This essay was submitted in Feburary 2018 as part of an MA in Education and International Development at UCL. I thought I’d share it in case any participants of the course last term were interested in reading my analysis of it, or anyone out there was interested in global learning and critical literacy – I’m always keen to share ideas and collaborate! If anyone is interested in this project at all, do get in touch! contact@readingspots.org 

Cat Davison 17/03/2018

1.1 Introduction

‘An Introduction to Key Themes and Debates in International Development’ (‘The Course’) is a 10-week online course that I wrote between September and December 2017, with the purpose of encouraging pupils at Brighton College (UK) and African Science Academy (ASA) (Ghana) to critically reflect upon issues in global development, particularly considering western epistemological hegemony within both our education system. Its approach was informed by my broader study of an MA in Education and International Development at UCL; my choice of this unit (the Practices and Principles of Development Education) was in part to enable me to have the knowledge and pedagogical skill-set to both create this course, and complete an informed analysis of it.  I have been given a sponsored sabbatical year by Brighton College to develop the work of Reading Spots, a UK registered charity I have co-founded to support the creation of community-led libraries in remote areas of Ghana and facilitate an active global citizenship education programme.

This paper will specifically focus on the success of the course in enabling pupils to develop skills in ‘critical literacy’, a practice that most formulations of development education, global learning and global citizenship education highlight as central to the success of their pedagogical approaches. The Course was not created with this specific focus in mind, but this emphasis will be central to its reformulation with different pupils in September 2018.

1.2 Format

The course was targeted at Sixth Form pupils, offering a multi-dimensional critical exploration of the concepts of poverty and development. The format of the course comprises a narrative with various extracts from literature, academic articles and videos, with a particular focus on the inclusion of the African voice, although it was ultimately edited by me. Pupils were required to complete a weekly task which involved reflecting on various forms of material, and contributing to a discussion board. The course also served as a form of volunteer training for pupils ahead of their trip to Ghana – this was particularly in recognition of the potential harms caused by sending volunteers into development contexts without educating them about the ‘local social setting, work context, or goals and philosophies that drive overarching development agendas’ (Cook, 2008:18). A shift away from a charitable giving mentality towards one of ‘mutual learning’ and social justice is encouraged throughout the course (Andreotti 2006), and pupils are introduced to the suggestion that ‘the helping Self often involves implicitly and unintentionally denigrating Others’ (Cook, 2008:20).

1.3 Positioning

My method of critical analysis draws from Andreotti’s approach in involving myself in an ‘exercise of enquiry that is both reflective…and reflexive’ (Andreotti, 2006: 7). Throughout this exercise, I am positioned as the author of the course, and thus whilst I will endeavour to critically evaluate its approach neutrally, I am ultimately immersed within the value system being promoted. I have loosely followed Golding’s ‘Community of Inquiry’ model, and thus taken the role of a ‘co-inquirer with students’ where I am ready to ‘re-discover and re-construct’ ideas through scaffolding the conversation rather than steering pupils towards pre-conceived viewpoints, thus recognising the plurality of development education frameworks, objectives and practices (Golding, 2011: 480). Golding describes this role as being like an ‘adventure guide’ – whilst this analogy holds in terms of being experienced in the terrain and open to new discoveries, it is also important to note that some ideas need to be given more weight than others in the field of development, due to the nature of the evidence which points towards certain approaches having a greater impact upon human well-being. We will examine the balance sought between enabling pupils to move towards unlimited outcomes and a set of clear values, later in our analysis.

2 Global Citizenship Education

The term ‘Global Citizenship Education’ (GCE) has been recognised by some scholars as a ‘nodal point’ or ‘place of arrival’ of other areas of education such as development education, global learning, environment education, human rights education, education for equality, and sustainability education (Mannion, Biesta, Priestley & Ross, 2011). GCE became a particularly popular term in England when citizenship became part of the national curriculum with Bourn noting a growing perception within educationalists that the term ‘global’ was ‘more relevant and accessible’ than ‘development’; however, the categorisation of pedagogical frameworks in this field are constantly changing, and will continue to ‘evolve and change’, as it moves alongside a changing global terrain (Bourn, 2014: 11-14).

Some suggest that the multiplicity of meanings (Oxley and Morris, 2013) or a ‘lack of a concrete definition’ of the term ‘global citizen’ means that it is employed as an ‘empty signifier’ (Zemach-Bersin 2007:19), or that may even contribute to what Andreotti terms as the ‘civilising mission’ of the west (Andreotti, 2011: 166-167) as ‘the very possibility of ‘being global’ is unbalanced’ (Dobson, 2005: 259) due to the differing levels of connectivity globally. Indeed, Andreotti (2006:70) questions ‘Whose globe? Whose citizenship?’. Davies (2006) goes further and challenges the validity of the term, asserting that the very concept of being a ‘global citizen’ is ‘a paradox or simply an oxymoron’ due to the non-existence of a global state.

Oxfam (2015) disagrees and offers a definition of the global citizen as someone who ‘participates in the community at a range of levels’, ‘is willing to act to make the world a more equitable and sustainable place’, and ‘takes responsibility for their actions’ through the recognition of a shared human experience. Oxfam’s accompanying pedagogy is presented as a linear process: pupils are encouraged to ‘learn, think, act’. Whilst the simplicity of this slogan highlights the need for research and critical reflection, the mantra over-simplifies the pedagogy it is proposing, and presents an unhelpful divide between the respective acts of learning, thinking and action, when it might be best if they are simultaneous co-workers in a continuously adapting approach. Global citizenship education is a non-linear process rather than a ‘fixed and finite concept with specific goals and outcomes’ (Bourn, 2014: 12); crucially it aims to build a transformative skillset by enabling pupils to develop ‘knowledge, skills, values and attitudes’ required to ‘contribute to a more inclusive and peaceful world’ (UNESCO 2015: 15).

There are four core elements embedded in most accounts of GCE: critical literacy, accepting (limited) pluralism, developing empathy and nurturing a disposition towards responsible action. For GCE to be effective, these elements should feed into each other, with critical analysis at the centre. Andreotti draws a difference between ‘soft’ and ‘critical’ forms of GCE, with the former focusing on developing a sympathy for others’ suffering, and the latter engaging in an approach framed through a social justice lens, considering the possible complicity of the individual in inequality (Andreotti, 2006). Andreotti concedes that the ‘soft’ form may be useful starting point in education (Andreotti, 2006:49); however, it is clear that without an understanding of how political systems contribute to suffering, they may ‘reproduce the systems and ways of thinking they are trying to question’ (Bourn, 2014: 24). This is where critical analysis is vital: pupils need to be equipped to challenge hegemonies both in respect to how knowledge is produced, but also in challenging the world as it stands – rejecting the ‘distribution of wealth, power and labour in the world’ as inevitable (Tarozzi and Torres, 2016: 19). Thus, following Cook’s approach, our ‘global citizen’ is ‘someone who reflects on their complicity in global power relations, considers their responsibilities to those who are disadvantaged by current global arrangements, and who actively resists perpetuating them’ (Cook, 2008: 17).

3. Specific Focus: Critical Literacy and Pedagogy within the GCE Context

3.1 Definitions

 Like GCE, the term ‘critical literacy’ has been defined in many ways, with most approaches referencing the importance of a critical investigation of ‘multiple interpretations of text and related language and power relationships’ (May, 2015:5). Those encouraging critical literacy look at all forms of representation as sites of ‘struggle, negotiation, and change’ (Norton, 2007: 6). Critical pedagogy is therefore best understood as giving pupils the ability to ‘trace assumptions and implications’ (Andreotti, 2006, 10). It should encourage pupils to understand text in the context of ‘larger constitutional practices’ (Norton, 2007) thus investigating the sources of knowledge production and reproduction, alerting pupils to the exclusion of some groups and ensuring that knowledge is subject to logical analysis on an equal basis – ‘social justice cannot anymore be defined by whatever the strong decide’ (Hoppers, 2009); indeed, critical literacy pedagogy invites an analysis of the link between ‘learning and social change’ (Giroux, 2011: 172).

3.2 Freire

Critical social theorists see traditional models of education as passing knowledge onto pupils without critical analysis and thus reproducing inequality: this approach is what Freire termed the ‘banking concept of education’ (Freire, 1970: 53), often referred to as ‘chew and pour’ in Ghana (e.g. Adjei, 2007:1048) where pupils are turned into ‘containers’ to be ‘filled’ by the teachers (Freire, 1970: 53). Instead, Freire proposes an approach where teachers facilitate pupils in the construction of their own knowledge, in a context relevant to their own way of life. Freire states that ‘human beings are not built in silence, but in word, in work, in action-reflection’ (Freire, 1970: 69), alerting us to the fact that literacy programs do not always lead to the ‘autonomy of man’ (Freire, 2001:27). He proposes that education ‘must enable people to be the subjects rather than objects of literacy projects, and as such; have agency in the construction of their social reality’ (Mór, 2007:42).  Giroux builds upon Freire’s work highlighting that in order for critical pedagogy to have an impact, it must ‘include the message that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally empowered, to shape the society in which they live’ (Giroux, 2011: 102).

3.3 Unpacking and Applying Critical Literacy

Critical literacy pedagogy will be applied differently in different contexts; however, I have identified four interrelated practices that appear in literature exploring approaches to critical literacy – if these elements are successfully threaded into global citizenship education, they enhance other elements of GCE identified because if pupils are not able to analyse the veracity of information in the global context, then they will act in potentially harmful ways and fail to recognise epistemological imbalance. We will apply this analysis of the concept of critical literacy to Week 1: ‘The Role of Perspective’ of the Online Course (www.readingspots.org/course1). The first week is a useful extract to examine as it introduces pupils to many of the core themes in the course, and is a good representation of the format offered throughout.

Figure 1: Unpacking Critical Literacy (all elements should be encouraged simultaneously rather than in a linear form) 

3.3.1 Reflexivity

The concept of critical literacy in the context of promoting global learning must ‘take account … the existing perspectives of the learner’ (Bourn, 2014: 5), recognising that our perspective is influenced by cultural ‘baggage’ (Andreotti, 2011: 229). Therefore, activities will be sought to make pupils and teachers ‘more open and vigilant to the micro-processes through which relations of dominance could be recognised’ (Lau, 2015: 98-99). Andreotti notes that Spivak cites the importance of ‘unlearning their privilege’ (Andoretti, 2006: 75), with Kapoor instructing us to retrace ‘the itinerary of our prejudices and learning habits… stop thinking of ourselves as better or fitter and unlearn dominant systems of knowledge” (Kapoor, 2004:641). The concept of ‘tracing an itinerary’ of prejudice returns us to Golding’s notion of the teacher as a ‘tour guide’ – it is vital that teachers support pupils in analysing paths that have led to misinformation.

Application

Throughout the course pupils are asked to acknowledge that ‘how we see a thing…is very much dependent on where we stand in relationship to it’ (Thiong’o, 1969). In order to achieve this, Andreotti suggests individuals should be encouraged to ‘shift their development focus from ‘making a difference to them’ to ‘mutual learning’. Through the inclusion of African participants from ASA in the discussion forum, pupils were immediately required to learn from Africans rather than ‘help’ them, moving away from the idea of the ‘North ‘educating’ the South’ that is often wrongly conflated with global citizenship education practices (Andreotti, 2006,9); indeed, in this instance, the reverse was true in the discussions, with UK pupils keenly questioning African pupils.

The course starts with a direct call to all pupils to evaluate their biases. I offer a first-hand account of an encounter with a blind man in Takoradi, Western Ghana: a blind man enters the trotro (public bus) and I wrongly assumed that he was a beggar, or boarding illegally rather than being a paying customer. In offering a personal experience, I intended to start the course by making it clear that it is normal to have discriminatory biases, and suggest that acknowledging the existence of ‘unchecked biases’ (Course, 2017) is the first step towards developing a more critical approach to the world.  Following this, I reflect on the origin of the viewpoint, stating: ‘it is also a telling sign of disability in Ghana that I’d only ever seen a blind person begging at the road side before, and never sitting in the transport alongside me’ (Course, 2017). Most pupils could infer from this that my perspective on the blind has been formed by repeated experiences of blind people begging on the roadside, although I could have made the precise source of this inaccurate inductive reasoning clearer.

The theme of developing self-awareness is developed further through asking pupils to watch a TED Talk by Adichie, ‘The Danger of the Single Story’, which explores the negative consequences of the ‘single story’ of African poverty being perpetuated (Adichie, 2009). In the narrative, I ask pupils to consider a few questions as they are watching, including: ‘in what areas have you been influenced by only hearing a ‘single story’?’ Whilst this question does ask pupils to be reflexive, it may be too open a question to prompt any specific self-reflection: a targeted question such as ‘what single stories of poverty have you been influenced by?’ may have been more effective.

Pupils are also asked to reflect upon the role of the media in storytelling through the inclusion of the Guardian ‘Three Little Pigs’ advert (Guardian, 2012) which retells the story of Three Little Pigs from a radically different perspective, and instructs viewers to find ‘the whole picture’ – this served to reinforce Adiche’s message, and open pupils to the idea that even accepted stories given in the mainstream media may be misleading. I might have also referred pupils to the current prevalence of ‘fake news’ (e.g. see Hunt, 2016) and the social media ‘echo chambers’ (e.g. Wallsten, 2005), in order to further place the critical guidance in the wider ‘post-truth’ global landscape.

I later explicitly state that:

‘The most important starting point for introducing themes in international development, in my mind, is exactly this: to develop critical self-awareness of how our own perspective, culture and upbringing shapes how we frame the reality we are analysing, considering, crucially, our power-relationship with that reality.’ (The Course, 2017)

Through affirming the same point through different mediums, the pupils were able to recognise the importance of reflexive thinking; however, perhaps this message is too explicit, and pupils should be encouraged to discover this for themselves as Freire (1970) might indicate. In addition, the impact of these metaphors might have been greater if they were central to the specific task given for the week. For example, in the task given at the end of this first post, pupils are asked to watch Innocent’s ‘Chain of Good’ advert (2013), and comment on ‘how are the following portrayed:  Africa, development and charitable giving?’ – it would have extended the depth of pupils’ critical literacy skills to analyse the advert by also considering the impact of their own perspective. Due to the inclusion of African pupils in the discussion, pupils were, however, able to discover that pupils viewed the advert differently, with the pupils from ASA highlighting inaccuracies unseen by UK pupils such as the labelling of a ‘good school’ which did not match up to what their contextual knowledge of ‘good school’ within the Ugandan context.

3.3.2 Multiple Perspectives

Whilst reflexivity is vital, pupils should simultaneously try to step into the ‘shoes’ of others, recognising the existence of differing viewpoints – this is a focus of Andreotti’s ‘Through Other Eyes’ initiative, an online programme which hopes to guide educators and pupils towards exploring how different groups interpret ideas and themes linked to development (Andreotti, 2011). It is vital to expose pupils to various differing texts: Mellor and Patterson (2000: 510) explore this in the context of teaching Shakespeare, encouraging teachers to enable pupils to see that texts ‘promote interested versions of reality’, with Behrman encouraging pupils to move away from Euro-centric ideology (Behrman, 2006). Foss compares this process of pupils considering unpacking layers of constructed meaning to peeling an onion (Foss, 2002: 394); however, perhaps the peeling metaphor implies a certain deconstruction of meaning rather than viewing ‘everything as it is’ (Wittgenstein, 1953), immersed in ‘life forms, a livelihood and a way of life’ (Hoppers, 2009).

Application

Appiah rightly argues that conversation is vital: we may not be able to move towards the same values, but in understanding the reasoning behind the opinions of others, we will be better able to understand their perspective (Appiah, 2007). However, it is clear that GCE aims for pupils to agree on some core values such as a belief that all humans should have the ‘same basic rights, security, opportunities, obligations and social benefits’ (Hoppers 2009). The decision to create discussions between pupils in the ‘North’ and ‘South’ itself immediately brought the ‘objects’ of our discussions of poverty in Africa, into the conversation, thus enabling them to be viewed by UK pupils as dynamic subjects. Appiah also suggests that it might be helpful for us to consider what our values have in common, with Martin arguing that school linking activities that focus on similarities between schools and pupils better develop ‘positive attitudes and a sense of connection’ (Martin, 2007: 155) – indeed, one pupil remarked that engagement in the course with Ghanaians on points of connection ‘gave a sense of unity’ (Brighton College, 2017). This exploration through areas of mutual concern is something that could have been better explored in the course, perhaps through greater reference to towards areas of concern affecting both groups.

In order to provide a range of voices, my intention was to ensure that the material was to be suffused with African voices, scholars and metaphors. I presented pupils with two metaphors located within Ghanaian philosophy and the Ghanaian aural tradition. Appiah refers to human experience as a ‘shattered mirror’ where each element reflects or represents different values and perspectives, but none can claim to be the entire reflection of humanity (Appiah, 2007). This image serves to create the idea that epistemological equality involves ensuring that ‘all forms of knowledge get recognised and valued especially from where they originate’ (Hoppers, 2009). This image was further embedded in the pupils’ learning through reference to a traditional Ghanaian Anansi story, often told aurally: ‘The Pot of Wisdom’, in which Anansi (a cunning spider) wrongly assumes that he can hold all the wisdom of the world in a pot.  His epistemological error leads to him dropping the pot, and the story suggests that this led to wisdom being ‘scattered all over the world’, with people collecting it ‘and taking it home to their families’ explaining why ‘no one person has all of the wisdom in the world’. The use of the Anansi story serves two purposes: firstly, it encourages pupils to open the doors of their intellect to different perspectives and not to be epistemologically arrogant; secondly, it offers a very visual image of knowledge not only existing in different contexts but being used by different families, moving pupils away from a Euro-centric bias and towards the notion that there is ‘more than one way of learning’ (Bourne, 2008:14).

3.3.3 Analysis of power

Critical literacy is a powerful tool to use to ‘transform discriminatory structures’ (Blackledge, 2000:18); and ‘critique and engage society along with its inequalities and injustices’ (Kretovics, 1985: 51). This must include ‘reflection on and consideration of what is meant by social justice’ – a question at the core of the critical literacy approach (Bourn, 2014: 28), also analysing the ‘influence of colonialism and the complexity of globalisation’ (Bourn, 2014: 5). Foucault (1965) observes that dominant knowledge systems often present a version of reality that is reproduced, with postcolonial scholars applying this analysis of power to the relationship between the colonised and coloniser. The effects of this epistemic violence are portrayed differently, with many pointing to the negative psychological impact of groups of individuals being positioned in the role of the ‘other’ (Andreotti) or ‘oriental’ (Said, 1978), leading to alienation from their cultural upbringing (Adjei, 2007; Adichie, 2007) or even causing mental illness (see Fanon, 2001; Dangarembga, 1988).

Bourn suggests that there may be a danger in the current authority of Sen’s human development approach (Sen, 1999), in that it fails to recognise the role of the Global ‘North’ in shaping the development agenda (Bourn, 2014: 25). If Sen’s account is to truly value each individual’s freedom, he must recognise that development may be viewed differently.  In the Course, I highlight Escobar’s suggestion (1999:49) that we should search for an alternative to development in ‘social movements, as symbols of resistance of the dominant politics of knowledge’, many suggest that ‘what development means is a question, which has to be left to individual communities’ (from Daly, Kumar and Regan, 2016). However, if we do not create an epistemological hierarchy we might move towards postmodernism. Young and Muller (2016) suggest that we should prioritise teaching of certain ‘powerful’ knowledge, which they argue better extends capabilities with STEM knowledge as ‘the closest we can get to universal knowledge’. It is clear to me that different types of knowledge exist, with some forming its legitimacy through correspondence to the external world (e.g. see Ayer, 1936) and others being embedded in a certain ‘form of life’ or ‘language game’ (Wittgenstein: 1953). Generating an ability to distinguish between and navigate through different types of claims is vital if GCE is to be successful.

Application

 Pupils are pointed towards the asymmetry of our development discussions:

‘Whilst we may be in the fortunate position of being able to educate ourselves to think about their lives and their development, they may not be with respect to us, or indeed have a sufficient voice in the analysis of their own progression as a country, or as citizens. Should we even be commenting on their development, if they cannot, upon ours? (Course 1, 2017)

I observed that as a result, many pupils often stopped to question the legitimacy of their perspective: for example, during a discussion of the postcolonialist approach in ‘Week 3’ I asked pupils to share thoughts on the naming of libraries in the Ghanaian context, many stopped to question why our perspective on this topic held much relevance. Furthermore, one pupil mentioned in conversation that she now recognised the cognitive ‘injustice’ of the lack of voice from ‘normal teenagers’ in our dialogue concerning Africa (Brighton College, 2017). However, a danger with the above text is that I may have inadvertently placed a distinction between ‘them’ and ‘us’, creating an unnecessary binary between both the UK and African perspectives and participants.

I also wonder the extent to which my use of the ‘duckrabbit’ image used by Wittgenstein (1957) cements the idea of a binary view of the world, or a ‘Two Worlds’ concept (Young, 2010). Young argues that paired phrases such as ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ worlds wrongly reinforce an assumption that the world ‘can be, or is, divided in two’. I chose the image with the specific purpose of encouraging pupils to consider two ideas: firstly, that their world perspective is open to fast and unexpected change, and secondly, to present the idea that reality is itself partially constructed by the observer.  However, through the specific use of the ‘duck rabbit’ and the fact that there are only two ways of seeing the image (as either a duck or a rabbit) I may have contributed to the perception that there are only two ways of seeing the world that are not only radically different but incompatible with each other. While pupils are able to recognise that the image is reasonably seen as both a duck and a rabbit, and therefore recognise the validity of pluralism to a degree, the image fails to symbolise the nuance involved in different world perspectives. I needed to be more aware of the postcolonial idea that the construction of the self is often ‘relational’: we create who we are (our identities), by ‘creating’ who we are not (otherness)’ (Andreotti, 2006,8) – it may have been better to use an image with multiple possible interpretations. However, through the discussions, such as pupil responses to the concept of development within the Innocent ‘Chain of Good’ advert, it was clear that pupils from both the UK and Africa had a range of views and it would not always have been easy to distinguish based on their country of origin.

I wanted to increase pupils’ awareness of the interconnected nature of the global economic landscape, and ask them to consider possible complicity in global poverty, drawing pupils’ attention to the role of the world’s rich in creating poverty through a recommendation of Susan George (1974): ‘study the rich and powerful, not the poor and powerless’’. Bhaskar’s critical realism asks us to reassert the role of ontology in creating suffering, viewing society as an amalgamation of structures, practices, and relationships, which individuals take a central role in either transforming or reproducing. In the context of The Course pupils were probed via the discussion board to further reflect on the ‘actual’ nature and causes of the ‘poverty’ within the Ugandan village, drawing comparison with its representation by Innocent. Given the focus on the advert on showing the ‘chain of good’ arising from the purchase of a smoothie (Innocent, 2013), it may have also been prudent to ask pupils to consider the ‘chains of bad’ that may also arise from Innocent’s work, or through their actions

Division may have been unnecessarily entrenched further through my failure to sufficiently reflect on the nature of the language used, which was too academic in nature in places which reduced the extent of the participation from members of the ASA in particular (conversations, ASA, 2017). The choice of content, as it was ultimately determined by me, also led to a western bias in the format and content: if the course was to be a genuinely cross-continental educational partnership on development, a Ghanaian at ASA would have co-authored the course, and there would be further clarification and discussion on and ‘whose values are being used in the process’ (Leonard 2007:72).

3.3.5 Creativity

There is great value in the very act of pupils ‘constructing their own interpretations’ (Bourn, 2014: 15) as this will help pupils to recognise their power to contribute towards creating a more equal society. It is important that this creativity either prompts or is immersed in action, with the curriculum connecting to real situations in society (see Christensen, 2000). Kumar is keen to distinguish between pupils engaging in ‘dialogue’ and those engaging in ‘dialogic’ – the former defined as ‘shared enquiry or talk, amongst consenting adults’ and the latter as ‘the interactive, responsive, democratic, fair and impartial nature of dialogue’, locating dialogue within the ‘context of change’ (Kumar, 2008: 44). Fundamentally critical pedagogy should ‘close the gap between university and everyday life’ (Giroux, 2011: 102), placing analysis into the public sphere through acting to change power imbalances.

Application

This notion of self-discovery is a central feature of the Socratic method – Plato believes in objective knowledge that can be recollected (e.g. see the Meno dialogue), but his method can be used to encourage pupils to take ownership of their epistemological discovery. During my interjections in the online discussion forums, I offered questions that urged pupils to further clarify their arguments, ascertain their own values, and also be able to identify errors in reasoning for themselves, with pupils were also taking supportive roles in improving their peers’ quality of reasoning. I also endeavoured to challenge views that took pupils away from values central to GCE (such as empathy and a recognition of the possible benefits of action). I questioned one Nigerian pupil:

‘I was just interested to hear in a bit more detail about how you would inform people of the charitable giving of a company in an advert in a different way, and how you might offer space for the voice of the beneficiaries whilst avoiding stereotyping?’ (The Course, 2017)

Through indicating my ‘interest’ in her view, I was trying to take the role of Golding’s ‘co-inquirer’ (Golding, 2011: 480), making it clear to pupils that I was learning from them. By encouraging the pupil to provide an alternative suggestion, she was nurtured to move towards not only reflecting at a higher level on what principles were important within the portrayal of charitable giving by companies, but to create her own strategy. As the girl in question had originated from a rural village in Nigeria, I was also simultaneously giving a voice to someone who may have been a recipient of similar charitable projects to Send a Cow, whom Innocent partnered with, thus making her voice the subject of our enquiry rather than the object, steering the path of our exploration. Pupils were asked to form strategies for action in the final weeks of the course; perhaps I might have better nurtured a desire for change by consistently placing possible action alongside their analysis.

In order to evaluate competing claims, pupils need to be able to analyse chains of rational thought. In Golding’s ‘Community of Inquiry’ he asks teachers to strike a balance between allowing an approach where ‘anything goes’ (Ferayaband, 1975), and only permitting certain pre-conceived judgements to be voiced: ‘it seeks reasoned or reflective judgements where ideas are judged better or worse depending on the quality of reasoning supporting them’ (Golding, 2011: 479). The challenge with this approach is that it presumes that there is an overarching epistemological foundation by which claims can be judged better or worse – critical literacy must also ensure that pupils are exposed not only to different types of knowledge, but different types of knowledge systems – those where claims might be considered rational due to their correspondence with the external world (Wittgenstein, 1921) coherence with other claims (Bradley, 1914) or pragmatic value (James, 1907),  rather than assuming the superiority of a particular way of ordering and valuing knowledge. Certainly, the online course did not reach this level of analysis – although a week spent exploring systems of truths would have improved their ability to analyse power systems, it would have meant that other areas might have slipped off the topic list.

4. Conclusions

The key areas for improvement in relation to the development of critical literacy skills through the medium of The Course relate to focused task-setting, choice of images and examples, and further enabling pupils to create their own self-awareness and understanding of multiple perspectives, rather than directly telling pupils what to think. Specifically, I will ensure that images and language used do not further entrench a ‘Two Worlds’ concept, which creates a binary view of the world (Young, 2010) or entrench ideas of ‘Othered’ people, aiming to explore difference through examining similarity first (Martin, 2007; Appiah 2007).

When I repeat the course next year, I will organise seminar sessions for pupils in both the UK and in Ghana to enable pupils to have a live forum to discuss ideas, which will enable pupils to offer each other developed critical feedback, and also allow facilitators to take a stronger guiding role in encouraging pupils to be deeply self-reflexive and genuinely open to the value of other perspectives, whilst also promoting core values in line with the GCE approach, such as a respect for multiple forms and systems of knowledge. I intend pupils to take a stronger role in facilitating the discussion and creating the content of the course, also involving Ghanaian teachers with the choice of content, using representations of development and charity created by Ghanaians, rather than by UK bodies on behalf of Ghanaians.

In order for The Course to succeed in the critical pedagogy it offers, it should equip Ghanaian and UK pupils and teachers with the tools that they can ‘use to negotiate and inform their lives’ (Giroux, 2011: 103); in the formulation of the course, I will ensure that the course even further places the discussions in a context that is relevant to the lives of the participants, constantly enabling them to use the course to inform their behaviour, and analyse the world in which they exist. 

 

Bibliography

The key document analysed: www.readingspots.org/course1 (written/edited by me (named removed to preserve anonymity) from August 2017-December 2017).

Adjei, P. B. (2007) ‘Decolonising Knowledge Production: The Pedagogic Relevance of Gandhian Satyagraha to Schooling and Education in Ghana’. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’Education, 30 (4), 1046-1067.

Alderson, P. ‘Critical Realism and Research Design and Analysis in Geographies of Children and Young People’ Geographies of Children and Young People: Methodological Approaches, 2016, Evans, R. and Holt, L. (eds). Singapore

Andreotti, V. (2011) Actionable Postcolonial Theory in Education. Macmillan.

 Andreotti, V. (2006) Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, [e-journal] 3, pp. 40-51. Available through: UCL Library website <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/electronic-resources>

Appiah, K, A. (2007) Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. Penguin.

Ayer, AJ. (1936) Language, Truth & Logic. Penguin edition (1990)

Behrman, E. (2006) “Teaching about language, power, and text: A review of classroom practices that support critical literacy,” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 49:6, pp. 490–98

Bhaskar, R. (1975) A Realist Theory of Science, Verso 2008.

Blackledge, A. (2000). Literacy, power and social justice. Staffordshire, England: Trentham Books, p. 18

Bourn, D. (2014) The Theory and Practice of Global Learning. DERC Research Paper No. 11, London: IOE.

Christensen, Linda M. English. (2000) Journal, suppl. Trends & Issues in Secondary English, High school edition; Urbana (2000): 53.

Cook, N. (2008) Shifting the focus of development: turning ‘helping’ into self-reflexive learning. http://www.criticalliteracyjournal.org

Daly, Regan, Regan (Eds.) (2017) 80-20 Development in an Unequal World (7th ed)

Dangarembga, T. (1988) Nervous Conditions. The Women’s Press.

 Davies. (2006) quoted in Tarozzi, M. & Torres, C.A., Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism. London-New York: Bloomsbury 2016 (couldn’t access the reference)

Dobson, A. (2005) ‘Globalisation, cosmopolitanism and the environment’. International Relations, 19(3): 259-273.

Escobar, A. (1993) Imagining a Post-Development Era? Critical Thought, Development and Social Movements Author(s): Arturo Escobar

Fanon, F. (1963) The Wretched of the Earth. Penguin, 2001.

Foucault (1965) Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason 

Foss, A. (2002) ‘Peeling the onion: Teaching critical literacy with students of privilege.’  Language Arts 79(4), pp. 393–403.

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum

Giroux, H. (2011) On Critical Pedagogy, New York, Continuum.

Golding, C. (2011) The Many Faces of Constructivist Discussion. Educational Philopsophy and Theory, Vol. 43, (5), pp.467-483.

Hoppers (2009) Keynote address at the National University of Galway. ‘Development Education at the Transition from the Modern Triage Society to a Moral and Cognitive Reconstruction of Citizenship’

Kapoor, I. (2004) ‘Hyper-self-reflexive development? Spivak on representing the Third World ‘Other’’. Third World Quarterly, 4(25): 627-647.

Kretovics, J. (1985) “Critical literacy: Challenging the assumptions of mainstream educational theory.” Journal of Education 167(2), pp. 50-62. Quotation from p. 51.

Kumar, A. (2008) Development education and dialogical learning in the 21st century. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 1(1): 37-48.

James, W. (1907) Pragmatism, A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Popular Lectures on Philosophy, Longmans, Green, and Company, New York, NY.

Leonard, A. (2007) ‘Global school relationships: school linking and modern challenges’, pp64-98 chapter 5 in Bourn, D. (ed.) Development Education: Debates and Dialogues. London: Bedford Way Papers.

Lau, SMC. (2015) Relationality and emotionality: Toward a reflexive ethic in critical teaching http://www.criticalliteracyjournal.org

Mannion, Biesta, Priestley & Ross. (2011) ‘The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: genealogy and critique’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9:3-4, 443-456

Martin, F.  (2007) The challenge of teaching controversial issues. edited by Hilary Claire and Cathie Holden (2007)

May, L. (2015) Preservice Teacher Bricolage: Incorporating Critical Literacy, Negotiating Competing Visions http://www.criticalliteracyjournal.org

McEwan, I. (2004) Enduring Love. Jonathon Cape.

Mellor, B., & Patterson, A. (2000). “Critical practice: Teaching ‘Shakespeare.'”  Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43(6), pp. 508-17.

Norton, B. (2007) ‘Critical Literacy and International Development 6’, published online www.criticalliteracy.org.uk

Oxfam (2015) Education for Global Citizenship: A Guide for Schools. Oxford: Oxfam. Retrieved from http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/global-citizenship/global-citizenship-guides

Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013) Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. doi:10.1080/00071005.2013.798393

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press

Said, E. (1978) Orientalism.  Pantheon Books.

Spivak, G (1990) The post-colonial critic: interviews, strategies, dialogues. Routledge, New York and London.

Spivak, G. (2003) A conversation with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: politics and the imagination, interview by Jenny Sharpe. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 609-624.

Tarozzi, M. & Torres (2016) C.A., Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism. London-New York: Bloomsbury 2016

Wa Thiong’o. (1969) Homecoming, London. P145

UNESCO. (2015) Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives; 2015. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002329/232993e.pdf

Walkyria,W.M. (2007) ‘Investigating Critical Literacy at the University in Brazil’ published online: www.criticalliteracy.org.uk (accessed 05/02/2018)

Wallsten, K (2005) Political Blogs: Is the Political Blogosphere an Echo Chamber?. American Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C.: Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley.

Wittgenstein, L. (1921) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations. Wiley-Blackwell; 4th Revised edition (6 Nov. 2009)

Young, H. (2010) Naming the world: Coming to terms with complexity Innovations in Development Education

Young and Muller. (2016) Curriculum and the Specialization of Knowledge London Routledge.

Zemach-Bersin, T. (2007) Global citizenship and study abroad: it’s all about U.S. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 1(2): 16-28.

Online Sources:

Adichie, the Danger of a Single Story, 2009. Accessed 31/01/2018. TED Talks.

Elle Hunt, 2016 ‘What is fake news? How to spot it and what you can do to stop it’. Accessed 31/01/2018. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/18/what-is-fake-news-pizzagate

Innocent Smoothie advert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeXgxN24loc

Volume 1: 1, July 2007 ISSN: 1753-0873 (ONLINE) www.criticalliteracy.org.uk

Guardian Advert (Three Little Pigs) 2012. Accessed 31/01/2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=116&v=vDGrfhJH1P4

 

I’ve also included references from informal conversations with pupils at both Brighton College and African Science Academy during November 2017.