Investigating Freirian Dialogue in a Computer-Based Classroom in Alternative Education

The purpose of this study is to investigate the computer-assisted classroom beyond the curriculum. At my research site, Alternative Horizons High School, computer-assisted instruction was routinely implemented as a method for getting students back on track for graduation. In previous work, I found that the discourse around alternative schooling suggests that computer-assisted instruction leads to faster completion of high school diplomas (Miller, 2014). Therefore, staff and students felt that it served an important role in disrupting the cycle of disenfranchisement - regardless of the curriculum’s content or the larger implications for learning. I contend that to effectively disrupt the cycle of disenfranchisement, students must be provided opportunities to critically engage with the content as well as the social and political structures that exist in our world.

Dialogue is at the heart of emancipatory education. In addition to extending power and voice, it is also deeply humanizing, which is essential in a computer-driven environment. In the computer-assisted classroom, the automated curriculum has taken on the human role of teacher and contributes to the deprofession-alization of teachers and disempowerment of students. Therefore, I begin this investigation with a study of dialogical interactions that exist in the computer-assisted classroom. The following questions guided my research: How do elements of liberatory education, specifically dialogue and critical discussion, exist in an environment that is driven by computer-assisted curriculum? What patterns of dialogue exist in the computer-assisted classroom? What role do the classroom teachers play in facilitating dialogical interactions?

In the most recent comprehensive report about alternative schooling, 64% of school districts reported that they maintained an alternative school or program (Carver, Lewis, & Tice, 2010). Students involved in these programs have been identified as being unsuccessful in the traditional school environment (Atkins, 2008; Kim & Taylor, 2008; Lehr, Tan, & Ysseldyke, 2009). Many times these students are identified as struggling with behavior, academics and attendance. Minority students are represented at a disproportionate rate in alternative schools (ACLU, 2009), and these programs are most likely to exist in high poverty areas (Aron, 2006).

The title alternative suggests that these schools are providing something new and different; however, many times alternative schools fall short of this promise. Aron (2006) found that students do not necessarily choose to attend an alternative school, but it is offered to them as a last chance or final opportunity to continue in the school district due to previous problems. The schools often carry a negative stigma and focus on behavior management while providing remedial instruction (Kim & Taylor, 2008).

For many years, alternative schools have focused on providing students with the opportunity to recover high school credits at a rapid pace. Despite the problems related to focusing on rapid completion instead of emphasizing relevant, meaningful, quality education, researchers are still contending that credit recovery programs are an appropriate educational approach for alternative school students (Deloach, 2016). Computer assisted instruction is marketed as learner-centered approach based on the notion that the programs remove the focus from the teacher and place it on the needs of students (Watson & Watson, 2011). The appeal of computer-assisted learning is that students can work at their own pace on lessons that are automatically tailored to meet the individual academic needs of the student; additionally, students in one classroom can be working on a variety of different subjects and at various grade levels while being monitored by one instructor (Kim & Taylor, 2008; D’Angelo & Zemanick, 2009; Dessoff, 2009). Regarding implementation, programs vary from the sole emphasis of the computer programs to hybrid classrooms that utilize a mix of both teacher instruction and computer-assisted learning (Desoff, 2009).

I draw upon the work of Paulo Freire (2012) and his frame of liberatory dialogue along with critical theory of technology (Feenberg, 1999) to inform this study. Dialogue has the potential to disrupt dominantly accepted truths and norms by creating space for dissent (Freire, 2012). The act of participating in dialogue extends power to previously powerless populations by allowing participants to engage in the world. Participating in dialogue also shifts existing hierarchical structures, as individuals join together in a common search for meaning. According to Freire (2013), this is a basic right of humanity. This right is important for all students, but it is especially critical for alternative school students who have been routinely and institutionally stripped of their power and voice.

While technology is not the focus of this study, it plays a key role in sharing the classroom environment. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the framework for understanding technology. Feenberg (1999) suggests that technology is inherently rooted in the technical rationale frame and, therefore, favors procedural knowledge. Technology automates processes and thrives on consistency, reliability and efficiency. While it is often considered value-free or neutral, technology is tied to dominant thinking and existing structures of power. Technology can be employed for socially just and democratic aims, but this requires the user first ask critical questions about technology and approach technological tools with a clear understanding of their limitations (Miller, 2016). At that point, then the user can utilize these resources deliberately for emancipatory purposes.

I found that the case study methodology most closely aligned with the purpose of this study, which was to better understand the bounded system of a CAI classroom and its influence on the larger social context surrounding the students (Stake, 2000). The study is classified as an instrumental case study, as it focuses on single specific bounded system based on my owner researcher interest. The goal of this study is not to provide generalizable results but to promote critique and additional dialogue about this topic.

I conducted this study at Alternative Horizons High School (all names are pseudonyms), a public secondary alternative school located in the Southwest United States. The school served approximately 80 high school students. As part of the local school district, students were referred to Alternative Horizons from two traditional high schools located in the city. At the beginning of the school year, Alternative Horizons had been relocated to a new building. The new facility was formerly an elementary school. One wing of the building was used for Alternative Horizons, while the rest of the facility housed a resource center for underprivileged families. A small school for teen mothers was also located on the grounds. The school had six teachers including math, science, social studies, English, art, and a computer lab teacher. The school had one computer lab, which was dedicated solely to computer-assisted instruction. While the majority of the classes at the school followed a traditional teacher-led format, the school was small and unable to provide all the courses that students needed for graduation. Computer-assisted instruction provided these courses.

Additionally, computer-assisted courses were used for students to retake courses that they had previously failed at the school. The school principal indicated that they were using the computer-assisted curriculum more than they had hoped. During each class period, a number of students were enrolled in various computer-assisted courses and attended class in the computer lab. A teacher was assigned to monitor this classroom and assist the students. Alternative Horizons utilized the popular program PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations) Online.

All of the student participants were enrolled in at least one computer-assisted course, and they were present in the computer lab during the observed class period. There were 24 total student participants, but due to student attendance problems, student participants varied between 11 and 17 throughout the study. Of the total population, 13 of the participants were male, and 11 were female. The majority of the participants (15) appeared to be Native American. There were 7 who appeared to be Caucasian, and 2 who appeared to be Latinx. Attendance was one of the main struggles that Alternative Horizons faced with the student population, and as a result, the population of the study regularly changed.

Staff participants included two classroom teachers: Mr. Benton and Mr. Morgan. Mr. Benton worked as the computer classroom monitor. He spent the entire school day in the computer classroom monitoring student behavior. Mr. Benton was relocated from his previous elementary school position and transferred to Alternative Horizons halfway through the school year due to an undisclosed issue in his former school. Mr. Benton shared that he was not planning on returning to Alternative Horizons the following year. Mr. Morgan was the school’s social studies teacher. He was assigned to the computer lab as the primary teacher during the class period that I observed. The school principal, Mr. Graham, was also regularly involved in the CAI classroom. All three staff participants were Caucasian.

The focus of data collection was on patterns of discourse and interactions that existed in the computer-assisted classroom between all participants including students, teachers/administrators and the researcher. Data was collected through classroom observations, informal interviews and an in depth semistructured interview (Esterberg, 2002). Classroom observations were conducted over a span of six weeks on an average of two times per week. I varied the weekdays of the observations in an effort to capture a variety of events and participants. The class period was 45 minutes in length, and I arrived in the classroom approximately 30 minutes prior to the beginning of the period and remained 15 to 30 minutes after the class ended. I recorded data using a two-column note system to gather classroom occurrences alongside research reflections. I also wrote a real-time reflection after each observation, which was included in the data set.

I conducted an informal interview after each observation with Mr. Benton. These interviews served to clarifying understanding of classroom situations and procedures and to receive real-time reflections and responses from the classroom teacher. I conducted an in depth interview with the teacher assigned to the classroom, Mr. Morgan. The interview lasted an hour and forty-five minutes. The interview was digitally recorded and transcribed. While students were observed, I was unable to obtain institutional research permission to conduct interviews at the time of this study.

Data was dual-coded and analyzed according to themes (Esterberg, 2002). In the initial coding, I used a bottom-up approach to allow codes to emerge as the data was read (Quartaroli, 2009). In the second round of coding, themes were organized based on Freire’s (2013) definition of dialogue. In addition to observation and interview data, I also analyzed my real time researcher reflections for possible influences on data collection and analysis. Trustworthiness was maintained by triangulation of data sources including observation data, researcher reflections and interview data. Credibility was addressed through continued engagement at the research site and peer debriefing of research findings.

The student and teacher participants were debriefed and aware of their participation in the research. The school administrator, Mr. Graham, approved the study. The institutional review board at the supporting university also approved the project, and I complied with their guidelines. The identities of all participants and the school site remain confidential. All participants were given pseudonyms in observation data.

The data revealed the presence of three patterns of dialogic interactions: true dialogue, anti-dialogue, and a dialogue of silence. Dialogue and anti-dialogue, as defined by Freire (2013), both existed in the classroom; however, a dialogue of silence overwhelmingly dominated the classroom. In the following section, I describe the three patterns of dialogue beginning with the least frequent, true dialogue, and progressing to the pattern most frequently observed, dialogue of silence.

True dialogue, as defined by Paulo Freire (2012) is developed through horizontal relationships where neither involved assumes a position of power. In this pattern of communication, both parties join in a common search for knowledge and understanding. The dialogue is inculcated with humanizing elements such as empathy, love, understanding, trust, faith, hope, and humility. Freire asserts that this is the only true form of dialogue and the only form of dialogue that allows for critical discussion. It can involve an element of tension and possibly even conflict as participants grapple to make meaning together instead of submitting to predefined knowledge. This pattern of communication also plays an essential role in the development of relationships. Conscious communication of this type allows for listening and speaking where both parties are empowered and a relationship of respect is developed. A shared search for understanding moves participants forward in the pursuit of knowledge together. While opposition may occur, the shared pursuit encourages the participants to continue toward their common goal. Empathy encourages listening. This opens the door for meaningful learning. True dialogue does not encourage neutrality or a position where all participants are considered to be correct in their beliefs. Correctness and the affirmation of personal beliefs do not drive the interaction.

In the computer-assisted classroom, this was the least observed pattern of dialogue even though the classroom teacher reported that he strongly valued dialogue with his students. Mr. Morgan described his ideal classroom as being a space filled with dialogue and communication between both students and teachers. “There would be a lot of talking. I would want students to be talking about what we are doing. Asking questions of each other and talking on the topic.” However, he felt that in the computer-assisted classroom, around 10% of students asked questions on a regular basis. My observations confirmed this infrequency of question and answer interactions between students and teachers.

Over the course of the study, I observed only one interaction where dialogue and critical discussion existed between a student and the two teachers. The student was watching a video on YouTube from a satirical news show about a dominant political candidate. Mr. Benton noticed that the student was watching You-Tube and approached the student’s computer. He stood behind the student and watched the video. Mr. Morgan noticed the two watching the video and also approached the computer to watch. Once the video was over, the three discussed the political candidate and the upcoming presidential election. The conversation moved back and forth among the participants, and all participants appeared to be equally contributing. Technology provided the stimulus for the dialogue, but it did not dictate the discussion.

I observed dialogue between students more frequently, on average one to two times per classroom visit. Topics typically involved personal issues and concerns. Students talked about family issues, frustrations with school, and legal issues. During one of my classroom visits, two students participated in a true dialogue while discussing terms of juvenile probation. One of the students expressed his frustration with the terms of his probation as designed by the juvenile court system. The other student listened, nodded his head and offered advice. Both of the students were observed listening and responding to the other at various points in the conversation.

Through analysis of the data, I found a strong presence of antidialogue in the computer-assisted classroom. Freire (2013) describes this pattern of communication as being hierarchical and disempowering. In this vertical interaction, empathy and love do not exist. This pattern emphasizes the issuing of communiqués and leaves little room for questioning.

Antidialogue was primarily evident in the interactions between teachers or administrators and the students. Mr. Morgan described to me that his role in the classroom was keeping students on task and directing them to resources.

Since the curriculum was computer generated, Mr. Morgan indicated that he did not know the content of the courses and was not familiar with the work that the students were doing. This made it challenging for him to engage with the students regarding their content, and his role shifted from teaching into monitoring the classroom.

When students asked questions about course content, the teachers both referred them to the Internet to find answers. During an observation, I observed Mr. Benton assisting a student in locating a social studies answer on Answers.com. They typed in the question and found that someone had posted an answer. The content on Answers.com read, “The answer is the Vikings. I just took the PLATO test.”

In the computer-assisted classroom, Mr. Graham, the school principal, was also observed engaging in the anti-dialogue pattern of discourse, as he primarily took on the role of redirecting student behavior. He regularly visited the classroom and circulated the room asking students why they were not working. He was observed entering and circulating the classroom. He did not speak to students who were on-task and completing their coursework, but routinely asked students who were off-task to get back to work. During one visit Mr. Graham held a class meeting to discuss students who were caught drinking on campus. From his position at the front of the classroom, he directed several students to look up from their computer, put their papers away, and listen while he was talking. He left the classroom directly after he finished talking, and the class remained silent. There was no space for discussion, questions or dissent.

Out of the three identified patterns of dialogue, the dialogue of silence was by far the most prevalent in the computer-assisted classroom. In this type of interaction, a participant spoke and no one responded. Most of the time, the classroom was silent, and when someone spoke often words seemed to hang in the air momentarily before moving through a brief point of tension and then disappearing. Part of this silence was due to the individual nature of the coursework and the physical structure of the classroom. Students side-by-side sat at their personal computers that all faced the front of the room. Although the arrangement of the classroom placed students side by side, their focus remained on the computers and it was rare that the students spoke to their neighbors.

The physical space of the classroom also had very little to communicate. The walls of the classroom were bare except for a banner that stated “Life is Good” with a picture of a golfer, a calendar from the previous year, and a list of student success teams. The front of the room had a pull down screen, which was never used during my observations. There were brackets to mount a projector on the ceiling, but there was no projector.

When students asked permissive questions, there was often no response from either classroom teacher. The expectation was that students would ask for permission to leave the classroom. When the students requested to leave the room, they often did not receive a verbal or nonverbal response. They typically proceeded to leave the room without obtaining permission. There was also no indication besides the school bell that class began or ended. Students entered the computer lab within a few minutes of the bell ringing and sat down at their computers. They were not greeted or welcomed to the room. The ritual at the end of class was similar. Students left the room once the bell rang without acknowledgment from either teacher.

Mr. Benton appeared to be fully disengaged from his learners and teaching in general. He described to me that he felt like a “peon” and told me, “I don’t really do much anymore.” Mr. Benton did not become an alternative school teacher by choice. During class time, Mr. Benton shared with me that he had been transferred to Alternative Horizons from his previous position teaching second grade. He indicated that this transfer had not been his choice. He commented on his new position by saying, “I don’t do much anymore,” and drew parallels between teachings second grade and his work at Alternative Horizons. He blamed the school district and shared that he could do more if the district provided him with the necessary resources. He said that even when he walked around, the students did not ask him for help on their assignments, so he primarily remained at his desk. At the same time, Mr. Benton had other hopes for his career at Alternative Horizons. He shared with me that he wanted to turn the computer lab into a “really cool tech lab,” but he felt that school district was holding him back. While specific details about this situation were unclear, it was apparent that Mr. Benton was interested in sharing his ideas with me while remaining disillusioned and disinterested in his current teaching position.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the computer-assisted classroom beyond the curriculum with a specific focus on the liberatory dialogue. My findings suggest that true dialogue was infrequent, communiqués were the norm, and a discourse of silence dominated the classroom. From these findings, I conclude that the technology maintained the authority in the classroom and that the staff and students lacked the agency to disrupt the banking model of education.

Both of the teachers in the computer-assisted classroom indicated that they wanted to see something different. Mr. Benton wanted a new and innovative approach to education, and Mr. Morgan hoped for a classroom filled with discussion and dialogue. In my observations, neither took a stand for what they wanted or what they believed was the right approach. They appeared to have no agency and lacked the ability to make decisions about their students and their classroom. Instead of teachers, they functioned as managers of the classroom, and they remained detached from both the students and the course content. They were conflicted about their roles in the classroom, and Mr. Benton went as far as indicating that he felt like a peon.

In Mr. Benton’s case, the computer-assisted classroom not only served as a dumping ground for students, but also for a troublesome teacher. He had been removed from his previous teaching position, and the computer-assisted classroom proved to be an effective placement for stripping his professional abilities. While Mr. Benton remained silent and distant with his students, he was seeking the opportunity for his voice to be heard. During my research, this became evident as he regularly shared his stories and frustrations with me—a visitor in the classroom.

As I was unable to interview students during this period of data collection, the students’ perceptions and voices are missing from this story. What does their silence mean? Is it an act of revolt or submission to the status quo? Data collected in a previous study points to the conclusion that students were heavily invested in the completion of their coursework despite frustrations (Miller, 2014). In this study, observation data did not refute this conclusion.

During my observations, the separateness between the students and teachers was evidenced by the lack of dialogue. Freire indicates that dialogue allows teachers and students to transcend traditional classroom relationships and to embark on the journey of creating knowledge together.

This shift was not possible in the computer-assisted classroom because the authority was maintained by the technology, and students and teachers were unable to disrupt the system that was place. While technology is often viewed as value-free and neutral, Feenberg (1999) reminds that it is value-laden and directly tied to the needs of the dominant social class. In this case, technology was a tool used for silencing students and teachers, while maintaining the existing social structure and removing the opportunity to disrupt the cycle of disenfranchisement.