This paper has three aims. First, to provide a critical history (to look back critically at the community you belong to) of the ECT (Educationalists that adopt a critical theory perspective) to see how the major contributors to this community developed their approach to critical theory with an educational emphasis and more specifically how they looked at the relation between economics (a Marxist approach) and culture. Second, with the major finding of this critical history being that Marxism and economics was deemphasized within this community (of which I am a member) and the cultural became the dominant orientation, the paper considers what limits this focus had and has on critiquing society to change it. The third aim is to consider an alternative to this cultural emphasis that is titled Oneness theory—the weaving together of culture and economics. The thesis of Oneness theory is that by weaving culture and economics together not only will injustices and possibilities be more fully understood but differing critical theory groups can work together in solidarity to become a force for change to a more just society.

Voice, in subtle, and not so subtle ways, has played an important role in many progressive educational methodologies (i.e., those methodologies that in one way or another attempt to correct long standing, cultural hierarchies and inequalities). When looked at from the point of view of addressing cultural hierarchies and inequalities more generally, voice, as a signature for a type of progressive methodology, seems to have fallen short of its ambitions. While it would be presumptuous to put forth a solution to this shortcoming, this chapter tries to suggest the need to experiment with several alternative methodologies that go beyond voice by working the borderlands between subjective science and experimental art and thereby creating spaces of difference, and insisting that forms of activism (e.g., creating) work side by side with voicing perspectives and being heard.

A fundamental problem for educational institutions, in general, and universities specifically is student motivation. University students globally do have choices in terms of the courses they take but little say in their role as actors within the classroom. For the most the student role is to take in knowledge and information chosen by the teacher/professor. There can be legitimate reasons for this "banking process" of depositing knowledge in the heads of students but it always comes at a great cost. Most fundamentally, the cost is that the education itself, the knowledge taken in is imposed on students and therefore provides little intrinsic student motivation. With this diminished intrinsic motivation, the real motivator for most students is the grade they get at the end of the semester. Ask most students how their semester went and without hesitation they mention their grades. If this lack of intrinsic motivation is to be challenged students must be given an opportunity to play a significant role in creating their learning experiences. This means not only actively participating in the construction of these experiences but also having some say in where and when the education takes place. The where and when are very important because any standardization of time and place makes the false assumption that students can learn at any time and in any space regardless of their developing identities and cultural histories. This false assumption about standardization therefore works against student success and motivation because again education is imposed on students. It also means that shallow learning, learning that focuses on a guess about what is needed to do well in the test, is rep-laced by deep learning that is motivated by a need about the way students want to live and work as well as the relationships they want to develop and the society they want to live in. This paper investigates one way to do so by considering the possibilities of a Global University Student Network (GUSN). The GUSN is a virtual network that utilizes a platform wired to provide university students at all levels and their ally's with opportunities to make connections based on an advanced search function, form groups, including study, project and tutoring groups, and have the collaborative work created and produced by the groups saved and stored and noted on their evolving profile. Further, because students would be choosing other students based on need, interest and ambition from across the globe differences could be used to further and deepen the learning process as differing cultural perspectives would likely be applied to a common focus. Finally, this network also challenges the notion that sharing knowledge between U. students is cheating and rather sees this sharing process as an essential part of collaboration and deep learning. It should also be noted that because all communication and documents/videos could be instantly translated, across language groups connections and across language groups not only become possible but are encouraged on this platform. Language and other differences that are encouraged within this virtual platform space are referred to as spaces of difference. Spaces of difference are the spaces that allow for student to student connections that stick and can then reattach such that there is continuous fluidity between the cultural differences of U. students (this is in direct contrast to the university classroom that has little or no fluidity and separates students by institution major and course). Importantly, this network also challenges the stop and go nature of a university classroom that every semester the learning starts over as if nothing happened before and what students actually mastered. The GUSN is a network that doesn't erase past learning and by doing so provides an opportunity for all students to build on the past in creating a new reshaped future driven by the intrinsic motivation of their differing cultural experiences and identities.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the possibilities and limits of using technology to foster critical consciousness and engagement (Freire, 1970). Critical consciousness in our view is "an unarmed curiously that leads to self-criticism". This relentless questioning and human curiosity becomes critical by revealing something hidden such that knowledge itself becomes the object of this systematic reflection." (Shor, 2001, p. 37-8). Critical consciousness that occurs between students enables these educational actors to both create critical learning activities and reflect and respond to those activities. By doing so students develop and enhance their engagement because the motivation is not a result of a grade but rather the human activity to work together and create a text that has the signature of their identity. At the same time, teacher/professors engage with other teacher/professors such that their practice-teaching (and related policies, State requirements and other forces outside the educational institution)-becomes the object of their critical reflective curiosity. By focusing on critical consciousness and engagement our desire reflects a form of praxis--a thinking of theory and practice. This study focuses on what is produced in a university classroom in terms of: a) the constructed meaning of critical subjects (for students and teachers) b) the movement, if any, toward becoming critical subjects for teachers and students, c) the possibilities of students learning from students, how students' culture is related to students learning from students and finally d) how these students and teachers become more engaged and active thereby facilitating democratic imperatives. We frame our study with critical pedagogy, collecting the production of meanings, practices and relations and assessing these as a heuristic to reconsider and act on the production by teachers and students will continue until the end of the semester. This phase of the study is a continuation of the pilot study that finished in July 2016. From that pilot study the focus on using data as a teaching heuristic and student to student learning emerged and becomes the foundation of the second phase of the described study which is near completion. The results of the project will be discussed relative to the themes that are emerging. Excerpts from the reflections, documents, discussions and projects serve as the basis for identifying the constructed meanings emerging from the students and the teachers. For example, data from the pilot study provided insights about the meanings of the term critical subjects as well as an understanding of the possible growth in this direction. We are continuing to learn the possibilities and the limits of students learning from students as well as how culture affects that learning. Finally, pilot study findings informed our understanding of the role of schooling in furthering democratic imperatives, specifically the possibilities of students and teachers becoming more engaged and active in their work. In a more holistic sense we will share how those results may be related to policies and practices outside the classroom.

Critical pedagogy has been a powerful and persistent force in academia, informing dissertations, courses, and research. Despite this impact on higher education, critical pedagogy has not had similar success in public schools, even though these institutions host large numbers of marginalized students. One reason for this lack of influence in public schools is that the space of schooling is not particularly receptive to the ambitions and priorities of critical pedagogy. In this article, we build on the claim that there is a poor fit between public schools and critical pedagogy by laying out an argument for improving this fit by extending critical pedagogy. This extension can lead to the creation of new school spaces—spaces of difference—that will provide a more conducive environment to use critical pedagogy. To do this, we take the unconventional position that critical pedagogy be used with technology to create spaces of difference that will further opportunities for marginalized students and their ability to “name the world.” An in-depth consideration of these spaces of difference and their relation to critical pedagogy is presented to reveal how it can lead to forms of critical learning to address the needs of all students, including those most marginalized as they move through public schools.

Appears in: INTED2018 Proceedings Publication year: 2018Page: 3595 (abstract only)ISBN: 978-84-697-9480-7ISSN: 2340-1079doi: 10.21125/inted.2018.0689Conference name: 12th International Technology, Education and Development ConferenceDates: 5-7 March, 2018Location: Valencia, Spain

One significant limitation in critical pedagogy and its translation into practice is that it rarely looks back at itself theoretically and practically for corrective actions as was recommended by Freire's initial outline (Kincheloe, 2007). Because evidence is strong that this re[visioning] is not a consistent step in critical pedagogy's development over these last 50 some odd years (it has largely remain unchanged conceptually Kellner, 2000), this paper takes up this essential process by extending Freire's (2000) pedagogy both conceptually and practically. In particular, we want to focus on trying to point out a number of overlooked possibilities that can emerge when critical theory is used with technology. While technology is clearly shaping current society as well as schooling, it is as if critical pedagogy has nothing to say about the changing nature of our global society. (Bruelle, 2000). Additionally, marginalized groups (as well as young people in general) have readily adopted the new hardware and have used and contributed to the informal and partial languages that reconfigure words, phrases and sentences, while also mixing visual symbols with written letters (Lenhart, Arafeh, Smith, & Macgill, 2008). In Freirian terminology young people in general including marginalized youth have started naming the world (Freire, 2000). Instead of using technology to build on these possibilities associated with being a critical subject, academics have largely ignored or overlooked the opportunity to establish or reestablish a vision of critical pedagogy linked to technology (Giroux, 2011) Instead, these academics, in an almost religious fervor, have tried to silence even the mention of a possible union between technology and critical pedagogy (Suoranta & Vaden, 2007). Now, this is not to say that technology can't have some reproductive and limiting effects for both progressive and conservative groups. It can and it does. However, without trying out a linkage of technology with critical pedagogy we will never know. And yet, at the least there can be no doubt that one potential positive force of technology is its ability to cheaply and consistently allow for connections as well as create virtual spaces that would not be possible without it (Stager, 2007). Yet, to even consider this possibility, educators and educational stakeholders need to think differently about the possibilities of critical pedagogy when coupled with technology. We continue to think about critical pedagogy in a way that is antiquated, not realizing or looking ahead to what it could become. Robinson (2011), for example, suggested technology is often way ahead of our realization of how we might use that technology (p. 38) and therefore is used in limited ways. In contrast, he stated that the use of technology leads to reimagining the possibilities of its use with human creativity are reciprocal: "[The] interaction of creativity and technology is a two-way process. New technologies present fresh possibilities for creative work[,] and the creative use of technologies leads to the evolution and sometimes transformation of technologies" (p. 205). Our hope is that technology and critical pedagogy might produce further creative consideration of how technology can be and should be used. Educationalists interested in critical pedagogy, however, should not look on technology as the force for change. Instead, they should view it as a part of the change process as critical pedagogy strives to become an ever more powerful pedagogy that challenges the reproduction of marginalized cultures.

Appears in: INTED2016 Proceedings Publication year: 2016Page: 5414 (abstract only)ISBN: 978-84-608-5617-7ISSN: 2340-1079doi: 10.21125/inted.2016.0290Conference name: 10th International Technology, Education and Development ConferenceDates: 7-9 March, 2016Location: Valencia, Spain

Progressive change in education is often limited by leaving in place long standing school structures such as the classroom, the stop-go nature of schooling and the essentialist approach to planning. The author argues that technology is a key to altering these long standing aspects of schooling and suggests that UnEarth is particularly suited for this role because it is based on developing communities of difference as well as knowledge sharing and storage. UnEarth links students within the classroom to students outside, develops a building approach to schooling based on what students have learned in previous years, and allows teachers to personalize the curriculum.

Power and Method demonstrates that political activism can and should be infused into the research process. Contesting the traditional assumptions that have dominated thinking about the nature and meaning of research--validity, objectivity and the researcher/subject relationship--the volume showcases alternative methods, enabling scholars to make a difference in the lives of classed, gendered and raced subjects and grapple honestly and openly with the way power is woven into the research process. Committed to the notion that the challenge to redefine the research process faces not only educational researchers, Power and Method includes contributions from scholars in the allied social sciences and the humanities. Responses from researchers working women's studies, anthropology, sociology and literature conclude each section and highlight common and alternative perspectives on the central themes that run throughout the volume.