Bad pedagogy as a source of hope

“When US universities closed DEI programmes under government pressure, it looked like defeat. But LSE HE Blog Fellow Ijeoma Njaka finds hope in recognising these policies as bad pedagogy – flawed in philosophy, ineffective in method, and impossible to fully control At a recent retreat with colleagues from other US universities and higher education (HE) organizations hosted by the Paradigm Project , we created a timeline together. On a long whiteboard wall, we sketched out the last few years by semester, and we used sticky notes to fill it with things accomplished. At the very top, we added key moments in the sociopolitical and HE landscape. Folks shuddered as we recalled certain moments – the 2023 Supreme Court ruling halting affirmative action, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its aims to close the Department of Education, the 2025 “Dear Colleagues” letter which threatened schools who pursued diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The sticky notes board of accomplishments and key moments. Image source: Ijeoma Njaka But then, in a hopeful voice, one of my colleagues pointed out something lovely: “And look at all the good work we did despite all of that bullshit.” (A paraphrase, but nevertheless captures the sentiment.) These authoritarian messages from our government could also be seen as a pedagogical strategy – and a bad one at that. My colleague’s observation helped me notice a pattern that made sense to me as a learning designer. These authoritarian messages from our government could also be seen as a pedagogical strategy – and a bad one at that. Yet, what my colleagues in HE managed to do, from creating pathways for historically marginalized students to complete their undergraduate degrees to collaborative ungrading in their classrooms, stood in stark contrast to the lessons the government presented. It was as though we were responding to bad policy in the way that students respond to bad pedagogy – subversively. Surprisingly, I found that very encouraging. I am not trying to trivialize the reality and consequences of US policies. However, I wish to call attention to the blind spots inherent in this kind of instruction – and counterintuitively, the kind of latitude they afford. By identifying some elements of the bad pedagogy on display, I wonder if we can find some hope in its subversion. Bad teaching philosophy An underlying fundamental of learning design is that it should be clear what knowledge is valued based on which actions are valued. Ideally, a learner demonstrates knowledge in a particular way – for instance, the correct answers on a quiz – and as a result, receives praise and high marks. When the US government threatened to withhold federal funding from HE institutions that championed DEI, it was an instructive choice outlining which actions would be acceptable going forward. I take issue with not only the style of instruction (more on that later), but also the philosophy underlying it. The top-down, one-way transfer of information by the government has similarities to what Freire refers to as the banking model of education . In this approach, instructors are presumed to hold relevant knowledge and they can deposit it into the empty minds of learners (to be later retrieved at will). In a course, this might take the shape of a unidirectional lecture from the instructor to passive students. Freire criticizes this model in Pedagogy of the Oppressed , where the oppressors are the ones enacting the banking model. Fortunately, the assumptions within this power dynamic are faulty. When a student arrives in class, their mind already has thoughts and experiences that an instructor needs to address if new understandings are to form. It is as though the regime knows this already; if these policies were truly applied in an empty context, without previous practices or understandings in memory, there would hardly be a need to incentivize compliance. Instead, we see the punitive incentive of withheld funds , intended to shift actions away from existing values and known alternatives. These shaky philosophical foundations extend into another element of bad pedagogy we can identify in the US government’s actions. Bad instructional methods It may seem like the top-down instructional style was pretty effective. In the face of threats, many universities complied by ending programs , renegotiating values, and abandoning their most marginalized students. With a stale lecture, new content is unlikely to stick. If information doesn’t stick, it is unlikely to reshape how a person understands something in the long run. Regardless, just as no competent instructional designer would suggest “learners will demonstrate how to compromise the ethos of the whole enterprise” as a learning outcome, the instructional method on display here wouldn’t be recommended either. In addition to the banking model being undemocratic and deficit-based, it is boring; this type of instruction is neither engaging nor effective . There are many hands-on and active teaching tactics designed to help new understandings not only form but also stick with a learner. With a stale lecture, new content is unlikely to stick. If information doesn’t stick, it is unlikely to reshape how a person understands something in the long run. I began this section with what seems like an important counter to my argument: schools listened to these threats and complied. Moreover, lawsuits were dropped because of perceived effectiveness. In the examples here, performing the assigned rote work from a lesson has very serious and material implications. At the same time, despite goals and completion rates, assignments and instruction can also have unintended learning outcomes. For instance, despite the white dominant lens of the education he received as their first Black American PhD graduate, W.E.B. Du Bois famously noted , “The honor, I assure you, was Harvard’s.” Completing this education did not curb Du Bois’s scholarship and advocacy for Black people. Going through the motions does not ensure that the intended transformation or altered worldview has occurred because of the action alone. Instead, critical understandings could be forming – and this gives me hope. Bad classroom management I can think of multiple instances where, as a student, I completed an assignment I was not excited about. In addition to turning in my homework, I complained about it, especially to my peers. While bored in lectures (or meetings), I have DM’ed or whispered to others in my community. These choices might be rebellious or rude, but they remind us that the person issuing top-down mandates cannot control everything their listeners do and understand. Though an instructor may chastise texting during class time, they cannot manage their way out of the critiques that emerge from their choice of instruction. Just as students might channel their frustration constructively into an independent study or unofficial study group, there is an abundance of HE scholarship highlighting rebelling against the broader oppressive structures through the undercommons , functioning as a ghost in the machine , and being undisciplined within the academy . Other organizations are quite explicit about their discontent and protests, such as the American Association of University Professors’ latest successes in halting a university policy to allow secret recordings of classes or the Georgetown University Law Center asserting their liberties . Despite the awful reality of an LGBTQ center staff member being fired after saying how they still intended to do their work in the wake of these policies, I take great comfort in what they said: “as a marginalized group, we’re used to these things, and we’re used to… finding ways around.” We still maintain agency. I am deeply grateful that this ability hasn’t been structurally curbed yet. Awaiting the end Though I am an educator, I am not usually one to immediately wonder what can be learned from a challenging lived experience. However, if lessons from how bad pedagogy can be subverted to help envision what might be possible in this sociopolitical climate, then I want to do so as we await the end of this very bad lecture. Main image: Wm3214 on Wikimedia Commons This post is opinion-based and does not reflect the views of the London School of Economics and Political Science or any of its constituent departments and divisions. The post Bad pedagogy as a source of hope first appeared on LSE Higher Education .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of LSE Higher Education Blog. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on blogs.lse.ac.uk/highereducation.