Walking the Talk: Expectations and Intentions of a Popular Education Workshop

Background/Overview of Topic

People attend programs, workshops, conferences, and/or other events with a variety of intentions or expectations. They may initially attend as a work or academic requirement, or simply because others are attending. Yet, some learners attend because they are seeking enlightenment, personal or professional growth, or a renewal of their life goals. As planners engage in developing educational activities for participants, it is important for them to understand the many reasons people are attending (Caffarella & Daffron, 2013). Curriculum can then be designed to collectively address participant expectations.

Organizers can provide participants with information prior to attending, so they are able to prepare mentally, emotionally, and intellectually. Likewise, when participants share expectations with planners before an event, a learning community can begin to develop. Informed attendees are able to determine what they want to learn, and what they have to share with others in the learning experience. They are able to make educated decisions in the application or transfer of the new knowledge and workshop experience to their other roles. This allows them to judge the value of the material, make meaning in their own context or for their own community, and learn in a way that makes the most sense (Knowles, Swanson, & Holton, 2005).

In each workshop or learning experience, participants decide how they prepare and how much they wish to be surprised by the upcoming activities. Some participants arrive equipped with a clear understanding of what they can gain from attending. Others do little preparation, attending without any formal expectations to be more open to what will ensue. Both groups contribute to the outcomes of the workshop and have roles to play (Keefe, 2015).

When planning educational programs, it is valuable to communicate goals, objectives, and projected outcomes with the potential participants. Marketing and recruiting can help to shape the expectations of those who consider being part of the experience. Intentions and expectations cannot be and are not solely defined by the planners. The participants have their own intentions and expectations for educational programs. Recognizing and attending to these concerns opens the door to building trust between participants and planners, as well as among participants themselves.

Popular Education

Popular education is an approach to community education that draws on the works of Paulo Freire, who developed the term in Portuguese “educacion popular” from his work with the Brazilian peasants in the 1970s (Boyd, 2012). Tenets of popular education allow for collective agenda setting and flexibility, and also to carefully and respectfully design activities that bring in all voices and level the power in the room (Horton, Bell, Gaventa, & Peters, 1990). Community centers and social movements have used popular education methods to raise awareness, and communicate and engage with many different stakeholders. Often, popular education is used to support topics related to social justice, equity, human rights, collective power, and nonviolent responses with the end result of living in a better world (Boyd, 2012).

Through the use of popular education methods, people study issues collaboratively and collectively, and co-construct their learning without formalized outcomes set by an instructor prior to the program (Walsh, 2012). The general themes or goals of the program are known, but the curriculum is not fully formed prior to the meeting. Popular education provides a forum for the participants to engage actively in their learning while a “facilitator” serves as a coordinator and a resource to the group. The facilitator encourages safe and open spaces while providing activities for the group to explore issues and solve problems together based on their experiences and prior learning (Heaney, 1992). Using arts-based activities such as song, poetry, drawing, and drama, the group can develop a learning community that works together to achieve collective goals and democratic actions, as well as personal growth (Walsh, 2012). While popular education can form a long-term community learning project, it can also support an immersive workshop or nontraditional educational program. An important element of a popular education program is that when the workshop or project is complete, participants use the learning within their own communities of practice toward actions of change.

Educational programs may use popular education approaches depending on the context and program goals. Boyd (2012) sorted the approaches to popular education into six categories: folk education; education for social change; education for social, economic, and racial justice; community and leadership development; participatory action research; and popular education as a set of tools.

Popular education methods are rich in experiential learning, where instructional content focuses on addressing “concrete struggles and concerns of ordinary people” (Boyd, 2012, p. 3). Students are those same ordinary people, collaboratively participating in all aspects of their teaching and learning. They ponder potential solutions through dialogue. They learn together and teach one another through differing but real-life perspectives. Instructional curriculum adapts to diverse community and social contexts. Popular education practices use an “action-reflection-action” (Boyd, 2012, p. 3) approach for transforming new information into praxis. Praxis is the act of integrating learning into everyday activities.

While the educational methods that Boyd (2012) mentioned use these same popular education principles and practices, there are some key differences and enhancements between them. One consideration is that of residential versus nonresidential instructional settings. Participating in a residential setting takes participants away from everyday life, giving them freedom and space to more fully engage, learn, reflect, think, and ponder (Williams & Mullett, 2016).

Another difference was the degree to which a Marxist or a neo-Marxist framework informed the analytical aspect of a program and its work. Some added “a feminist critique to their analysis in their work” (Boyd, 2012, p. 4). There were programs that avoided political designation, whereas others were open and public about political orientation.

Some programs emphasize individual over collective development, and vice versa. Popular education methods bring people together from a variety of communities, who then collectively create knowledge that participants can use in their local communities. Conversely, some programs for social change encourage individuals to focus on their own public actions, creating their own set of knowledge and skills that can be used in future situations. Other programs see the community as a complete unit, where the whole community is then considered the “primary locus of learning” (Boyd, 2012, p. 4).

The last method or alternative educational type Boyd listed was “popular education primarily as a set of tools to be used when appropriate” (p. 7). Members in these learning groups are typically activists who work to help others promote and advocate for themselves. The set of tools is available for use, but only sometimes in certain settings. Other organizations existed to provide networking or popular education resources.

Problem Statement

This article is part of a larger descriptive study understanding the expectations, experiences, and implications of participating in two popular education workshops related to authentic leadership. We asked two research questions for this article:

This article describes the intentions and expectations of 13 community educators who participated in popular education workshops related to authentic leadership. The data were drawn from participants in two distinct workshops held in 2013 and 2014. All participants were invited to be part of this research study, with 10 participants declining to participate in the reflective study after the workshop concluded.

While some of the participants attended more than one workshop, each year’s experience was unique. Data were gathered through personal reflections after the workshops were concluded, based on the memory of participant intentions and expectations. Reflections may, thereby, be influenced by the workshop experience itself. As a descriptive qualitative case study, the information provided here is not generalizable for others, but contains insights for program planning that could inform future planners.

Method

We conducted an instrumental case study (Stake, 2010) of participants who experienced at least one of the two workshops, using a popular education approach. An instrumental case study is defined as follows: “A case study of a particular situation, but in spite of its uniqueness, [it is] being conducted because of its potential applicability to other like-situations” (Yin, 2011, p. 310). Although qualitative research is not directly generalizable, case studies of this type can inform and support other similar situations. Through this study, we hope to share insights and techniques for other adult educators or program planners.

Each workshop was 4 days long, held at a residential popular education center in Tennessee. The population included all who participated in the workshops in 2013 and 2014. At the beginning of each workshop, we discussed the study, and consent forms were shared and signed by the participants. Of this aggregate population, a voluntary sample of 13 people emerged to reflect on their experience. Together the two workshops are considered one bounded case study, as the recruiting and prior work were similar in each case (Merriam, 2009).

The study participants were invited to provide written reflections about the workshop experience, focusing on their intentions and expectations in attending. The data included 26 reflections (with names removed), one set written within a week after attending the workshop and a second set of written reflections approximately 6 months after the workshops. The second set of reflections was emailed to the workshop facilitator. Approximately a year after the final workshop, seven workshop participants met to engage in a 90-min focus group to again reflect on the workshops.

To analyze the reflections and the focus group data, the co-researchers, comprised of workshop participants, individually reviewed and coded an assigned set of reflections. They then partnered with another workshop participant to compare their individual coding results. This process ensured the trustworthiness and consistency of the research (Yin, 2011). An Excel spreadsheet was developed to organize the analyzed data, individually and as pairs, into columns of meaningful quotes. The researchers then developed themes associated with the analyzed data, and added individual memos or comments related to a specific quote or theme. While each pair of the research team analyzed one set of four written reflections, everyone had access to all the reflections. Individually, the reflections were disassembled into specific coded quotes, and then the pairs and larger group worked to reassemble the data through axial coding (Yin, 2011).

Results

The study’s findings are organized by themes related to participant intentions and expectations before they arrived for the workshops. Intentions can be defined as the aim or purpose in doing something, whereas expectations are strong beliefs that something will happen. Intentions and expectations can be understood as the rationale for attending the workshop or participating in an activity. Both words influence whether or not people participate in educational experiences. Although some of the participants were not initially aware of their intentions or expectations, they still made a choice to participate, and when asked, they described their motivations in a variety of ways.

As participants planned for their attendance at the workshop(s), some were interested in specific learning goals (Imel, 1999), whereas others were more open to what the experience was going to provide. Yet, the learners knew they were not empty vessels to be filled (Gadotti & Torres, 2009), and each had specific notions of what they wanted to learn (Glennon, 2008; Worth & Stephens, 2011). In their typical life settings, attendees were already involved in purposeful interactions and activities (Freeman-Moir, 2012), so many expected to enhance what they were already doing.

As some themes for intentions and expectations overlapped significantly, we ultimately clustered the findings under these headings: the Center as a destination, seeking renewal and inspiration, personal growth and learning gained from the experience, open-minded and flexible expectations, interest in the topic of authentic leadership, and professional and academic growth and networking. Below is a discussion of the themes with supporting quotes from the study.

Recommendations for Action

The Center still serves as an epicenter for social justice training. Even today, the Center’s staff is working with others on a project, website, and book called Beautiful Solutions: Toolbox to the Future (https://solutions.thischangeseverything.org/) to collect stories and create tools for a democratic, just, and sustainable future to build local solutions to community and global problems.

Our own actions reflect the goals of popular education. In this section, we suggest specific ways to enhance community building, storytelling and sharing, and establishing group norms into effective program planning. These recommendations come from lessons learned as a result of the workshops described in this article, as well as from the literature.

Conclusion

In this article, we shared intentions and expectations for participants who attended the popular education workshops. The themes for intentions and expectations included the Center as a destination, seeking renewal and inspiration, personal growth and learning gained from the experience, open-minded and flexible expectations, interest in the topic of authentic leadership, and professional and academic growth and networking. Then we provided specific tasks for those who plan programs related to community building, storytelling and sharing, and establishing group norms. Attending to the learners’ intentions and expectations will help to build a strong learning community that will create world-changing popular education programs. More importantly, our suggested tasks for educators promote principles of the popular educators Myles Horton and Paulo Freire and their commitment to individual and collective critical consciousness.

Horton (Horton et al., 1990) dreamed of a place where people could come together. He promoted storytelling, dialogue around the campfire, and the use of art and music to create cohesive groups in intimate settings first, before communally addressing more intense issues of social injustice. In his mind, academic learning was not enough; rather, personal connections between people were key to fighting norms designed and enforced by the status quo. He considered the power of the Center’s influential aesthetics, dedicating his life, safety, and finances to support and defend its space for learning (Horton et al., 1990).

Horton knew it was the common folk who provoked the most change in their worlds. They lived with the social injustices that occurred every day. These lived experiences inherently held solutions for overcoming prejudice, inequality, and discrimination. A fair and equitable social order could be developed through tenets of critical and social democracy (Horton et al., 1990).

Likewise, Freire (1973/1994) firmly upheld and advocated this same belief in social democracy. He further supported a democracy bathed in critical consciousness. Like Horton, he knew solutions to social strife lie in the hearts and minds of those immersed in daily bias and disparity. Freire also believed that creating social democracy could not be accomplished through traditional educational methods, like lecturing on its tenets and benefits in a formal classroom setting.

True social democracy is developed when like-minded people come together; such as they did in the Center historically. Social and critical democracy develop almost instinctively through actions suggested in this article, embodied through group norms, determined collectively, that encourage community building through storytelling and sharing. This success supports the idea of democracy in both education and societal dialogue, such as the participatory learning at the Center. Shyman (2011) supports this idea in his article acknowledging both John Dewey and Paulo Freire’s vision of democracy. He states, “The basis of the success of democracy, however, is not in education alone, but in the society members’ ability to dialogue with one another, thus preserving mutual benefit and awareness of the communal necessity” (Shyman, 2011, p. 1037). Both Dewey and Freire challenged democracy’s existence in both education and society. Every individual’s interests must be acknowledged within the existing dialogue for equality to exist. For a communal, democratic world to exist, all stakeholders must act to deconstruct barriers of power, race, gender, class, and so on, rather than simply acknowledging their existence (Shyman, 2011).

At the Center, it was evident that the group collectively established norms, providing an example of self-governing, egalitarian communication and negotiation. Shyman (2011) describes these establishments as “acts of knowing (Freire) or warranted assertions (Dewey)” (p. 1038). The individuals of the workshop group had similar and previous educational experiences, which helped foster an egalitarian environment. However, members had to critically reflect on their role to take away a deeper meaning of the popular education experience (Shyman, 2011). As the group attempted to build community, democratic principles began to come alive in discussion. The group experienced more difficulty with democracy when in large group discussions, but as they were invited into different communal and educational situations, a mutual understanding began to grow. Storytelling and sharing allowed the communal reality or authenticity to shift. Members’ experiences and perspectives that focused on social injustices triggered critical thought among others, which may have shifted their existing perceptions of authenticity. Although leaders were present to assist with topic discussion and dialogue, they understood their role as guides, which both Dewey and Freire see as essential to a thriving educational democracy (Shyman, 2011).

Myles Horton’s idealist visions (Keefe, 2015) were accomplished with our case study, even given different social and cultural issues. The Center has a timeless purpose as it provides a place for individuals to reflect and work within micro and macro parameters of their own authentic leadership skills. In addition to the themes raised in the study, these authentic leaders learned valuable lessons on how to navigate among other leaders establishing a workable social democracy (Keefe, 2015). Many of these leaders learned valuable lessons on how to guide a room full of “themselves,” so to speak. Even when tensions arose or vision was lost temporarily, there was a respect for the collective purpose. There was an understood, unwritten rule of responsibility to accomplish a task, just as others had earlier in American history. In respect of Paulo Freire’s popular education design, this group learned how to be more flexible in the groups’ collective agendas (Horton et al., 1990). As different visions were shared, it was clear that the space and the popular education approach were perfect for the situation. In this case, popular education taught the group members how to reflect on their own strengths and shortcomings as individuals and participants in a group. The Center’s popular education approach also teaches participants how to lead future groups in respect to inclusiveness and establishing social justice among their environments (Brookfield, 2002; Figueroa, 2014; Freeman-Moir, 2012; Gadotti & Torres, 2009; Lewis, 2012; Shyman, 2011; Tröhler, 2000), specifically in collective power and nonviolent responses (Boyd, 2012). In these workshops, popular education taught authentic leaders how to perform collective, authentic tasks in preparation to lead future groups of leaders with Paulo Freire’s popular education where the focus is critical consciousness.

Each group was guided using Paulo Freire’s popular education approach as well as John Dewey’s development of education (Shyman, 2011). As a group leader, it is essential to learn to navigate and guide leaders, while allowing them to recognize the power of their own consciousness (Shyman, 2011). It is essential to teach learners to be critical of their thinking and how they share information to collectively provide solutions or improvements to social group challenges or issues. Many times challenging discussions cause tensions to rise, and it is very difficult to remain calm. Yet, it is important to allow others to think and process information themselves, rather than trying to tell them how they need to respond. Popular education teaches group members that everyone has to learn how to process information in his or her own time and how to share information or hold back when others are trying to “get there.” Collectively the group evolves and observes others’ paths, which ultimately provides an appreciation for how and when information is shared (Shyman, 2011). Critical consciousness is best learned in a group and that is how these groups explored together to be authentic leaders. These leaders learned to improve together using a critical consciousness that was revealed through reflections of participants. This new and idealistic learning, as John Dewey and Paulo Freire describe it (Shyman, 2011), affects how learners will approach future social groups and how they share their conscious participation. Attending to the learners’ intentions and expectations can assist in building stronger learning communities that may create world-changing popular education programs.