed to measure growth and academic achievement. **On the surface, the name and the goals of NCLB appear noble, perhaps even radical.** But in practice, the tools for measuring “success” have produced one of the worst learning environments of the past twenty years."

This is deep. How intriguing to think of NCLB as "radical." Making sure each child has a "highly qualified teacher," putting under performing schools on probation and threatening closure--in the name of a "good" education for all children. Where Quezada's statement is transparently facetious is in her further critique of the fetishization of testing as the primary measure for student, teacher, and school performance and success.

In an article appearing in Textual Practice [15(3), 2001, 419–429], titled, "The ‘radical’ in ‘radical teaching’: pedagogy now," Jennifer Cotter, Kimberly DeFazio, Brian Ganter, Deborah, Kelsh, Amrohini Sahay, Julie Torrant, Stephen Tumino, Rob Wilkie, for The Red Collective wrote:

// In order for teaching to be radical – that is, to enable ‘**root thinking’** as a means for the fundamental transformation of existing social relations – it // // must produce explanatory knowledge of the totality of social relations and the densely interrelated practices derived from them. Radical teaching, // // in other words, works to lay bare the constitutive inequality in the existing (capitalist) social arrangements, which are based on the priority of pro. t // // over needs. To put this differently, radical teaching aims at producing class knowledges and consciousness that enable citizens to grasp the world // // historically and thus recognize that freedom from necessity is the condition of possibility for human emancipation and construction of a society which // // is founded on the principle of ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’. 1 // (foot quoting Karl Marx).

ROOT THINKING takes us back to the October entry which is the definition of radical = "of or having roots". This entomology intrigues me. If radical means root then radical methods in teaching and learning connect to the most fundamental ways people know, which takes us to human agency. Recently I've read some works by Ira Shor and Ivan Illich who were both proponents of "deschooling" or unschooling = critiquing and dismanteling apart the Institution of Schooling. Illich goes so far as to state in //Deschooling Society (1971)//: "School appropriates the money, men, and good will available for education and in addition discourages other institutions from assuming educational tasks. Work, leisure, politics, city living, and even family life depend on schools for the habits and knowledge they presuppose, instead of becoming themselves the means of education." Illich also promoted theories of //convivality// and //webs of learning// which some modern interpretations have extended metaphorically into technology.


 * So...** if Schooling (Andragogy) is how we conduct the majority of formal learning for adults, and we have bought-into Andragogy as our enterprise, then what does Radical Methodology in Andragogy look like in action? At its "roots"?

The questions to be addressed in this independent study research are:
 * 1) What are the most commonly cited radical methods in andragogy?
 * 2) What are the most frequently reported learning outcomes (for students and teachers) of adopting radical methods in andragogy?
 * 3) What do adult educators describe as their motives for adopting radical methods in andragogy?

As of today, November 10, 2008, the responses to the questions are:

1. See chart below

2. According to the literature reviewed thus far, learning outcomes are not reported empirically. Annectdotally and narratively, they include:
 * increased critical thinking as in problem solving, interrogation of information, and critical questioning about disciplines
 * increased criticality as in the employment of the assumptions of Critical Theory [Western democracy is inherently unequal; the System works to normalize and reproduce unquality; critical theory works as action to understand and change the current 'state of affairs': summarized from Brookfield (2004)]
 * increased feelings of agency (including power within and outside of the classroom) among teachers and students
 * increased understanding of situated self within historical antecedents (especially salient for historically marginalized individuals)
 * feelings of connectedness with "communtiy of learners" w/n classroom and teacher
 * intellectual and/or theoretical politicization of students via teacher's radical discourse, texts, experiences e.g. service learning, research projects, viewing films, exhibits, speakers, etc.
 * validation of self-worth via storying, creating personal narratives, bringing life experiences to learning environment and having them validated

3. Educators' motives for adopting radical methods are much implied via the discourse employed in the literature. I have __major__ beef with this implicitness. In "The Pedagogy of Totality" ** Mas'ud Zavarzadeh writes on [|The Red Critique] ** //" **What a pedagogy of savviness teaches is knowing with a wink.** In fact, the "wink" places such knowledge on the borderlines of what Sloterdijk calls "kynicism" (217-218)—absorbing the falseness by an ironic, tongue-in-cheek pedagogy that completely abolishes the conceptual for the pleasures of the story. The story is represented as liberating the concrete of daily life from the conceptual totalitarianism of abstractions. (I will use "totalitarian" and "totalitarianism" in their sanctioned "liberal" senses because I do not have the space for a critique of liberal vocabularies and their concealed economic assumptions)." //[Note: this piece was written as a critique of educators' teaching of 9/11]

The idea of "knowing with a wink" is really hot! It gets to the heart, through a cool image, at what I believe about the use of implicit language through this ENTIRE BODY OF LITERATURE. As in "Radical wink wink." Much of the motives in the literature would have to be implied or derived through reading individual teachers' personal stories of how they got turned-on to Freire, Illich, Brookfield, etc. This type of reflexivity in practice aka praxis, as it plays out in the literature, is certainly Real to the tellers, however it does not make space for any type of theorizing and/or generalizing beyond extreme Relativism or Humanist Psychology.

Brookfield in many of his more recent works critiques this type of revelation and telling as a method typically employed w/n adult education because it too has become normative in the field. He rightly asks the question, "what of the students (read teachers) who don't want to tell stories?" If everyone is telling stories, then doesn't that unduly pressure those of us who don't find psychic relief or learning via storying to either make up stories and/or preform reflection, or be presumed as unaffected by the learning experience? Furthermore, as Sandy Bell asked in our most recent meeting, what of those among us whose lessons come later, after the fact (when the course is over)? Or those of us who cannot articulate, at all, or in the way expected (TYPICALLY FOR A GRADE MIND YOU) e.g. "A Reflective Essay," at the end of the course what we "Learned"?

Thusly, my response to question #3, at this moment anyway, would solely rely on my personal narrative and story as to describing my own motives for doing radical andragogy--as they are ultimately similar to those I've gleaned from the literature. This may be the end result of my inquiry, therefore telling in itself of the my own practice, that of my colleagues, and that of the current discourse in the literature. 

OCTOBER 2008
Radical: 1398 (adj.), in a medieval philosophical sense, from L.L. radicalis "of or having roots," from L. radix (gen. radicis) "root" (see radish). Meaning "going to the origin, essential" is from 1651. Political sense of "reformist" (via notion of "change from the roots") is first recorded 1802 (n.), 1820 (adj.), of the extreme section of the British Liberal party (radical reform had been a current phrase since 1786); meaning "unconventional" is from 1921. U.S. youth slang use is from 1983, from 1970s surfer slang meaning "at the limits of control." Radical chic is attested from 1970.

From entymonline.com downloaded on October 28, 2008

 (second entry on 10/30/08) I'm going back to the drawing board here. I posted a scribble on the "discussion" page here debating b/t Radical and radical. After a few more hours of reading and thinking, I've decided to stick w/ lower case "r". Upper case Radical, at least in the literature I'm reading at this moment is very much aligned with a political posture that is not rooted in a politic, but a Politic. For example, in this book review of "Radical Approaches to Adult Education" by M. Hughes (1991). Hughes sites a typology of "radical adult education" proposed by some of the contributors to the text, included is the:

"Radical Humanist Adult Education Programmes" Here groups opposing the status quo and seeking radical change use adult education as anti-structure, as another weapon in their struggle for what they view as social justice ... [in] two somewhat different contexts ... i.e. in movements seeking human liberation-as in radical religious movements, utopian communities, counter-culture move- ments ...: and in radical movements seeking basic restructuring of social and economic systems-as in Marxist or Fascist revolutionary movements, radical populist movements etc ... (p. 118.)

=NEW THOUGHTS as of 10/30/08 = Radical methods can happen within the context of liberation or empowerment (e.g. my experience with TCPCG) and Radical methods can happen within the context of perceived systemic or immediate oppression. A situativity analysis (situated cognition) of this proposition recognizes the affordances of the environment (community of practice/teaching), which include artifacts, people, space, time, etc., bring about from the agent (teacher) necessary affectivities which, in this case the agility, skill, and experience employing the actual methods e.g. using radical texts and discourse, negotiated curriculum, etc. Thus, Radical methods only occur within situations where educators attend to the affordances (adjusting their thermostats) to what may be possible given their affectivities.

One problem with this suposition is the absence of space for a philosophical commitment of educator X to employ a certain Radical method of instruction prior to entering the classroom. In other words, I was commited prior to beginning my teaching in TCPCG to establishing a community of practice w/ the pre-service teachers that included recipricol critical feedback. I consider this choice intentional and Radical. I made the choice prior to the summer session and acted it out as planned during the summer session. My decision to employ this Radical methodology was certainly empowered by my many mentors including Sandy, Mike Y., and Mike A. From a purely intellectual standpoint then, the affordances of my environment present when making that decision were met with my affectivities and set forth my will to employ the methodology.

However, as a Radical Humanist (and where I depart from Dr. Young in my adherence to situativity and eco-psych), I believe somehow, at some point in time prior to my engagement with said mentors, I possessed the values and vision and agency to mid-wife the Radical methodologies I employ(ed) in my teaching.


 * BELOW IS A TABLE CREATED AS AN INITIAL LIST OF WHAT MAY BE CONSIDERED RADICAL METHODS OF INSTRUCTION (BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AND A FIRST READ OF LITERATURE). They are categorized by what I consider to be the primary (versus __only__) actor(s) involved in the method. I'm not sure how many will stay for the final list--feel free to add on (including a citation if you've got it).**


 * **Intra personal** || **Inter personal** || **Person in context w/ other actors e.g. students** ||
 * critical reflection || critical dialogue || critical (dialectic ala Daloz; Freire) dialogue ||
 * values clarification or other types of self-work || activism || intentional focus (curriculum/activities) on human development, human agency ||
 * being open to change/learning w/ students || team teaching || "Teaching to Transgress" (hooks) ||
 * employing praxis || collaboration across disciplines || Giroux grounding radical/liberatory/critical pedagogy w/n the context of history; pedagogy of HOPE ||
 * coming correct about "teaching as a moral endeavor" (Hansen) || using radical discourse, counter-established norms of domain discourse || cognitive dissonance (J.I.); GNA 'hot cognition" GNA ||
 * using radical discourse, counter-established norms of domain discourse (Jason I.) ||  ||
 * interrogation of dominant understandings i.e. Truths ||  || using technology as a venue for knowledge construction or in ways beyond asynchronous talk and resource sharing (Mike Y.) ||
 * ||  || no grades;negotiated curriculum (Brookfield) (Sandy B.) ||
 * ||  || employing contemplative activities; caring for whole person w/n curriculum (GNA) ||
 * ||  || using marginal/radical texts including media beyond the written word ||
 * ||  || using Critical Incident Questionnaire (Brookfield) ||
 * ||  || leading students to reside beyond the pre-established hierarchical relationship w/n classroom ||
 * ||  || conducting action research w/ students (Jason I.) ||
 * ||  || self-assessments/no assessments ||
 * ||  || providing students opportunity to "story" their experience as learners ||