Introduction

From practice-to-theory

This paper is a theoretical exploration of a pedagogy honed through the author's twelve years of teaching experience within a Victorian Government school. It builds upon previous writing (Heggart & Kolber, 2022; Kolber & Heggart, 2022; Kolber, 2023), and presenting to teaching colleagues around these approaches. As such, it has emerged from practice, and is here noting the theoretical elements that informed this practice. Within visions for democratic education, it appears too often theoretical concerns are prioritised over practical applications, which provides something of a gap for practitioners to overcome to enact critical, democratic pedagogical approaches within their classrooms.

This paper serves as an attempt to redress this, by providing a series of tools and approaches that can be achieved within a teacher’s direct sphere of influence, their own classroom and the interactions that take place within them. By outlining a combination of complex pedagogical practices, principles and tools, each of which, taken individually could sustain a career-long exploration, this paper seeks to show teachers a possible path forward. Though, when combined together, even in a dilettante fashion, they provide a solid foundation and possibility for democratic education. This approach is a ‘high friction’ proposal for teachers, requiring great dynamism and flexibility, but most importantly, a willingness to listen to, and indeed learn, from their students.

Indeed, it could be argued that pedagogy remains one of the few areas that teachers can reliably be considered to have autonomy, though even this is being constrained and increasingly restricted (Biesta, 2010; Heffernan, 2019; Kolber, 2022; Lilley, 2022). As such, this piece is aimed at teachers and educators seeking to achieve the lofty goals of democratic education through critical pedagogy. As this piece is written from within an Australian context, a true account of a democratic pedagogy requires a focus upon reconciliation with our nation's First Nations Peoples (Biermann & Townsend-Cross, 2008; Leroy-Dyer, 2018). For clarity, and to give the democratic framing of this piece sufficient coverage, the reconciliatory potential of this approach will be pursued elsewhere.

The limitations of theory

As the phrase democratic education is a "floating signifier" (Sant, 2019, p. 658) or too often limited to a simple slogan (Beyer, 1996), some focus must be devoted to clarifying the specific vision for democratising schooling being outlined here.

The approach proposed here comes from the Critical pedagogical school (Sant, 2019, p. 674), drawing on Gramsci (1971), Freire (2018) and Dewey (1916, 1938) conceptions of education for liberation, social equity and transformation. It is only through discussion of, and exposure to, the ‘real world’ (often conceived of as taking place outside of the classroom, or school) that students might be equipped with the tools to improve it. Indeed, within a multicultural and pluralist society such as Australia (Banks, 2002), the importance of teaching students an awareness of ‘racial, ethnic, gender and class inequalities’ (Beyer, 1996; Kincheloe, 2008) is of great importance. Indeed, it’s possible that by adopting the pedagogy explained within this paper, students may be able to learn ‘more effectively’ to meet expected needs, whilst also engaging with their society’s ideas in meaningful ways. This pedagogical frame provides a goal for students as citizens, rather than ‘citizens in waiting’ (Heggart, 2021; Heggart & Flowers, 2019) where they discuss moral issues of societal relevance and engage with contrary and opposing views.

As Lampert and Brown state, “a democratic education system requires teachers with a commitment, skills, and knowledge to change an inequitable system that often reproduces, rather than changes, the conditions that maintain disadvantage.” (Lampert & Browne, 2022, p. 149). The approach outlined here relies heavily upon teachers' reflection and reflexivity, but provides guidance for ways to build these practices into the pedagogical approach, through engagement with tools and approaches. The goal is that learners can decode their societal positions and power dynamics by reinterpreting the world (Giroux, 2004), and that during this process teachers are granted the same possibility.

Literature review

Social media tools to engage with the world

As we know, ‘democracy has to be born anew every generation’ (Dewey, 2013), and for teachers and educators in the current era, social media is where much democratic activity occurs, it is our agora.

Carr et al. (2015) recommend that student teachers should develop their own media to critically intervene in their communities; whilst others (Heggart, 2021; Heggart & Flowers, 2019) suggest students should also be doing this as part of their democratic engagement and education. As a large proponent of social media as a site for professional learning and teacher instructional video creation I suggest that both teachers and students ought to be making media and existing online in a professional manner, so that, links between schools and communities are encouraged (Veugelers, 2007) and made meaningful through digital means. Stevenson (2010) explains that “there is no radical politics that is confined to the classroom” (p. 78).”, schools and classrooms are not protected oases, and nor should they be.

As Giroux (2004) suggests “… any discussion of pedagogy must begin with a discussion of educational practice as a form of cultural politics, as a particular way in which a sense of identity, place, worth, and above all value is informed by practices which organise knowledge and meaning” (p. 33). In regards to cultural politics, the matters before society, researchers and teachers, are numerous.

Moving beyond traditional versus progressive frames

Across the United Kingdom (Hunton, 2018) and Australian social media (Watson & Barnes, 2022) there exists an ongoing debate that pits those who support ‘traditional’ teaching approaches against those who push for ‘progressive’ teaching approaches (Reid, 2020). The political intention of this traditional movement cannot be separated from the debate and discussion within the online space. The recent ‘traditional’ push can be typified by the ‘ResearchEd’ movement, a group supporting evidence-based, research-backed approaches within teaching and leadership. Through a form of ‘policy borrowing’ (Heggart et al., 2023) this movement can be viewed within Australia through the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) (Rowe, 2022); and local groups of ResarchED. Looking at the quality use of research more broadly the Monash Q-project (Rickinson et al., 2023) provide something of an insight and counterpoint to this movement. This traditionalist movement has spawned something of a focus upon Cognitive Load Theory (Kirschner et al. 2018; Lovell & Sherrington, 2020; Sweller, 1988); Explicit Direct Instruction (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2012); or often just Direct Instruction (Boxer, 2020) and an attentiveness to a narrow band of research evidence alongside an adoration for Rosenshine’s (2012) Principles of Instruction (Sherrington, 2019, 2020). This conglomeration of approaches is a challenge to student-centered learning, describing it and other, similarly framed ‘progressive’ approaches (Sherrington, 2019; 2020) as of limited effectiveness.

These arguments have impacts upon the work of teachers, too. Within Australia, D’Aietti et al. (2021) point out the conflict inherent within the Queensland education system where the rigidity of explicit instruction is expected to be adopted alongside a flexible culturally responsive approach. This reflects a conflict of approaches and ideals. Beyond this narrow context, nationwide, this type of disjointed and conflicted thinking is not uncommon, where an adherence to standardised and sample-based testing such as the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), Australian Council for Educational Research’s (ACER) Progressive Achievement Tests (PAT) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) are commonplace. This leads to a narrow focus on literacy and numeracy (Spillman et al., 2022) coexisting alongside the lofty goals of cross-curricular priorities within the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2014, 2023) and the Mpwarte Declaration (Department of Education, 2022). Such that resultant moves to promote equity within a widely economically stratified society and education systems, are all assumed to be able to cohesively coexist.

Here I attempt to unpack a combination of pedagogical techniques that may allow drawing from these two competing tensions to produce something reasonably satisfactory to both ‘camps’.

Democracy as pedagogical goal

This paper is attempting to explicate a means of effecting a democratic pedagogy, building upon the work of Dewey (1916), whose writing, though supremely influential, is rather dated. According to Biesta, Dewey’s treatment of democracy is “rather limited”. Too often the nature of democratic education (Riddle et al., 2022; Riddle & Apple, 2019) is conceived of as an important goal, viewed in the abstract, whilst rarely is this work brought into real classrooms. Pedagogy is an enactment of personal beliefs, world views, ontologies and epistemologies; although it is ultimately built upon actions that can be mimicked or adopted from outside places. Meaning that exploring new ways of thinking about teaching, requires both the thought processes and underlying messages, as well as the strategies and practical tools to enact them. This paper seeks to fill this need by making the enacted elements and processes clear.

This work seeks to build on the concept of teachers as ‘Democracy workers’ (Heggart, 2021, 2022) as well as the pedagogical techniques outlined within this text so that we might engage students as active citizens (Aly et al., 2022). Through seeking a ‘thick’ democracy (Apple et al., 2018) in dangerous times and amid crisis situations (Riddle & Apple, 2019) requires the dynamic and flexible work of teachers within schools. The approach outlined here pursues a role for education that serves democracy (Riddle & Apple, 2019; Riddle & Heffernan, 2018; Riddle et al., 2022), amid the widely recognised decline in confidence with this approach to government (Burridge & Buchanan, 2022; Kolber, 2022a; Wike et al., 2019), especially among the young—those who make up the students whom we teach. Yet this contrasts against the noted dynamism and engagement of the youth with activism around issues that matter to them (Heggart & Flowers, 2019), including notably through utilising online tools (Heggart & Flowers, 2019). Viewed holistically, the state of democracy seems both under threat, and also thriving, making the need for democratic education essential and also intellectually intriguing for teachers and educators.

Critical pedagogies limitations

Critical pedagogy hinges on the work, reflection and research of teachers, requiring “… the knowledge-work skills, the power literacy, and the pedagogical abilities befitting the calling of teaching.” (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 19), and a well developed pedagogical frame that builds these techniques into daily practice.

Whilst a “Pedagogy of the Shine in the Eyes.” (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 90) sounds powerful and will stick with any teacher who reads it, it’s also wildly insufficient as a truly proposed pedagogical approach. Critical pedagogy seems to lack, despite its best efforts, a grounding in lived reality, let alone the lived reality of teachers in the Antrhopocene within Australia.

The pedagogical model

The main scholarly contribution of this paper is the pedagogical model, a confluence of techniques, practices and tools to support teaching. The theoretical formula being proposed here is as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Pedagogical}\;\mathrm{practice}\;\mathrm{that}\;\mathrm{is}:\\\text{Accessible}+\text{relevant}+\text{efficient}=\text{democratic}\end{array}$$

So pedagogical practice that is accessible to all students; relevant to the time and geographic context of the learning context; efficient in its ‘delivery methods’ of learning is democratic.

So democratic education is education for everyone, so it needs to be accessible to everyone. It also needs to be relevant to their needs and interests, and reflective of the world they are a part of. But also, if it is going to work it needs to be efficient in meeting the learning and curriculum goals expected of teachers and students. When taken as a whole, and when applied together, these tools provide both the practice of, and the possibility for explicitly democratic actions within classrooms.

Accessible to all

The core tenets of a democratic society require an informed populace. This means that all efforts must be made to make learning accessible to all students. The simplest way to achieve this, is by creating learning artefacts with the end-user in mind. By using the very best of technology to create, interact with, and modify content teachers can achieve these aims.

The three techniques outlined here are: Instructional Video; Assistive technology and Generative Artificial Intelligence.

Instructional video

Instructional video provides teachers the possibility of bringing multiple voices and teachers into the classroom through video presentations. The use of curated video is common practice among teachers, a small number of teachers and creating their own videos for their own students (Torrington & Bower, 2021). Though instructional videos have become much more common in Secondary school and teaching within Higher Education settings (Fyfield et al., 2019a, b), the quality and effectiveness of those videos produced is still developing. Previous research such as Mayer's Multimedia Cognitive Load Theory (2002; 2005) provides explicit guidance on how best to produce learning artefacts for students. These principles, largely displayed within experimental conditions, have since been adapted and updated by Fyfield et al., (2019a, b) who noted 25, and later 31 principles for improving Instructional video design (Fyfield et al., 2021). Following and being guided by these research-based methods is the best way to seek out the positive elements of instructional video, produced by teachers regardless of context (Kolber, 2020).

Among the possible positives, videos provide greater potential learning than from static texts and PowerPoints (Atkinson, 2002; Fyfield et al., 2019a, b). One oft unconsidered benefit of producing instructional video, alongside the more tangible benefits, is the benefits to the teacher themselves, who practise and refine their delivery and construction of learning artefacts (Bormann, 2014). Indeed, whilst the effectiveness of flipped learning approaches can be questioned (Låg & Sæle, 2019), the benefits, affordances and positive outcomes of instructional video themselves hold great value. The simple process of filming one’s own teaching, listening to it back, and through editing and adding visuals, actively engaging with your own teaching is a deeply revealing and revelatory process. By posting instructional video to an online repository students have the option of engaging with teaching content at a time suitable and convenient to themselves. Within a democratic vision, instructional video can provide the relevance, accessibility and when applied effectively also the efficiency outlined above.

Inclusion through assistive / accessible technologies

Supporting all students with diverse learning needs is the goal of all teachers and the education system, in line with both international and local Government policy documents. Yet suggested movements toward inclusive schooling systems have largely manifested in a model that still excludes disabled and learning diverse students from mainstream schooling (O'Rourke, 2015). In the place of truly inclusive practices at the policy level, the two concepts of Differentiation (Tomlinson, 2001, 2014; Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Kolber, 2023a; Rossi, 2023) are being actively pushed towards through accessible technology use by teachers (Rose, 2000). The focus on these technologies can be viewed as rather surface level or shallow, but amid the realities of teacher workload (Heffernan et al., 2019, 2022) and school funding they seem perhaps the most realistic options for including all students in an expedient way.

Technologies that support productive and receptive language for students and those which allow for different performances of knowledge and skills for assessment are among those most crucial. Instructional video, itself, is a more accessible way of delivering content to students, and a means to make it more accessible, around-the-clock. And whilst the broad goals of ‘differentiation’ (Tomlinson, 2001, 2014) have great value, the realities of implementing these principles into schools remains an ongoing challenge (Sharma et al., 2008). For supporting productive language tools such as: ‘Dictate’, Dragon Speak, Live captioning for webinars and videos are useful interventions. Whilst for receptive language support: Read-aloud in Word, PDFviewer, etc., ClaroRead, and Pen Readers hold great promise - allowing students to read in aural ways, minimising cognitive strain. Alongside other tools for applying different means of assessment and performance Flip (Kolber et al., 2021; Green et al., 2021; Johnson & Skarphol, 2018). As well as developing strong class discussions and human-centric inclusive practices, these tools allow for all students to learn effectively. This is essential in a functioning democracy, where those with neurological or physical, or other differences have equal rights to education.

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI)

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) serves as a tool for teachers and students, the uses and limitations of which are still being explored (Nally, 2024). We know that both Academia and education have been slow to respond to these emerging tools (Enriquez et al., 2023; Leander & Burriss, 2020). Consistent issues emerge because “… the education and training sector is ill-equipped to make the best decisions about what product or service is most likely to address their needs effectively, or how to leverage the benefits of AI” (Luckin et al., 2022, p. 9). Yet within a democratic system, the widespread use of these tools within broader society means they have a place within our classrooms. It should be noted that the use of instructional video, especially those created by the classroom teachers themselves, does render some uses of GAI less relevant. A ‘chat bot’ that will endlessly answer students' questions (Cao & Dede, 2023), for example, becomes less pivotal when students can scrub back and forward through videos explaining key knowledge and skills. GAI can be used most inclusively as a shortcut for teachers work, most specifically when modifying written text for different reading levels for students. But the use of GAI in creative ways (Creely et al., 2023) by teachers is something of great value to support democratic teaching.

The clearest use of GAI however is twofold: teaching students the nature of AI; and using AI as a vessel for teaching ethics in a modern manner. Teaching students the nature of AI (Cao & Dede, 2023) is important in its own right, but as a way to show them what types of knowledge they should be focusing on. Namely those things that AI cannot easily reproduce, such as creative and critical thinking—as but one example. Secondly, using GAI as an item of discussion of ethics (as a legitimate part of our changing world) is of great import, revealing as it does many of the inequities within our world. Gender (Perez, 2019) and racial bias (McKnight & Shipp, 2024) being the obvious, though not the only items for consideration. Khosravi et al., (2022) outline the FATE model (Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics) of educational interventions supported by the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms—which might be a useful starting point for teachers considering how to adeptly apply these tools. We know that schools and universities have “the capacity to enrich the wider public understanding of our (un)ethical future with Ai” (Knox, 2022, p. 11) and this means being at the forefront of innovations and experimentation. McKnight and Hicks (2023) propose a use of Generative AI writing tools that put the focus upon discussion of ethics, rights and responsibilities in a way that puts the humanity of the student (McKnight, 2021), and authors more broadly front and centre. As with the other tools and techniques outlined here, the sentience and ability to choose is something that GAI can be used to emphasise within our student body. Indeed, both critiquing and using GAI within the classroom has great potential benefits for cultivating an inclusive and relevant classroom space.

Relevant and current

Teachers cannot be expected to be the only people bringing their experiences and insights into the classroom. Yet, the same should not be limited to students either. By adding a series of spaces where the world can be transported into the classroom space, teachers open up for real discussion and examination of the forces shaping their own, and their students’ lives. The two platforms outlined here are: YouTube and TikTok.

YouTube

The use of Youtube as the repository for videos produced for the purposes of Instructional Video and Flipped Learning is so common as to render this practice expected among teachers. The use of YouTube videos within classrooms has become mainstream, although the way that it is being utilised is still being explored in detail (Fyfield et al., 2019a, 2021, 2022; Fyfield, 2022).

YouTube is in many respects the ‘homepage of the internet’, especially for teachers looking for content to enrich and diversify their curriculum offerings to their students. We know for example that most teachers use a rather superficial ‘search and scroll’ approach (Fyfield et al., 2021, 2022) to source appropriate and precise instructional videos. This raises some core challenging questions for the use of Youtube as a classroom resource (Snelson, 2018), and indeed some states, most notably Queensland actively blocks use of the platform within classrooms. Copyright on the platform continues to be a challenge for teachers making use of this tool (Lin & Michiko, 2010) and is something teachers need to consider more carefully within their work.

The publication of teacher videos to YouTube provides a secondary use beyond the sheer utility of accessibility for students, namely, it provides a means to provide feedback on one’s teaching through analytics on videos. This feedback, and globally accessible repository of teaching content, provides a range of possibilities and benefits to teachers, which have not often been explored (Enticott et al., 2022; Graham & Longchamps, 2022; Owen et al., 2022). By utilising existing resources available via YouTube, and contributing their own to them, teachers can be a part of the broader movements to Open Educational Resources (OER) within education (Stevens et al., 2017)—being part of the democratising of information, as well as democratising their teaching.

TikToks

Having established briefly the utility of teachers producing, and using, videos more generally, the use of YouTube as a search repository and a home for teaching videos, It’s timely to move to an additional video hosting platform: TikTok. As a comparatively new platform, there is limited research into the use of this tool for education (Mercieca et al., 2024). It has been noted that TikTok has been used in interesting ways to examine young students' responses to online learning during lockdown teaching (Literat, 2021), the coverage of it as something within a teacher’s repertoire of media has been limited. We know it has been used to teach students science and research communication (Radin & Light, 2022) and that journalism students self-reported an assigned TikTok assignment promoted creativity and critical thinking (Henneman, 2020). The sheer number of users, counting over a billion (Iqbal, 2021), and the high usage rates among school-aged students provides almost a sufficient justification in and of itself. TikToks serve as perfect stimulus for discussion and for illustrations of ideas within broader society, there short, engaging nature means they can quickly draw students into discussing big ideas. They can also serve as a great source of new and alternative voices from around the world, bringing, often visually illustrations of alternative worlds and lifestyles viscerally to students.

Though the issues with Chinese ownership and the entanglements of privacy concerns associated with this platform cannot be put to one side (Henneman, 2020). For this reason, the use of TikTok within the class is not without issues, though with a simple workaround, educators may choose to email relevant TikToks to themselves, which will appear as vertical videos, removed from the platform itself, in some way ameliorating some of the privacy concerns and effectively shielding their students from them. Broadly speaking, pedagogically, we need to challenge and reach our students, both where they are, and where we would like them to be. TikTok, for all its flaws and cultural cringe, is where our students are, so can, and should, be used as a bridge between their home and school environments. It is worth noting also that TikToks created by teachers require a grasp of social media content creation, and most pressingly: brevity (Hartung et al., 2023), something required of all teachers within their communication to students.

Efficient

Whilst a fulsome return to an ancient, agora-like democratic education system might be ideal, or a reversal of the often ‘industrial’ vision of education we teacher’s work within (Sahlberg, 2021), these revolutions may be slow in arriving. The realities of teachers' work are largely confined and hemmed in by Curriculum documents and policies which they must meet the expectations of (Heffernan, 2018). As such, the only way to find time within a ‘crowded curriculum’ (Comber et al., 2017) is to be more effective, efficient and precise with teaching the core concepts. So doing, space is carved out for deeper thinking, relationality and developing a sense of community. The three pedagogical methods outlined here are Flipped Learning, Retrieval practice and Method of Loci.

Flipped learning

As with any teaching technique that involves technology, Flipped learning can be difficult to understand, and complex to implement (Bredow et al., 2021). Indeed, as a standalone alteration to teacher practice, Flipped Learning can often be a challenge without the additional pedagogies provided here. Flipped Learning (Bergmann & Sams, 2014a, b; Sams & Bergmann, 2013) involves a shift in the manner that classroom and home space is used. Where the ‘easiest part’, the delivery of information, is completed by students at home, allowing for the classroom time to engage with the more complex elements. Those parts where the presence of a teacher, or instructor, is of the most importance, depending upon the content being studied, this could include hands-on activities; experiments and so on. For the purposes of this paper, the classroom space could be used for any number of the options provided above and below as means to engage students in meaningful learning in dynamic ways. As the recent COVID-19 pandemic brought more teachers towards the methodologies of Flipped Learning almost out of necessity, and the possibility of this technique’s application seems at an all-time high (Kolber, 2022; Choi, 2021; Moorhouse & Wong, 2022). Recently, Hattie’s (2023) meta meta analysis delivered the approach an effect size of 0.56, he also suggested that stronger effects were found within non-Western than Western countries, but he also echoed the classical position, and challenge of Flipped Learning (FL) that “… there should be active learning in-class to complement the primarily passive pre-class instruction. But how this was implemented was far from uniform.” (Kapur et al., 2022, p. 4). Within the model being presented here, the active learning element is contained within the Socratic Circle technique within a broader Socratic approach. Hattie provides some suggestion that any positive outcomes are created by an increase in the amount of content able to be covered (Hattie, 2023), but it is this very fact that allows it a space within this repertoire of pedagogies. Whilst the investment of teacher time is significant, the resulting time made available makes many of the other methods outlined here possible and indeed easy to achieve (Cheng et al., 2019. Increasing content covered in class, whilst allowing more time for human-facing classroom interactions rather than direct instruction within the classroom is an excellent contribution to this model of pedagogy.

Retrieval practice

Retrieval practice is the use of strategies to help students to access previously learnt information. As such it is deeply tied to emerging neuroscience and our growing understanding of the brain. Its history is dated and supported most clearly through links to Ancient Greece and a continued tradition still adopted today by ‘memory athletes’ (Foer, 2012; Kelly, 2017, 2020) in the modern day. The idea that students should be retrieving, or drawing on information that they have learned during classes is a persistent feature of teaching more broadly, yet despite this, the idea has been revived more recently with some widely read publications (Agarwal & Bain, 2019; Howell & McGill, (2022); Jones, 2020; Jones, 2021), which coincide with discoveries in neuroscience (Karpicke, 2012; Karpicke & Blunt, 2011) that underline the importance of this approach. Whilst the importance of these practices around exam preparation (Hunton, 2018) has remained, quality teaching that considers retrieval practice has not typically moved downwards to younger levels of schooling (Tullis & Maddox, 2020). These ancient approaches have also begun to include more modern technology such as Spaced Retrieval Software (SRS) alongside the more old-fashioned Leitner model of cue card revision (León Romero, 2016), which provide promising avenues for further research.

A pedagogy that includes explicit memorisation or recall strategies and usage of retrieval practice is best able to address the concern about exam preparation and content-based learning. Whilst not broadly democratic, any intellectual tool and teaching approach that tightens clarity, uses time efficiently and avails itself of best practice can allow for a more exploratory use of time. So whilst Flipped Learning transforms the teaching approach, retrieval practice alters students' work at home, clarifying their skills at retrieving key knowledge, making it more likely for such knowledge to become a part of their discussions and during classwork of all kinds.

Method of Loci and embodied memory

Within our Secondary education system, students are mostly viewed as inert objects sitting in chairs, behind desks. Which leaves many elements of potential learning pathways closed off and overlooked. Simple proposals like leaving the classroom, (McInerney et al., 2011), or engaging the physical body in learning processes (Damsgaard et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021) can seem heretical. Indeed, a further step of considering a more fulsome ‘Place Based Education’ (PBE) may be ideal (Cubillo, 2019; McKnight et al., 2021; Simon et al., 1991), but beginning with method of loci and embodied memory is a suitable starting point.

By including these elements, the method of loci extends beyond the narrow conception of retrieval practice. It moves from the largely exam-positioned practice of retrieval practice which clearly meets the neoliberal needs of qualification (Biesta, 2015) and expands this method. Recently there has been renewed attention to memory methods spurred by interest in Indigenous approaches to memory (Foer, 2012; Kelly, 2017, 2020; Reser et al., 2021; Yunkaporta, 2019). Method of Loci approaches are widely accepted to be among the oldest mnemonics (Amiryousefi & Ketabi, 2011, p. 178). Within the literature, ‘Method of Loci’ (MOL) and ‘memory palace’ are at times conflated (Huttner & Susanne, 2017), and at other times separated. Method of Loci involves actual physical places, whilst memory palaces are mostly imagined versions of these actual places. Kelly (2017, 2020) and Neale and Kelly (2020) show a preference for physically ‘walking’ these places, observing the loci as a means to reapply the neural pathways associated with memory encoding (Reggente et al., 2020). These methods have been popularised by television shows such as ‘Sherlock’ and ‘Hannibal’ where the characters make use of imagined journeys throughout these places. The use of these methods within education settings remains largely uncommon, except perhaps among teachers of ‘Outdoor Education’ (Evans & Acton, 2022).

In a practical sense, the method of loci is used within this model as a means to get students walking through their school grounds, attributing key knowledge to objects and items. Embodied memory is using their own bodies, dance or created objects to perform a similar mapping of memory, thus allowing students to carry their knowledge with them, on their body, as well as within their minds. These two actions bring students closer to two things which are important, their bodies and their environment (both built and natural), both of which are important within a world flooded with devices and largely disconnected from our world, under the ongoing shadow of climate disaster. As such even removed from the broader concept of this pedagogical model, these two strategies hold great potential.

Democratic

The focus of this paper is freeing up time to create the communal moments of sensemaking that typify a democratic approach to schooling. These approaches are developed here through the Socratic Circles approach, alongside a broader Socratic approach to teaching. These two processes build upon the possibilities and avenues for discussion developed by the previous platforms and tools aimed at bringing the world into the classroom space.

Socratic circles & the Socratic approach

The concept of critical pedagogy has its very roots within the Socratic legacy (Mirgol & Saadatmand, 2023), so applying it back into our teaching methods is something of a natural progression. Whilst a great deal of research defines and lists this approach as Socratic, the idea of sitting among contemporaries in a circle and discussing a topic is universal. The most common approaches to Socratic Circles within High School settings is provided by Copeland (2023) who outlines clear policies and protocols to operationalise the broader Socratic approach. This co-occurs alongside a movement towards Socratic Higher Education lecturers (Trepanier, 2017). The work of these scholars, and others, provide ways of operationalising a broadly conceived ‘Socratic approach’ from prehistory into ways that fit the expectations of modern teaching and learning, and schooling more broadly.

The core distinction between this Socratic approach, as outlined by Copeland (2023) is a focus on pre-reading content to inform discussions and the possibility of teachers to provide guiding questions to the group and interjecting to redirect the discussion as well. A similar model is used for restorative justice in Canada (Bickmore, 2014; Hollweck et al., 2019), where the concept of ‘talking circles’ are common among Indigenous communities, and are being applied in classrooms (Bickmore, 2014). Kolber (2022b) provides a detailed guide through reflection protocols that guide students through not only an unmoored discussion with classmates, but also asks them to reflect upon the nature of their discussions and their personal and collective contribution to them.

Engaging with opposing and difficult views (Kolber, 2023b) within classrooms is essential for young students. Radicalisation online is a rather common event, as shown by the rise and popularity of Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson and other members of the broadly defined ‘Manosphere’ (Wescott et al., 2023). Developing a pedagogy that can holistically and flexibly respond to emergent challenges and ideas like these, and indeed whatever potentially harmful ideas that may follow. It may be difficult to address this process of radicalisation, or indeed misinformation (Graham & Longchamps, 2022), bringing these ideas into the light of active classroom discussion can allow them to be addressed openly. Indeed, in the example of ‘manosphere’ radicalisation, discussing these ideas within a co-educational, multi-gender class group can produce some well welcomed friction opposing these ideas.

In seeking a meaningful framework to shape the pedagogical tools covered within this section, Beyers (1996) model proves utilitarian, it suggests a focus on: critical thinking; reflection; discussion of moral issues; and expression of opposing views. Reflection being a core part of a Socratic discussion; critical thinking being embodied within the pre-reading; moral issues emerging from the content being discussed, and opposing views being core to the nature of discussions themselves. These four core ideas emerge within this Socratic classroom paradigm and provide an enriching experience for both teachers and students to engage in practices deeply human and democratic.

Discussion

When taken as a whole, this confluence of techniques allows all students to participate regardless of learning challenges, to learn from home, and to learn via mediums that they already use and understand. When applied together, they form a rather unified whole, which allows for class time to be ‘freed up’, making the possibility of whole-class interaction possible. By shifting some of the content out of the teachers’ mouth, and onto other platforms, the teacher can be freed to be more human with their students, focussing on relationships and genuine, time-intensive and deep discussions.

A great deal of accessibility can be accessed through Instructional Video, Assistive technology and Generative Artificial Intelligence. This accessibility can support students with different learning needs, but also allow all students to succeed as accessible content is more convenient for all learners. By using and indeed posting content to YouTube and TikTok, teachers can remain relevant and current, and bring outside voices into their classrooms. These outside voices provide teachers tools to bring key ideas from within the broader public discourse and zeitgeist into their classrooms. These voices are not selected at random but are used as a tool to bring a light to ideas harboured within the classroom that may well be worth further consideration. As discussions can be time consuming, Flipped Learning provides alternative pathways for students to learn and revise. More discussion tends to mean less testing and exam-preparation, so the dual techniques of Retrieval practice and Method of Loci are leveraged to make students' revision as precise and as meaningful as possible. As both a final method, and the ultimate goal of this model, the democratic enactment of a Socratic approach from teachers ensures all things are considered critically. Then the Socratic circle model is the primary means of getting students interacting with one another and bringing their ideas to light within the classroom.

As noted, this combination of techniques is complicated and asks a great deal of teachers in terms of their own professional and developing pedagogical practice. But when one considers the nature of challenges facing both education and society broadly, these techniques start to make sense. The use of digital technologies are used in service of learning, and in service of a more human vision for education—rather than being assumed as the saviour for all of the ills we face (Selwyn, 2013).

Conclusion

Whilst the challenges of Critical and Democratic pedagogies are important, they can tend to be left without practical applications. Whilst the work of renewing the foci of critical pedagogy anew each generation must continue, there is also a strong need for an approach accessible to teachers themselves to attempt these lofty goals within classrooms. The combining of techniques here brings forth some strategies that may be unfamiliar with many teachers, even due to being too old, or indeed too new. The goal here is to create a renewed ‘language of possibility’ (Boronski, 2021; Giroux, 2001) for teachers and educators who learnt from the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic that technology provides many affordances for learning (Owen et al., 2022). Whilst also taking heed of the manner that these same technologies were found wanting for human connection, community and the safety and power of being within a classroom and in conversation and discussion with one another. What is proposed here is a pedagogy for our time and for our place.