CANADIAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICAT ION, 1985, 2 ( I) , 107-122. ANDRAGOGY AND TEACHING CRITICAL COMMUNICATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis of this article is as follows. If the content of a teaching is belied by the process by which it is taught, the instructee will take the process as the truer indicator of reality-- just as one goes by nonver6aTsi?i a crossed communication when the verbal content is belied by the kinesics and paralinguistics of the delivery process. Thus the development of a discourse that facilitates critical con-sciousness raising on the topic of communication is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for producing critical consciousness in those taught, if the teaching method is pedagogy. For pedagogy is a process which soXa7Ees into u i i X s acceptance of a hidden curriculum involving becoming a passive consumer of transmitted information (McQueen, 1984, 1-2; 7-12). A pedagogical teaching process belies the "critical " communication content taught. Passive, other-directed stu-dents do not automatically turn into active, inner-directed citizens by exchanging their status as directed subordinates in an academic bureau-cracy for a similar status in a business, industrial or governmental one. Moreover, as education is a prime instrument of socialization, it becomes institutionalized into, and thus comes to embody, the dominant values of its host culture and society. Mere provision of a critical discourse cannot liberate large nunbers within the resulting system if the delivery methods of the system have to be used to convey the critical discourse. A critical discourse needs its own delivery system (which itself requires a well-articulated philosophy and methodology 1, and must itself be institutionalized with powerful interests to back it. The latter conditions are beginning to be met, in some sectors of society and academe, for andragogy. These developments do not, how-ever, necessarily mean that departments of communication studies, as they are presently constituted, wi 11 provide an institutional context within which an andragogical instructional process will be fostered
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".