"To alienate human beings from their own decision making is to turn them into objects." Thinking back now, I can remember so many teachers that have relied on the banking method the Freire describes, especially, sadly, in college. The best classes I have ever been in were heavy on discussion, inquiry, and discovery. But those classes were fewer and farther the older I became. The methods we have been discussion in class and/or have been reading about seem so intriguing and fun. I don't understand why so many teachers would lapse into this objectifying banking method. What makes that so appealing? Is it tradition? Or is it merely a cop-out for an easier way to "teach"? I know there is a time and place for everything, but persistently teaching that way seems temporary and destructive. It is a sub-par way to do our job.
Also, just a note, can I say these Google verification CAPTCHAs are getting a little out of hand? I wasn't a robot 10 seconds ago, so I'm probably not one now.... probably.
I'm glad I missed the CAPTCHA, although, sometimes the things it makes you type can be amusing.
As to Dawson's question, I think it's a mixture of what is easy and what is tradition. Some teachers may also have been specifically taught to only or primarily use the banking method. Some schools may even prefer that as it's what society seems used to and at times, it's very difficult to break society from established norms and habits.
I think teachers rely so heavily on lectures in class because they are straight to the point of the lesson. Teachers, sometimes, believe that telling students what's what will get the student learning and will make the teachers job easier. And I have to admit, it is easier for the teacher, in many ways, to just tell students what te right answer is. Whether or not students like being told what's right and wrong, these philosophers demonstrate that students are bored with this experiance.
To play a bit of devils advocate, isn't it easier for BOTH teachers AND students to use this form of teaching to ensure that all material is known for standardized tests?
In the Freire excerpt, I thought it was very interesting when he talked about the oppressed individuals becoming dehumanized. After reading the Wink excerpt, I could relate the two concepts directly to teaching. When Wink discusses the use of the word "minority" and all of its negative connotations, you can understand how being in that category in a classroom can sometimes be dehumanizing. I do understand why teachers must use the word for descriptive purposes in legal transactions and documents to protect the students' rights, but otherwise, I agree with Wink, it is unnecessary. In the Freire summary, it reads "DEHUMANIZATION, which afflicts both those whose humanity has been stolen and those who have stolen it, distorts the process of becoming more fully human." In referring to students as being a part of a minority, we are not only stunting their ability to evolve and grow, we are stunting our own.
I also found a connection between the Freire summary and the Dewey article to be interesting. Freire talks about the "banking method" of teaching. He states that in this way of teaching, students are the receptacles and teachers are the ones making the deposits. Not only is this dehumanizing for the students, but they also learn nothing this way. Dewey speaks of similar issues, saying "...teachers would find their own work less of a grind and strain if school conditions favored learning in the sense of discovery and not in that of storing away what others pour into them." I think this is such an important statement. Many of the problems with changing the way of teaching in today's society have related to the fact that teachers think it will be "too difficult" to change. Dewey makes a solid argument against this theory, explaining that if students were more engaged and discovering ideas on their own, they'd be more receptive and it would actually be easier to teach them in the long run.
This is an excellent point. What many forget is that discovery or inquiry type methods aren't just better for student learning, they also make teaching much more of a joy. Sure, lecturing and sounding all smart and imagining having students hang on your every word may SOUND fun at first, but it wears thin pretty quickly. But a whole group of people all searching together and uncovering truly new ideas? Now THAT is amazing!
I experienced the same thing, Sabrina. I had trouble relating Freire to education at first, especially in the first few summaries but after reading Wink's piece I was able to understand where it came from more clearly. I liked how he explained dehumanization and how it related to a classroom, where you are essentially trying to improve a student's quality of life, becoming more human and not feeling like they are less than the teacher.
One of the summarizing points in the Freire article stated that education is "either/or" in nature, meaning it either accepts the status quo of current society or it advocates change by a constant questioning and reconstructing of ways to change society. Wink states that passivity is an active choice. By shifting our perception of teaching away from the banking concept, in which we merely fill the dehumanized receptacles with information, we are advocating change by giving creative license and freedom of thought back to students. Students learn nothing of importance if we merely spoon-feed them information. Who can gain anything of worth from that type of education? If we have the attitude that we can all learn from each other because of our own diverse perspectives then real discussion and authentic learning will occur. We must encourage them to think critically and constantly question the surrounding world and we can do that by simply refusing to dehumanize students and actually listen to their questions (Wink, p. 80). I did not go to GCSU for my undergrad, but I have heard quite a few different approaches to teaching literature from my professors. I had one professor in particular who had a rather steadfast view of teaching. He would stand behind the podium and lecture, trusting that us students would take in every ambrosial drop of wisdom he spoke. In his praise of traditional interpretations of literature, which were very much in line with Harold Bloom's commentaries, he was kind of an anomaly among the English department. Most of my professors encouraged new, creative thought in our papers. They did not want to hear their own words and ideas repeated in essays. These essays would be deemed "yawn-worthy" and tired if they did reflect the teacher’s views. If views of education are either/or then I see myself as being a teacher who is an “architect of change.” I plan to go through several stages of unlearning and relearning as Wink writes about in the excerpt. Changing my perspective of learning and trying to reconstruct my ideas does seem a bit uneasy, but it is necessary. I need to re-evaluate and unlearn some of the assumptions I have toward education, especially at this early stage when I’m just now learning the in’s and out’s of it all. I think it is important to note that establishing a personal stance on critical pedagogy is not a one-time thing. Our views should be unlearned and shifted with the changing society and flux of new information.
Gosh, sorry about the long-winded comment here. Here's me trying to be concise: considering all of the reading, are there any other ways that education can "dehumanize" students? Wink mentioned using the terms "track," "at-risk," and "minority," while Friere mentioned ignoring students' questions as a form of dehumanizing and in his banking concept stated that students are sometimes treated as objects and receptacles waiting to be filled. Are there specific ways in which we, as teachers, can ensure that our students feel valued as individuals?
One thing all the truly great teachers I know have in common is that they develop authentic relationships with students, they become mentors to kids. I think that is something that helps students feel valued as individuals.
My favorite teacher in high school was a wonderful mentor, just by being there for her students. Any question we had she could answer and in a way that made us not feel dumb. I would go to her for advice on different matters or just talk to her about teaching. I think showing that you genuinely care for your students makes them feel valued. When I was tutoring at Baldwin, my students had teachers that kicked them out of class for the pettiest things. By showing that I wanted to be there to help them, they wanted to come to tutoring. Most students want to do well, they just need to know that you're willing to help them however you can!
I really like your point near the end about how choosing critical pedagogy is not a one time thing. A major part of any critical philosophy is the idea that we must never trust our foundation. We can spend years building what we consider a solid position to stand on, but to truly practice critical literacy our next steps would need to be tearing it all down to build it again.
Living an examined life is a full time occupation.
I dont think that we need to build up a foundation only to destroy it after so many years. If a system works, there will be at least some points that stand the test of time even though other parts need to be remodeled. Rather than instructing teachers to not trust their foundations, critical philosophy calls teachers to revise, adapt, and even build upon what works to make things better.
In Wink's Critical Pedagogy, he says, "I wanted them to move into confusion." We read about a mindset similar to that in the Literature Workshop book that we read in June. In that book the author talks about how confusion is a good thing, and actually represents a step forward, as your thought processes have been challenged and you are trying to reconcile knowledge with confusion to produce revelation. Confusion should be viewed with respect not disdain. It is through trying to reconcile confusion and knowledge that we can produce insight and can move beyond our understanding into something new and fresh. New question mean new answer, as Wink says. It is imperative that we, as teachers, recognize, that our previous notions of teaching need reflection and re-learning, and maybe even un-learning. We can never contain all of the knowledge that we need, but we can strive to get as close as possible for the betterment of our students. It is the interaction between teacher and student as a whole that generates liberation, even from things not seemingly representative of the oppressor oppressed paradigm. We are all teacher and we are all learners. It was the students who showed him what they needed from a teacher, and that is something that changes year to year, otherwise we are oppressing, no matter how minimal, and in that lack of discernment we can fail to be as good as we could have been.
May I just say, kudos on that most excellent connection between Wink and that Blau book we read last semester.
I wish the whole unlearning wasn't quite so painful. It can be difficult to realize that "just because something seemed to work for me doesn't mean it will work for others," or to realize, "hmmm...what I thought all this time was completely incorrect!" In recent years I've decided to enjoy unlearning and relearning. Anything that is going to improve my teaching is appreciated!
I'm going to pretend for a minute that you have free time to devote to extra reading.
If you are interested in the idea of confusion as a philosophical (and educational) necessity, you should try to check out some of the earlier dialogues written by Plato. The one that most readily comes to mind is called "The Meno" in english. A common theme in these works is basically what Blau said in his book, before we can begin to teach (or learn) we have to recognize that there is something we don't already know i.e. we have to be confused about something.
I find the notion of "teaching to change the world" and interesting thought. How often do we realize that even in our everyday lives we come across people who may have done extraordinary things and we will never know. I wonder how many teachers have wondered what their former students have done once they have left their classroom. What is at the heart of the mindset of "teaching to change the world"? Who is it focused on primarily? The teacher? The student? The world?
Ben, that's an extremely interesting thought. There are so many questions to ask behind "teaching to change the world." I think that we, as teachers, should consider how to inspire students to do great things beyond their own perceived abilities, and this, in turn, shows that we, as teachers, are attempting to change the world through our students.
I think another important question when considering your comment is how exactly do we do this. All of the philosphy presented in the reading sounds great, but how do we put it into practice?
I really like that description. I think putting it into practice is the hardest part, because that requires mixing theory with action: praxis. Once we are inside of the classroom and have some experience, I think more of this will make sense and it will be more available for us to think about execution.
I think "good" teachers think about where their students are often! (I.e. Atwell & Jeff, Dr. Power & Quint) To me, teaching to change the world is to give students the gifts of intellect, critical thinking, and empathy. So much of the conflict in our world stems from both a lack of understanding as well as empathy, and I think a higher standard of humanity begins at large through education.
I think that "teaching to change the world" is good concept however, I don't think I necessarily look at it as changing the world as a whole. I think that as a teacher I would want to get to know my students as much as possible, be a light for them and encourage them to do their best. I want them to know that I am going to believe in them. That I will always try my best to be there for them with they need help with something. I don't think that I will do something to change the entire world although I would like to try, but I would love to change the world for at least one person and I think we as teachers can do that.
This is an interesting concept, and going off of what both Chelseas are saying, I think that investing time in each individual student you are then "teaching to change the world". By identifying and caring for each student you are teaching empathy and kindness, and to influence generations that could retain this they can then go and influence the world.
Ah! Wonderful comments, it's hard to pick a place to begin. I think that "teaching to change the world" is an amazing goal and idea. I also think that changing the world can be as simple as changing one student's world. I also think, going back to Ben's original question, that it is focused pretty equally on the student and teacher. The switching dialogue between the two learning from each other would imply that they are both becoming better and more capable of changing the world. I agree with Werner's comment that changing the world entails giving students critical thinking skills and that results in a higher standard of humanity.
Wink supports this argument I think. He writes "I seek to make the strange familiar and the familiar strange." He seeks to make his students think about what they know and question it, and then in turn be comfortable with what they do not know.
Dewey, being one of the most influential philosophers in America, has similar ideas as the above two. He views the teacher as a partner in learning (as Freire explicitly states) and education is essential for the growth of society.
Some argue that one of the reasons education is not all that great in the U.S. (many other countries rank above us) is that many of those in power don't mind if most of the populace is rather uneducated. It is a lot easier to govern a populace who is easily manipulated. What do you all think of that theory?And there is plenty of research that shows that while education is supposed to level the playing field in the U.S., actually low-income people receive the lowest quality education and high-income people receive the highest quality.
Comment: I'm not sure what to comment on, other than the fact that Freire's "banking concept of education" perfectly describes how much of my teachers taught in high school. It was that repetition of actions that made school drag on and on, and I think it's awesome how Freire was able to talk about this concept and what can be done to focus on a more problem-posing education.
I thought the same thing while I was reading that. Even the teachers I really enjoyed adhered strongly to that type of educational framework. So I find myself in a weird situation where I loved what some of my teachers did, but did not like what other teachers did, even if it was a similar style. That leads me to believe it was the personality of the instructor. Pedagogy is important, but so are the things not influenced by educational theories. Lemov states that some ofthe best stuff is that which is not addressed by educational theorists. So by looking at other disciplines and seeing how those affect us could help us improve the stuff that is not looked at by education.
I completely agree. Some teachers just seem to "get it" and understand their students so well, and that's my goal. This is why I'm so excited to learn each day in class! I want to learn the different disciplines and figure out what methods students respond to best, which ones I think I could be good at, etc. This is the kind of learning I like!
Yep! Banking system = teacher-centered model. It was interesting to read some philosophical-based reasoning to back up our focus on learning a socio-cultural teaching model in class.
It was how many of my teachers taught as well. True, some tried to mix things up with visual aids or occasional fun activities, but overall, I think I spent most of my time learning the three 'Ds'-- doodling, drawing, and daydreaming.
Question: In the Freire excerpt, I got the feeling that this was one of the "pick one or the other" discussions. Are there ever times where the "banking" type of education could be useful? Or maybe a way to combine the different types of teaching?
I agree. He definitely set up an "either/or" dichotomy for education. I do want students to be "filled" with knowledge, but I do not necessarily want all of that knowledge to come from me. I completely agree with the idea that we are all teachers and learners. I think if someone does teaching in a banking type way, he or she should try to give students the opportunity to use that knowledge in a discussion prompted by meaninful questions.
I think an answer to that requires us to look at the substance of the two theories. I firmly believe that there is no absolute in education, but rather a bunch of different thoughts and ideas that settle into camps and pump out research to examine their own ideas and whether they are still effective. That being said, there will be instances when it could be useful; it is by examining your class that you find the most useful approach. Ultimately however, talking about things and getting students to focus on the questions that matter and topics that are not hollow, allows for a great discovery. Sure some things might be better taught using the banking method, and some may lend themselves to others, but a combination of the two I think could be quite beneficial and useful.
My biggest problem with the "banking model" is that I don't think that what happens there can truly be called learning. Especially if all we are doing is lecturing, and all students are expected to do is remember those lectures. I find it hard to imagine any student actually synthesising anything valuable out of that experience.
This is in addition to Freire's biggest problems, which mostly revolve around the idea that banking education is little more than a propaganda delivery tool designed by the people in charge to create a well indoctrinated citizenry.
I think *some* things benefit from the banking model, but should be accentuated with additional methods. I.e. math stuff, since so much of it is hard and fast formulas... but then, perhaps I'm just not thinking of it in the right manner...
The writer *does* suggest teaching students to memorize base things (i.e. times tables) so they can focus on higher learning that branches off from the basics. I think the banking method would be helpful for those. Again, additional methods may be helpful too, but it's a good starting point, in my opinion.
I agree with David, in the banking method neither the students nor the teacher are really learning. I think that in order for either/both to truly learn they need to actively engage in the material. Otherwise it is just meaningless facts being shot at them.
I do see where short lecture could be used in classes to convey information but I do not see how it could be effective in transfer without immediately applying it to some other kind of engaging activity to reiterate the information they just received.
Comment: I know that Wink is dismissive of his labels, but Freire's language in "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" really does sound like literary Marxism to me. It sounds like he is predicting some kind of proletarian uprising of the mind, where the weak and oppressed will "Seize the means of understanding." I don't think this is a problem, I just find the similarities interesting.
Yeah, I kind of liked that about the reading; it was very passionate and brutal, in a sense. Describing the woes of the established educational model, and wanting liberation. I kind of like that radical stuff; because from the "extreme" thoughts come the biggest insights, I think.
As a non-english major I can only give an outsider point of view on this but I do believe the "read whatever, write whatever" is still viable as a portion of the class. It would allow for creativity and inquiry on a self analytical basis. However, I do think it has become important to incorporate more structured lessons to address standards as well.
Comment: The Friere article basically just reaffirmed what we have learned so far in class, from a logical standpoint. Friere explains that, just from a human standpoint, inquiry based teaching methods treat students as intelligent beings and not "knowledge receptacles." Although this article did not introduce any "new" concepts to me, I found the language and logic even further reinforced my belief in the benefits of the inquiry system.
Question: Meep I don't really have a good question. What are some ways that we can use Friere's arguments and statements in our own classroom?
This is why I am so excited to get deeper in the Lemov book; I can't wait to see instances and specifics in which the inquiry system can be implemented.
The simplest way to integrate Freire's ideas into our classrooms, as far as I understand them, is to encourage critical thinking.
Teach students to ask questions about anything and everything, and never ignore a question once it has been asked.
Teach students that nothing can be trusted until it is tested, and that that should include anything you are told by a teacher.
Let writing and discussion have an important part in the educational process,students will benefit from each others ideas just as much as they will benefit from yours.
i think it's also important to keep in mind that all of our students are different. what works for one group may not work for another. we have to take into consideration what their needs are so we can help them become the best they can be -- not just the year that we have them, but for many years after they leave our classroom. i like to think about the long-term, too.
i also agree with dave about writing & discussion having an important part in this whole process. i love when students can bounce ideas off one another. they tend to have similar interests (not always), but we, the teachers, do not know all the "up to date things" going on in middle schoolers' minds & what not. so, something that they say may trigger something completely different from the examples i would give.
QUESTION: for me, i agree with the following statements -- "teachers & students are simultaneously both teachers & learners. they learn from each other & help each other learn. (freire, 59) how would you guys go about making your students feel like they can be teachers, too? kids teach me so much, but do they realize it? how can we show them, the students, that they are just as important in the learning process as the actual teacher?
Jessy, I was thought about this statement too. It's one thing to think, "Hey, that's a great idea," and another to ask, "How can I do this though?" I think a simple statement like "I never even considered that idea before" can go a long way, but it does seem a bit artificial. There's also body language and facial expressions that can show a teacher's excitement about students' ideas. These are just ideas, but your question is a good one to think about.
I think the best way to show them is to honor the suggestions they make and trying to show them that you are making an effort to accommodate what they are saying into what ever it is you are doing. One mindset that is easy to get bogged down in is that of "Am I doing enough?" That is a good thought to have, but often I think we get can consumed by that, so by focusing interacting with them and saying, "Are we doing enough?" we can potentially avoid creating subconscious barriers between us and the students and accidentally solidifying certain roles for each participant.
I really like the idea of creating a "safe environment" since I first heard about it, and I think this is important for students to feel comfortable sharing their opinions. I think asking questions to students and letting them answer freely will allow students to feel as if they are teaching or at least offering new ideas/insights. Saying things like, "I've never thought of it that way before," can really help boost the confidence of students and that's so important. I think it's ideal to be a teacher who is open to new ideas and admitting you don't know everything and you might not have the answer is going to create a classroom where student.
Ooooh this is a GREAT question. I think opening expressing to the students when they have taught us something would be a way to start. However, sometimes we don't even realize we've learned something until later. But using words of affirmation and agreement would be a step in helping students realize they can teach us things, too.
I agree with Chelsea on this one. Telling the students they have great ideas or that they brought something to light that I hadn't thought about before is a way to start for sure. It will give them a sense of accomplishment and will make them feel like they are a part of the teaching process as well.
COMMENT: i had dr. lindsay for stress management & love seminar, both psychology classes, here at GCSU. dr. l. diverted from the conventional way of teaching his classes that i had been accustomed to. he always challenged us to go beyond just a one word answer & to dig deeper into why we thought the things we did. dr. l. didn't just do things like he was told even if it risked getting into trouble every now & then. he deviated from the typical type of classroom teaching & allowed us to lead discussion & have the freedom to do so however we wanted. i remember in our "love class" he gave us a book to read each week & then one of us would lead the discussion the following week. we could delve into whatever we wanted & it, in turn, brought about raw emotion & insights we wouldn't have received otherwise (from lecturing or giving us a powerpoint & reading it to us). it was a neat experience! so, i could see him shaped by some of these principles of critical pedagogy, which i can relate back to the dewey article where he argues that, "in order for education to be most effective, content must be presented in a day that allows the student to relate the information to prior experiences, thus deepening the connection with this new knowledge." personally, i think it's fine to bring in prior experiences. it's what you know. so, why wouldn't you want to find a connection in that?
in addition, this MAT is like no other. there's a relationship between learning & teaching. that's why i really enjoy the cohort model. And, our motto, "Architects of Change" can be related to critical pedagogy because it's giving us the opportunity to mold, sculpt, & shape those that we come in contact with, whether it be our students, our colleagues, etc. as well as be molded, sculpted, & shaped ourselves.
last, i'd like to think i'm the "teaching to change the world" kind of person. we never know how we may inspire someone or if something that we say changed the mind of a student, but i'd like to hope that we can change the face of education, no matter how great or small, for the better. i think as an educator i will go through many phases of learning & building upon what i learn in hopes of becoming better at what i do. i do not want to be in an environment of my students just repeating what i say. wink says, he's learned "to see & know in new ways." i like the way he worded that. i think that teaching is all about that.
I think you have just answered your own question. To get students to see that they are both teachers and learners you have to build that community and relationship between the teachers and learners. If you get your students to love and respect you, each other, and the subject, then the cohort model will form. You get to participate in your own "mini" cohort and it sets everybody as almost equal. You are all learning together. Your dominance is only there as the acquired authority figure that keeps the students safe and in line, initiates the learning, and then you just help let learning happen.
I have a sort-of metaphor for the Wink readings... so bear with me. She notes how we as teachers must be willing to change, to constantly, learn, grown, and adapt. We also have to be willing and able to fail. Because, as Dr.Power wrote in her final email to us "Juners", we will fail, but we need to be prepared for it. We cannot help everyone. Wink shows how we must be ready to have our bones broken, to have everything that we are building and developing in this program fractured at the molecular level. When those tiny tiny fractures occur, we learn, and we heal, and when that happens, the bones are stronger. We have to do what is difficult, what hurts. To be fully absorbed in Critical Pedagogy, we have to be broken and reformed, and quickly adaptable to our surrounds, constantly searching for the best way possible to teach our classes. Just because it worked once, doesn't automatically mean that it will ever work again. We have to open our minds and our eyes, because when we are willing to learn everything, willing to learn from our mistakes ...our students will be able to.
I like you metaphor, but I would change "bones" to "muscles" because what muscle building exercises do is create tears in the muscles, but that is exactly what makes them stronger. (I think I'm right on this, Jess can probably say it better.)
true that. And, haha. yeah muscles would work. if i remember correctly it's called delayed onset muscle soreness (otherwise known as DOMS). it's where you get sore at first, but then as you do it more, you adapt. And, as you continue, it builds upon what you've created & you no longer get as sore as you once did. but, there's always risks & always ups & downs along the way. And like atwell says, "doing my best hurts."
so well said, dawson. bravo. i love reading your responses. extremely thought provoking.
Comment: The thing that resonated most with me from the Freire reading was the line where he equates the traditional form of teaching with an act of violence against students. At first most of us probably had the reaction of "Wow, that seems like a bit much", but after thinking more on it, he's not far off. Teachers that only lecture and ask questions with a single correct answer are stealing hundreds of hours of time from students that they need to be successful in life and possibly go on to higher education. Imagine if all that time was in a quality classroom.
Will, I completely agree with you. At first I was like, "Come on, guy," but then after processing it for a little longer, it really is almost violent. I realized that violence isn't necessary the threat of physical damage, but mental/educational as well.
I really liked that line too. It really struck a chord with me. We have been called to an awesome responsibility, and as such we should not carry it lightly. For me, I equated the damage not just with what is inflicted, but what is neglected. I think it is a passive violence, that removes initiative and deprives students of the opportunity to learn well.
Question: Would Freire's message be a little more accessible if it were in a tone other than that of Che Guevara? It just seems a little hard to wade through all of his manifesto-ish diction and views.
That's why I decided to add the Wink. Freire probably SHOULD sound like Guevara, given that he is trying to change a society. But as we use his ideas, Wink's ideas based on Freire probably make more sense.
I agree that Freire comes across as quite the revolutionary. Some would say that that is because he was writing for a certain audience in a certain time. I'm not sure though. What is it about Freire's tone that makes us so uneasy? Are we so certain that a revolutionary approach is not exactly what is needed? Especially in poverty stricken and urban areas, the education that students often receive is not the kind of education that will help them in the long run. In places like this, I think Freire's revolutionary rhetoric might be exactly what the doctor ordered.
I agree, the Wink definitely helped me understand/relate to the content of Freire better. The tone for me was off putting and it took me longer to appreciate the basis of what he was saying.
When Freire said, “narration (with the teacher as the narrator) leads the students to memorize mechanically the narrated account. Worse yet, it turns them into “containers,” into “receptacles” to be ”filled” by teachers.” I think that he expressed exactly what we have been learning not to do. To teach at students is no helping them learn. I had many teachers through out all of my education who taught this way, but it was the teachers that broke out of the “I’ll speak, you’ll listen” role that helped me truly grasp what information they were giving me. When students are treated like “receptacles” and filled with knowledge, when they feel like they don’t need it anymore they will simply dump it and everything they could have learned is gone.
In one part of the Freire work, he says that “The truth is, however, that the oppressed are not "marginals," are not living "outside" society” and that “the solution is not to 'integrate" them into the structure of oppression” but to let them be themselves and find their own mind and way of thinking thought discussion and inquiry. What if, however, a student doesn’t work well in a discussion setting? What if the best way for a specific student to learn is in a lecture type setting? What do we do for that student so that they will grow and find themselves, or is this something that would never really happen?
I would agree that not all students learn optimally in a discussion based setting, but I would also argue that what is occurring in a lecture type setting isn't true learning at all. But lecture and discussion aren't the only options. What are other possibilities that would still allow for inquiry?
This is what worries me a lot about teaching; that I don't think it's possible to teach to every students' needs at the same time. I think this is why it's important to include group work, book circles, and writing activities. I'm looking forward to learning about other possibilities as well!
Something that stuck with me was such a little quote, but it really resonated-- "Every time you ignore a person's question, you dehumanize him." Did anyone else feel anything from this? It's a small thing, but it is true. Same goes for suggestions. I know it's next to impossible if everyone's talking at once or something, but to just gloss over someone's response or idea like it doesn't matter seems almost worse than insulting it. Both have happened in classes I was in. Neither foster learning and I do feel that it's dehumanizing... One of the things I like about this class is how open-discussion it is. Even if something's wrong, there's no insult or eye-roll then ignore, it's all, "Well, let's think about this a minute" or "That's one way of looking at things, but let's discuss this further."
Noel, I had the same reaction to that quote. It really struck me. Ignoring someone's question or suggestion, as you point out, is basically saying to that person, "Your opinion is not valid, and you have nothing significant to offer." It's just really awful to think about. One professor that I had in college was famous for turning a "wrong" answer or something that was a little off base into a "right" answer by further elaborating on that person's response. I think being able to do that is a real skill in teaching. It's the "Yes, and" response instead of the definitive, "No."
Your professor sounds awesome! I hope I'll be able to do that in my classes. It's very easy to just say someone's wrong or ignore 'em and I think that's why it's done, as it prevents the teacher from having to think and elaborate, not realizing or caring what it does to the student.
I think that the most powerfully damaging thing to do to someone is to ignore them. It is easy to dismiss students or young people because they have not learned what we already know. Well we didn't when we were kids. We weren't perfect. It is perspective that allows us to nurture the learning environment that the students are in.
I totally agree Noel, I had the same feeling about that statement. I think that ignoring someone, especially in a classroom setting is really hurtful and dehumanizing is a great way to communicate that feeling. Outside of the classroom I know that I have felt this and been annoyed by it. Particularly when you ask someone a question and they are on their smartphone and they don't even look up or respond to you, like you aren't even talking. This is a terrible way to interact with one another and should definitely never occur in the classroom.
you hit the nail on the head, noel. And, those are some great suggestions. i experienced the same thing as i read that. completely ignoring someone's attempt to understand something better should not be tolerated in the classroom. this by no means creates a "safe environment" for learning, which is what we are wanting to achieve, right? i feel like i ask a lot of questions in a classroom setting & i do not like when someone passes right over me as if my question/suggestion isn't important. @leslie -- absolutely!! LIKE, LIKE, LIKE. the idea of elaborating sounds like a good way to turn this negative into a positive, so that everyone comes out learning more. And, that's a great example emily! i know the feeling.
@Ben, I agree. I think oftentimes adults are quick to write off young folks and students, but those adults not only seem to have forgotten what it was like when they were kids (or passing the negative attitude they received onwards), but also that many times kids may tackle things with a fresh perspective that adults who've already made up their minds may not have.
@Emily, I agree wholeheartedly. It's amazing how many times the stupid phone thing occurs. Yet, if you ignore the person who's ignoring you, THEY get offended! ...basically, I shouldn't be in customer service. Ever.
@Jessy, thank you. I've been in many classes that weren't safe environments. I understand if a bunch of students are talking all at once or the teacher gets distracted and forgets, but they should still acknowledge the student(s) and encourage them to ask after class (if short on time) and/or to try and remember their question for next class if the teacher can't get to it during the current one. How can one learn if they don't ask?
The reading mentions that no education is politically neutral. How do you all feel about that? Does this mean one should be able to freely incorporate politics into their teachings without fear of outcry from parents, other teachers, or administration? I get what they were saying about how even inaction is an action and that every choice the teacher makes in what they do and don't teach is a political statement, but do you agree that teaching should be 'political' or should one try to remain neutral (even if they technically can't) in the classroom?
To me this is a difficult concept to grasp, especially as someone who is admittedly not very involved in politics. I don't think that teaching should be political but I do think that it cannot exist in a vacuum where politics don't effect it. I think that the society in which students and teachers are functioning is an important context however the politics shouldn't cloud the learning potential inside the classroom. I think that ideally they would be kept separate but realistically it is impossible.
It is pretty difficult, it seems like a no-win situation. I suppose, that like you said, politics affect our lives (society) which in turn affects education, but we shouldn't let that cloud the learning.
Perhaps the trick is to let the students reach their own political conclusions and get them to ponder how it affects what they're currently learning, being careful not to put the teacher's own bias into the mix.
Comment: In the Wink article, The author brings up the concept of “unlearning” and I don’t know if I necessarily agree with that terminology. Her analogy about the melting pot and how she had to “unlearn” what her Grandmother had taught her didn’t really seem like it was “unlearning” to me. I look at situations like that as a way to gain knowledge. Your preconceived knowledge on something can always be improved upon. You can always learn more, such as a different way to do something that you have already learned how to do. You aren’t “unlearning” the first way just gaining knowledge on how to do it a different way. I think as you grow up you realize that there are different points of view and you begin to learn to see things from different sides, not “unlearn” what you already knew.
Question: The author also mentions that as teachers we shouldn't give our students work that we ourselves wouldn't want to do...What are y'all's thoughts on this? I can guarantee I have had a teacher or two who assigned some things I know they didn't want to have to do. Do you think this is something you as a teacher will go by?
I agree that "unlearning" something shouldn't be the absolute way to go. Granted, there are some things you learned that maybe you'll never need again but I will say that there is at least some value in the foundations. And it's incredibly hard to just up and forget something that's been taught to you your whole life. I have listened to lectures that I found incredibly interesting and if you want to make a lecture more interesting, addin in questions and responses don't destroy the system. They improve it.
I have also had teachers that have assigned things that I really doubt they did or would have wanted to do. That being said, I think that it is important to be (at the very least) willing to do what you assign. I think it is important for students to feel like what they are doing is relevant and to assign something that you wouldn't do yourself, I feel they would be less likely to retain whatever they should be learning from that assignment. Does that make sense?
I agree that the idea of "unlearning" seems uninformed. I think you are right, you build on your experiences with new knowledge that lets you more effectively communicate with others.
As for the question I think that it helps me to see a distinction between things that you WANT to do and things that you don't really want to do but know are necessary and thus do to gain experience or skill or knowledge so that you can move on to do the things you want.
On page 3 of Freire, the author wires that "Banking education attempts, by mythicizing reality, to conceal certain facts which explain te way human beings exist in the world." Human nature is a powerful and complex entity that, if understood properly, can answer several questions as to why humans do what they do or why they learn the way they learn. I learned this principle in one of my college history classes and have found that human nature connects many subjects together such as English, history, and psychology. So it makes me sad that this vital principle is being so frequently tossed aside.
This idea of "unlearning" has come up frequently in our philosophical discussions here so I'm curious as to what everyone else's opinions are. Do y'all believe it is best to completely forget something even if te foundation has merit or do y'all believe in building upon the foundation even if you have to tear it down to its most basic state?
I think the process of tearing it down to its most basic state is the most beneficial. Examining the very core of your belief system I think necessitates a removal of all of the layers you have built upon it. In looking closely at the center of your beliefs allows us to see how it affects our other notions and ideas, which could need unlearning which would require the insertion of smothering new and fresh.
i would go with the latter. it's all about the ongoing process & bettering yourself. once you have your foundation, you can always add to it or take away things that don't necessarily belong there anymore. i think building the layers & revamping the way you think can lead to something better than you could have imagined.
Comment: I was very intrigued by the discussion of the word "minority" and it's use. I have always kind of winced at the use of the word and reading Wink's thoughts on it really gave me more to think about. I think that minority is originally based on a numerical observation but in North American education is has developed a certain connotation. I think that minority is now used not to describe a group that less made up of less members than another but to describe a group that has been offered less opportunity or privilege than another.
Question: After reading the Freire summary do you get the feeling that in order to have an engaged class where the students are practicing inquiry and being liberated from the banking method they must put forth a certain level of initiative on their own? And if so how does a teacher to help inspire this initiative?
Frier's reimagining of the educational system as a transaction in a Marxist perspective was quite an interesting take that makes us reconsider our role as educators.Too often, teachers assign work with out providing it any context, and give lectures where only their own perspective is 'correct.' The fact that the product has so few choices and is hardly appealing (and the customer service can be atrocious) makes it more understandable that some students stop coming to our "business." Of course, the student is not only the customer, but one of the primary laborers in this system. If we cannot understand that they are providing their labor in return for promises of a future career, then we cannot think of them as human beings and instead merely books with blank pages or a printer for the teacher's words.
By reconsidering why students come into our classes, other than a vague tradition that 'prepares them for their future,' we can begin to imagine the needs we fulfill for them and the needs we are serving for ourselves if we stay attached to a broken system. Inquiry into the balance of our transactions can help us decide whether we are properly serving our students needs.
"To alienate human beings from their own decision making is to turn them into objects." Thinking back now, I can remember so many teachers that have relied on the banking method the Freire describes, especially, sadly, in college. The best classes I have ever been in were heavy on discussion, inquiry, and discovery. But those classes were fewer and farther the older I became. The methods we have been discussion in class and/or have been reading about seem so intriguing and fun. I don't understand why so many teachers would lapse into this objectifying banking method. What makes that so appealing? Is it tradition? Or is it merely a cop-out for an easier way to "teach"? I know there is a time and place for everything, but persistently teaching that way seems temporary and destructive. It is a sub-par way to do our job.
ReplyDeleteAlso, just a note, can I say these Google verification CAPTCHAs are getting a little out of hand? I wasn't a robot 10 seconds ago, so I'm probably not one now.... probably.
DeleteOh my God it's so annoying
Deleteseriously! i was thinking the same thing. i can barely read them & i'm not a robot.
DeleteOK, so I think I turned off that CAPTCHA thing. Let me know if I didn't.
DeleteThanks, Cynthia!!!
DeleteI'm glad I missed the CAPTCHA, although, sometimes the things it makes you type can be amusing.
DeleteAs to Dawson's question, I think it's a mixture of what is easy and what is tradition. Some teachers may also have been specifically taught to only or primarily use the banking method. Some schools may even prefer that as it's what society seems used to and at times, it's very difficult to break society from established norms and habits.
I think teachers rely so heavily on lectures in class because they are straight to the point of the lesson. Teachers, sometimes, believe that telling students what's what will get the student learning and will make the teachers job easier. And I have to admit, it is easier for the teacher, in many ways, to just tell students what te right answer is. Whether or not students like being told what's right and wrong, these philosophers demonstrate that students are bored with this experiance.
DeleteTo play a bit of devils advocate, isn't it easier for BOTH teachers AND students to use this form of teaching to ensure that all material is known for standardized tests?
DeleteIn the Freire excerpt, I thought it was very interesting when he talked about the oppressed individuals becoming dehumanized. After reading the Wink excerpt, I could relate the two concepts directly to teaching. When Wink discusses the use of the word "minority" and all of its negative connotations, you can understand how being in that category in a classroom can sometimes be dehumanizing. I do understand why teachers must use the word for descriptive purposes in legal transactions and documents to protect the students' rights, but otherwise, I agree with Wink, it is unnecessary. In the Freire summary, it reads "DEHUMANIZATION, which afflicts both those whose humanity has been stolen and those who have stolen it, distorts the process of becoming more fully human." In referring to students as being a part of a minority, we are not only stunting their ability to evolve and grow, we are stunting our own.
ReplyDeleteI also found a connection between the Freire summary and the Dewey article to be interesting. Freire talks about the "banking method" of teaching. He states that in this way of teaching, students are the receptacles and teachers are the ones making the deposits. Not only is this dehumanizing for the students, but they also learn nothing this way. Dewey speaks of similar issues, saying "...teachers would find their own work less of a grind and strain if school conditions favored learning in the sense of discovery and not in that of storing away what others pour into them." I think this is such an important statement. Many of the problems with changing the way of teaching in today's society have related to the fact that teachers think it will be "too difficult" to change. Dewey makes a solid argument against this theory, explaining that if students were more engaged and discovering ideas on their own, they'd be more receptive and it would actually be easier to teach them in the long run.
This is an excellent point. What many forget is that discovery or inquiry type methods aren't just better for student learning, they also make teaching much more of a joy. Sure, lecturing and sounding all smart and imagining having students hang on your every word may SOUND fun at first, but it wears thin pretty quickly. But a whole group of people all searching together and uncovering truly new ideas? Now THAT is amazing!
DeleteI experienced the same thing, Sabrina. I had trouble relating Freire to education at first, especially in the first few summaries but after reading Wink's piece I was able to understand where it came from more clearly. I liked how he explained dehumanization and how it related to a classroom, where you are essentially trying to improve a student's quality of life, becoming more human and not feeling like they are less than the teacher.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of the summarizing points in the Freire article stated that education is "either/or" in nature, meaning it either accepts the status quo of current society or it advocates change by a constant questioning and reconstructing of ways to change society. Wink states that passivity is an active choice. By shifting our perception of teaching away from the banking concept, in which we merely fill the dehumanized receptacles with information, we are advocating change by giving creative license and freedom of thought back to students. Students learn nothing of importance if we merely spoon-feed them information. Who can gain anything of worth from that type of education? If we have the attitude that we can all learn from each other because of our own diverse perspectives then real discussion and authentic learning will occur. We must encourage them to think critically and constantly question the surrounding world and we can do that by simply refusing to dehumanize students and actually listen to their questions (Wink, p. 80).
ReplyDeleteI did not go to GCSU for my undergrad, but I have heard quite a few different approaches to teaching literature from my professors. I had one professor in particular who had a rather steadfast view of teaching. He would stand behind the podium and lecture, trusting that us students would take in every ambrosial drop of wisdom he spoke. In his praise of traditional interpretations of literature, which were very much in line with Harold Bloom's commentaries, he was kind of an anomaly among the English department. Most of my professors encouraged new, creative thought in our papers. They did not want to hear their own words and ideas repeated in essays. These essays would be deemed "yawn-worthy" and tired if they did reflect the teacher’s views.
If views of education are either/or then I see myself as being a teacher who is an “architect of change.” I plan to go through several stages of unlearning and relearning as Wink writes about in the excerpt. Changing my perspective of learning and trying to reconstruct my ideas does seem a bit uneasy, but it is necessary. I need to re-evaluate and unlearn some of the assumptions I have toward education, especially at this early stage when I’m just now learning the in’s and out’s of it all. I think it is important to note that establishing a personal stance on critical pedagogy is not a one-time thing. Our views should be unlearned and shifted with the changing society and flux of new information.
Gosh, sorry about the long-winded comment here. Here's me trying to be concise: considering all of the reading, are there any other ways that education can "dehumanize" students? Wink mentioned using the terms "track," "at-risk," and "minority," while Friere mentioned ignoring students' questions as a form of dehumanizing and in his banking concept stated that students are sometimes treated as objects and receptacles waiting to be filled. Are there specific ways in which we, as teachers, can ensure that our students feel valued as individuals?
DeleteOne thing all the truly great teachers I know have in common is that they develop authentic relationships with students, they become mentors to kids. I think that is something that helps students feel valued as individuals.
DeleteMy favorite teacher in high school was a wonderful mentor, just by being there for her students. Any question we had she could answer and in a way that made us not feel dumb. I would go to her for advice on different matters or just talk to her about teaching. I think showing that you genuinely care for your students makes them feel valued.
DeleteWhen I was tutoring at Baldwin, my students had teachers that kicked them out of class for the pettiest things. By showing that I wanted to be there to help them, they wanted to come to tutoring. Most students want to do well, they just need to know that you're willing to help them however you can!
I really like your point near the end about how choosing critical pedagogy is not a one time thing. A major part of any critical philosophy is the idea that we must never trust our foundation. We can spend years building what we consider a solid position to stand on, but to truly practice critical literacy our next steps would need to be tearing it all down to build it again.
DeleteLiving an examined life is a full time occupation.
I dont think that we need to build up a foundation only to destroy it after so many years. If a system works, there will be at least some points that stand the test of time even though other parts need to be remodeled. Rather than instructing teachers to not trust their foundations, critical philosophy calls teachers to revise, adapt, and even build upon what works to make things better.
DeleteIn Wink's Critical Pedagogy, he says, "I wanted them to move into confusion." We read about a mindset similar to that in the Literature Workshop book that we read in June. In that book the author talks about how confusion is a good thing, and actually represents a step forward, as your thought processes have been challenged and you are trying to reconcile knowledge with confusion to produce revelation. Confusion should be viewed with respect not disdain. It is through trying to reconcile confusion and knowledge that we can produce insight and can move beyond our understanding into something new and fresh. New question mean new answer, as Wink says. It is imperative that we, as teachers, recognize, that our previous notions of teaching need reflection and re-learning, and maybe even un-learning. We can never contain all of the knowledge that we need, but we can strive to get as close as possible for the betterment of our students. It is the interaction between teacher and student as a whole that generates liberation, even from things not seemingly representative of the oppressor oppressed paradigm. We are all teacher and we are all learners. It was the students who showed him what they needed from a teacher, and that is something that changes year to year, otherwise we are oppressing, no matter how minimal, and in that lack of discernment we can fail to be as good as we could have been.
ReplyDeleteMay I just say, kudos on that most excellent connection between Wink and that Blau book we read last semester.
DeleteI wish the whole unlearning wasn't quite so painful. It can be difficult to realize that "just because something seemed to work for me doesn't mean it will work for others," or to realize, "hmmm...what I thought all this time was completely incorrect!" In recent years I've decided to enjoy unlearning and relearning. Anything that is going to improve my teaching is appreciated!
I'm going to pretend for a minute that you have free time to devote to extra reading.
DeleteIf you are interested in the idea of confusion as a philosophical (and educational) necessity, you should try to check out some of the earlier dialogues written by Plato. The one that most readily comes to mind is called "The Meno" in english. A common theme in these works is basically what Blau said in his book, before we can begin to teach (or learn) we have to recognize that there is something we don't already know i.e. we have to be confused about something.
I find the notion of "teaching to change the world" and interesting thought. How often do we realize that even in our everyday lives we come across people who may have done extraordinary things and we will never know. I wonder how many teachers have wondered what their former students have done once they have left their classroom. What is at the heart of the mindset of "teaching to change the world"? Who is it focused on primarily? The teacher? The student? The world?
ReplyDeleteBen, that's an extremely interesting thought. There are so many questions to ask behind "teaching to change the world." I think that we, as teachers, should consider how to inspire students to do great things beyond their own perceived abilities, and this, in turn, shows that we, as teachers, are attempting to change the world through our students.
DeleteI think another important question when considering your comment is how exactly do we do this. All of the philosphy presented in the reading sounds great, but how do we put it into practice?
I really like that description. I think putting it into practice is the hardest part, because that requires mixing theory with action: praxis. Once we are inside of the classroom and have some experience, I think more of this will make sense and it will be more available for us to think about execution.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think "good" teachers think about where their students are often! (I.e. Atwell & Jeff, Dr. Power & Quint) To me, teaching to change the world is to give students the gifts of intellect, critical thinking, and empathy. So much of the conflict in our world stems from both a lack of understanding as well as empathy, and I think a higher standard of humanity begins at large through education.
DeleteI think that "teaching to change the world" is good concept however, I don't think I necessarily look at it as changing the world as a whole. I think that as a teacher I would want to get to know my students as much as possible, be a light for them and encourage them to do their best. I want them to know that I am going to believe in them. That I will always try my best to be there for them with they need help with something. I don't think that I will do something to change the entire world although I would like to try, but I would love to change the world for at least one person and I think we as teachers can do that.
DeleteThis is an interesting concept, and going off of what both Chelseas are saying, I think that investing time in each individual student you are then "teaching to change the world". By identifying and caring for each student you are teaching empathy and kindness, and to influence generations that could retain this they can then go and influence the world.
DeleteAh! Wonderful comments, it's hard to pick a place to begin. I think that "teaching to change the world" is an amazing goal and idea. I also think that changing the world can be as simple as changing one student's world. I also think, going back to Ben's original question, that it is focused pretty equally on the student and teacher. The switching dialogue between the two learning from each other would imply that they are both becoming better and more capable of changing the world. I agree with Werner's comment that changing the world entails giving students critical thinking skills and that results in a higher standard of humanity.
DeleteFreire's article is interesting in that he wrote for a specific real world problem to be solved (much like the methods of pedagogy that we have been learning with the inquiry). He viewed education as a tool for freedom of the people, something that would equalize the uneducated and their oppressors. If the uneducated become educated and form their own thoughts, then their opinions of their oppressors suddenly become much more real and probably much more wrong in their eyes. He is so philosophical in his writing, analyzing every bit of how education can be used for libération. I thought it was interesting that he feels like the oppressed will behave like their oppressor at first, and seem like a "petty tyrant" although it would seem like he should know better. However, he keeps coming back to the point that if education levels are equal among the people, then there is no better form of rebellion. I especially thought it was entirely too similar to the Inquiry based method we are learning when he writes "Any situation where some prevent others from engaging in inquiry is a form of violence. (73)" So, we need to teach our students to ask questions and make decisions on their own otherwise they will never be liberated and the consequence is that their education is meaningless, creating a vicious increase in the American education gap.
ReplyDeleteWink supports this argument I think. He writes "I seek to make the strange familiar and the familiar strange." He seeks to make his students think about what they know and question it, and then in turn be comfortable with what they do not know.
Dewey, being one of the most influential philosophers in America, has similar ideas as the above two. He views the teacher as a partner in learning (as Freire explicitly states) and education is essential for the growth of society.
Some argue that one of the reasons education is not all that great in the U.S. (many other countries rank above us) is that many of those in power don't mind if most of the populace is rather uneducated. It is a lot easier to govern a populace who is easily manipulated. What do you all think of that theory?And there is plenty of research that shows that while education is supposed to level the playing field in the U.S., actually low-income people receive the lowest quality education and high-income people receive the highest quality.
DeleteComment: I'm not sure what to comment on, other than the fact that Freire's "banking concept of education" perfectly describes how much of my teachers taught in high school. It was that repetition of actions that made school drag on and on, and I think it's awesome how Freire was able to talk about this concept and what can be done to focus on a more problem-posing education.
ReplyDeleteI thought the same thing while I was reading that. Even the teachers I really enjoyed adhered strongly to that type of educational framework. So I find myself in a weird situation where I loved what some of my teachers did, but did not like what other teachers did, even if it was a similar style. That leads me to believe it was the personality of the instructor. Pedagogy is important, but so are the things not influenced by educational theories. Lemov states that some ofthe best stuff is that which is not addressed by educational theorists. So by looking at other disciplines and seeing how those affect us could help us improve the stuff that is not looked at by education.
DeleteI completely agree. Some teachers just seem to "get it" and understand their students so well, and that's my goal. This is why I'm so excited to learn each day in class! I want to learn the different disciplines and figure out what methods students respond to best, which ones I think I could be good at, etc. This is the kind of learning I like!
DeleteYep! Banking system = teacher-centered model. It was interesting to read some philosophical-based reasoning to back up our focus on learning a socio-cultural teaching model in class.
DeleteIt was how many of my teachers taught as well. True, some tried to mix things up with visual aids or occasional fun activities, but overall, I think I spent most of my time learning the three 'Ds'-- doodling, drawing, and daydreaming.
DeleteQuestion: In the Freire excerpt, I got the feeling that this was one of the "pick one or the other" discussions. Are there ever times where the "banking" type of education could be useful? Or maybe a way to combine the different types of teaching?
ReplyDeleteI agree. He definitely set up an "either/or" dichotomy for education. I do want students to be "filled" with knowledge, but I do not necessarily want all of that knowledge to come from me. I completely agree with the idea that we are all teachers and learners. I think if someone does teaching in a banking type way, he or she should try to give students the opportunity to use that knowledge in a discussion prompted by meaninful questions.
DeleteI think an answer to that requires us to look at the substance of the two theories. I firmly believe that there is no absolute in education, but rather a bunch of different thoughts and ideas that settle into camps and pump out research to examine their own ideas and whether they are still effective. That being said, there will be instances when it could be useful; it is by examining your class that you find the most useful approach. Ultimately however, talking about things and getting students to focus on the questions that matter and topics that are not hollow, allows for a great discovery. Sure some things might be better taught using the banking method, and some may lend themselves to others, but a combination of the two I think could be quite beneficial and useful.
DeleteMy biggest problem with the "banking model" is that I don't think that what happens there can truly be called learning. Especially if all we are doing is lecturing, and all students are expected to do is remember those lectures. I find it hard to imagine any student actually synthesising anything valuable out of that experience.
DeleteThis is in addition to Freire's biggest problems, which mostly revolve around the idea that banking education is little more than a propaganda delivery tool designed by the people in charge to create a well indoctrinated citizenry.
I think *some* things benefit from the banking model, but should be accentuated with additional methods. I.e. math stuff, since so much of it is hard and fast formulas... but then, perhaps I'm just not thinking of it in the right manner...
DeleteThe writer *does* suggest teaching students to memorize base things (i.e. times tables) so they can focus on higher learning that branches off from the basics. I think the banking method would be helpful for those. Again, additional methods may be helpful too, but it's a good starting point, in my opinion.
I agree with David, in the banking method neither the students nor the teacher are really learning. I think that in order for either/both to truly learn they need to actively engage in the material. Otherwise it is just meaningless facts being shot at them.
DeleteI do see where short lecture could be used in classes to convey information but I do not see how it could be effective in transfer without immediately applying it to some other kind of engaging activity to reiterate the information they just received.
Comment: I know that Wink is dismissive of his labels, but Freire's language in "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" really does sound like literary Marxism to me. It sounds like he is predicting some kind of proletarian uprising of the mind, where the weak and oppressed will "Seize the means of understanding." I don't think this is a problem, I just find the similarities interesting.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I kind of liked that about the reading; it was very passionate and brutal, in a sense. Describing the woes of the established educational model, and wanting liberation. I kind of like that radical stuff; because from the "extreme" thoughts come the biggest insights, I think.
DeleteQuestions: I have two, so feel free to choose one or the other to address.
ReplyDelete1) Is it feasible to build an entire curriculum around critical literacy, or should we try to bring in other views as well?
2) Is Wink's "read whatever, write whatever" approach to class still viable in this era of standards based education?
As a non-english major I can only give an outsider point of view on this but I do believe the "read whatever, write whatever" is still viable as a portion of the class. It would allow for creativity and inquiry on a self analytical basis. However, I do think it has become important to incorporate more structured lessons to address standards as well.
DeleteComment: The Friere article basically just reaffirmed what we have learned so far in class, from a logical standpoint. Friere explains that, just from a human standpoint, inquiry based teaching methods treat students as intelligent beings and not "knowledge receptacles." Although this article did not introduce any "new" concepts to me, I found the language and logic even further reinforced my belief in the benefits of the inquiry system.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Meep I don't really have a good question. What are some ways that we can use Friere's arguments and statements in our own classroom?
This is why I am so excited to get deeper in the Lemov book; I can't wait to see instances and specifics in which the inquiry system can be implemented.
The simplest way to integrate Freire's ideas into our classrooms, as far as I understand them, is to encourage critical thinking.
DeleteTeach students to ask questions about anything and everything, and never ignore a question once it has been asked.
Teach students that nothing can be trusted until it is tested, and that that should include anything you are told by a teacher.
Let writing and discussion have an important part in the educational process,students will benefit from each others ideas just as much as they will benefit from yours.
I like your responses! Thanks :)
Deletei think it's also important to keep in mind that all of our students are different. what works for one group may not work for another. we have to take into consideration what their needs are so we can help them become the best they can be -- not just the year that we have them, but for many years after they leave our classroom. i like to think about the long-term, too.
Deletei also agree with dave about writing & discussion having an important part in this whole process. i love when students can bounce ideas off one another. they tend to have similar interests (not always), but we, the teachers, do not know all the "up to date things" going on in middle schoolers' minds & what not. so, something that they say may trigger something completely different from the examples i would give.
QUESTION: for me, i agree with the following statements -- "teachers & students are simultaneously both teachers & learners. they learn from each other & help each other learn. (freire, 59) how would you guys go about making your students feel like they can be teachers, too? kids teach me so much, but do they realize it? how can we show them, the students, that they are just as important in the learning process as the actual teacher?
ReplyDeleteJessy, I was thought about this statement too. It's one thing to think, "Hey, that's a great idea," and another to ask, "How can I do this though?" I think a simple statement like "I never even considered that idea before" can go a long way, but it does seem a bit artificial. There's also body language and facial expressions that can show a teacher's excitement about students' ideas. These are just ideas, but your question is a good one to think about.
DeleteI think the best way to show them is to honor the suggestions they make and trying to show them that you are making an effort to accommodate what they are saying into what ever it is you are doing. One mindset that is easy to get bogged down in is that of "Am I doing enough?" That is a good thought to have, but often I think we get can consumed by that, so by focusing interacting with them and saying, "Are we doing enough?" we can potentially avoid creating subconscious barriers between us and the students and accidentally solidifying certain roles for each participant.
DeleteI really like the idea of creating a "safe environment" since I first heard about it, and I think this is important for students to feel comfortable sharing their opinions. I think asking questions to students and letting them answer freely will allow students to feel as if they are teaching or at least offering new ideas/insights. Saying things like, "I've never thought of it that way before," can really help boost the confidence of students and that's so important. I think it's ideal to be a teacher who is open to new ideas and admitting you don't know everything and you might not have the answer is going to create a classroom where student.
DeleteOoooh this is a GREAT question. I think opening expressing to the students when they have taught us something would be a way to start. However, sometimes we don't even realize we've learned something until later. But using words of affirmation and agreement would be a step in helping students realize they can teach us things, too.
DeleteP.S. My ungrad professors were amazing at this. Alex Blazer, anyone? He made me feel so dumb and then so smart in a matter of minutes
DeleteI agree with Chelsea on this one. Telling the students they have great ideas or that they brought something to light that I hadn't thought about before is a way to start for sure. It will give them a sense of accomplishment and will make them feel like they are a part of the teaching process as well.
DeleteCOMMENT: i had dr. lindsay for stress management & love seminar, both psychology classes, here at GCSU. dr. l. diverted from the conventional way of teaching his classes that i had been accustomed to. he always challenged us to go beyond just a one word answer & to dig deeper into why we thought the things we did. dr. l. didn't just do things like he was told even if it risked getting into trouble every now & then. he deviated from the typical type of classroom teaching & allowed us to lead discussion & have the freedom to do so however we wanted. i remember in our "love class" he gave us a book to read each week & then one of us would lead the discussion the following week. we could delve into whatever we wanted & it, in turn, brought about raw emotion & insights we wouldn't have received otherwise (from lecturing or giving us a powerpoint & reading it to us). it was a neat experience! so, i could see him shaped by some of these principles of critical pedagogy, which i can relate back to the dewey article where he argues that, "in order for education to be most effective, content must be presented in a day that allows the student to relate the information to prior experiences, thus deepening the connection with this new knowledge." personally, i think it's fine to bring in prior experiences. it's what you know. so, why wouldn't you want to find a connection in that?
ReplyDeletein addition, this MAT is like no other. there's a relationship between learning & teaching. that's why i really enjoy the cohort model. And, our motto, "Architects of Change" can be related to critical pedagogy because it's giving us the opportunity to mold, sculpt, & shape those that we come in contact with, whether it be our students, our colleagues, etc. as well as be molded, sculpted, & shaped ourselves.
last, i'd like to think i'm the "teaching to change the world" kind of person. we never know how we may inspire someone or if something that we say changed the mind of a student, but i'd like to hope that we can change the face of education, no matter how great or small, for the better. i think as an educator i will go through many phases of learning & building upon what i learn in hopes of becoming better at what i do. i do not want to be in an environment of my students just repeating what i say. wink says, he's learned "to see & know in new ways." i like the way he worded that. i think that teaching is all about that.
I think you have just answered your own question. To get students to see that they are both teachers and learners you have to build that community and relationship between the teachers and learners. If you get your students to love and respect you, each other, and the subject, then the cohort model will form. You get to participate in your own "mini" cohort and it sets everybody as almost equal. You are all learning together. Your dominance is only there as the acquired authority figure that keeps the students safe and in line, initiates the learning, and then you just help let learning happen.
DeleteI have a sort-of metaphor for the Wink readings... so bear with me. She notes how we as teachers must be willing to change, to constantly, learn, grown, and adapt. We also have to be willing and able to fail. Because, as Dr.Power wrote in her final email to us "Juners", we will fail, but we need to be prepared for it. We cannot help everyone. Wink shows how we must be ready to have our bones broken, to have everything that we are building and developing in this program fractured at the molecular level. When those tiny tiny fractures occur, we learn, and we heal, and when that happens, the bones are stronger. We have to do what is difficult, what hurts. To be fully absorbed in Critical Pedagogy, we have to be broken and reformed, and quickly adaptable to our surrounds, constantly searching for the best way possible to teach our classes. Just because it worked once, doesn't automatically mean that it will ever work again. We have to open our minds and our eyes, because when we are willing to learn everything, willing to learn from our mistakes ...our students will be able to.
ReplyDeleteI like you metaphor, but I would change "bones" to "muscles" because what muscle building exercises do is create tears in the muscles, but that is exactly what makes them stronger. (I think I'm right on this, Jess can probably say it better.)
DeleteYou are so good for a metaphor :)
Deletetrue that. And, haha. yeah muscles would work. if i remember correctly it's called delayed onset muscle soreness (otherwise known as DOMS). it's where you get sore at first, but then as you do it more, you adapt. And, as you continue, it builds upon what you've created & you no longer get as sore as you once did. but, there's always risks & always ups & downs along the way. And like atwell says, "doing my best hurts."
Deleteso well said, dawson. bravo. i love reading your responses. extremely thought provoking.
Comment: The thing that resonated most with me from the Freire reading was the line where he equates the traditional form of teaching with an act of violence against students. At first most of us probably had the reaction of "Wow, that seems like a bit much", but after thinking more on it, he's not far off. Teachers that only lecture and ask questions with a single correct answer are stealing hundreds of hours of time from students that they need to be successful in life and possibly go on to higher education. Imagine if all that time was in a quality classroom.
ReplyDeleteWill, I completely agree with you. At first I was like, "Come on, guy," but then after processing it for a little longer, it really is almost violent. I realized that violence isn't necessary the threat of physical damage, but mental/educational as well.
DeleteI really liked that line too. It really struck a chord with me. We have been called to an awesome responsibility, and as such we should not carry it lightly. For me, I equated the damage not just with what is inflicted, but what is neglected. I think it is a passive violence, that removes initiative and deprives students of the opportunity to learn well.
DeleteQuestion: Would Freire's message be a little more accessible if it were in a tone other than that of Che Guevara? It just seems a little hard to wade through all of his manifesto-ish diction and views.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I decided to add the Wink. Freire probably SHOULD sound like Guevara, given that he is trying to change a society. But as we use his ideas, Wink's ideas based on Freire probably make more sense.
DeleteI agree that Freire comes across as quite the revolutionary. Some would say that that is because he was writing for a certain audience in a certain time. I'm not sure though. What is it about Freire's tone that makes us so uneasy? Are we so certain that a revolutionary approach is not exactly what is needed? Especially in poverty stricken and urban areas, the education that students often receive is not the kind of education that will help them in the long run. In places like this, I think Freire's revolutionary rhetoric might be exactly what the doctor ordered.
DeleteI agree, the Wink definitely helped me understand/relate to the content of Freire better. The tone for me was off putting and it took me longer to appreciate the basis of what he was saying.
DeleteWhen Freire said, “narration (with the teacher as the narrator) leads the students to memorize mechanically the narrated account. Worse yet, it turns them into “containers,” into “receptacles” to be ”filled” by teachers.” I think that he expressed exactly what we have been learning not to do. To teach at students is no helping them learn. I had many teachers through out all of my education who taught this way, but it was the teachers that broke out of the “I’ll speak, you’ll listen” role that helped me truly grasp what information they were giving me. When students are treated like “receptacles” and filled with knowledge, when they feel like they don’t need it anymore they will simply dump it and everything they could have learned is gone.
ReplyDeleteIn one part of the Freire work, he says that “The truth is, however, that the oppressed are not "marginals," are not living "outside" society” and that “the solution is not to 'integrate" them into the structure of oppression” but to let them be themselves and find their own mind and way of thinking thought discussion and inquiry. What if, however, a student doesn’t work well in a discussion setting? What if the best way for a specific student to learn is in a lecture type setting? What do we do for that student so that they will grow and find themselves, or is this something that would never really happen?
ReplyDeleteI would agree that not all students learn optimally in a discussion based setting, but I would also argue that what is occurring in a lecture type setting isn't true learning at all. But lecture and discussion aren't the only options. What are other possibilities that would still allow for inquiry?
DeleteThis is what worries me a lot about teaching; that I don't think it's possible to teach to every students' needs at the same time. I think this is why it's important to include group work, book circles, and writing activities. I'm looking forward to learning about other possibilities as well!
DeleteI love reading the blog.
ReplyDeleteright!?!
DeleteSomething that stuck with me was such a little quote, but it really resonated-- "Every time you ignore a person's question, you dehumanize him." Did anyone else feel anything from this? It's a small thing, but it is true. Same goes for suggestions. I know it's next to impossible if everyone's talking at once or something, but to just gloss over someone's response or idea like it doesn't matter seems almost worse than insulting it. Both have happened in classes I was in. Neither foster learning and I do feel that it's dehumanizing... One of the things I like about this class is how open-discussion it is. Even if something's wrong, there's no insult or eye-roll then ignore, it's all, "Well, let's think about this a minute" or "That's one way of looking at things, but let's discuss this further."
ReplyDeleteNoel, I had the same reaction to that quote. It really struck me. Ignoring someone's question or suggestion, as you point out, is basically saying to that person, "Your opinion is not valid, and you have nothing significant to offer." It's just really awful to think about. One professor that I had in college was famous for turning a "wrong" answer or something that was a little off base into a "right" answer by further elaborating on that person's response. I think being able to do that is a real skill in teaching. It's the "Yes, and" response instead of the definitive, "No."
DeleteYour professor sounds awesome! I hope I'll be able to do that in my classes. It's very easy to just say someone's wrong or ignore 'em and I think that's why it's done, as it prevents the teacher from having to think and elaborate, not realizing or caring what it does to the student.
DeleteI think that the most powerfully damaging thing to do to someone is to ignore them. It is easy to dismiss students or young people because they have not learned what we already know. Well we didn't when we were kids. We weren't perfect. It is perspective that allows us to nurture the learning environment that the students are in.
DeleteI totally agree Noel, I had the same feeling about that statement. I think that ignoring someone, especially in a classroom setting is really hurtful and dehumanizing is a great way to communicate that feeling. Outside of the classroom I know that I have felt this and been annoyed by it. Particularly when you ask someone a question and they are on their smartphone and they don't even look up or respond to you, like you aren't even talking. This is a terrible way to interact with one another and should definitely never occur in the classroom.
Deleteyou hit the nail on the head, noel. And, those are some great suggestions. i experienced the same thing as i read that. completely ignoring someone's attempt to understand something better should not be tolerated in the classroom. this by no means creates a "safe environment" for learning, which is what we are wanting to achieve, right? i feel like i ask a lot of questions in a classroom setting & i do not like when someone passes right over me as if my question/suggestion isn't important. @leslie -- absolutely!! LIKE, LIKE, LIKE. the idea of elaborating sounds like a good way to turn this negative into a positive, so that everyone comes out learning more. And, that's a great example emily! i know the feeling.
Delete@Ben, I agree. I think oftentimes adults are quick to write off young folks and students, but those adults not only seem to have forgotten what it was like when they were kids (or passing the negative attitude they received onwards), but also that many times kids may tackle things with a fresh perspective that adults who've already made up their minds may not have.
Delete@Emily, I agree wholeheartedly. It's amazing how many times the stupid phone thing occurs. Yet, if you ignore the person who's ignoring you, THEY get offended! ...basically, I shouldn't be in customer service. Ever.
@Jessy, thank you. I've been in many classes that weren't safe environments. I understand if a bunch of students are talking all at once or the teacher gets distracted and forgets, but they should still acknowledge the student(s) and encourage them to ask after class (if short on time) and/or to try and remember their question for next class if the teacher can't get to it during the current one. How can one learn if they don't ask?
The reading mentions that no education is politically neutral. How do you all feel about that? Does this mean one should be able to freely incorporate politics into their teachings without fear of outcry from parents, other teachers, or administration? I get what they were saying about how even inaction is an action and that every choice the teacher makes in what they do and don't teach is a political statement, but do you agree that teaching should be 'political' or should one try to remain neutral (even if they technically can't) in the classroom?
ReplyDeleteTo me this is a difficult concept to grasp, especially as someone who is admittedly not very involved in politics. I don't think that teaching should be political but I do think that it cannot exist in a vacuum where politics don't effect it. I think that the society in which students and teachers are functioning is an important context however the politics shouldn't cloud the learning potential inside the classroom. I think that ideally they would be kept separate but realistically it is impossible.
DeleteIt is pretty difficult, it seems like a no-win situation. I suppose, that like you said, politics affect our lives (society) which in turn affects education, but we shouldn't let that cloud the learning.
DeletePerhaps the trick is to let the students reach their own political conclusions and get them to ponder how it affects what they're currently learning, being careful not to put the teacher's own bias into the mix.
Comment: In the Wink article, The author brings up the concept of “unlearning” and I don’t know if I necessarily agree with that terminology. Her analogy about the melting pot and how she had to “unlearn” what her Grandmother had taught her didn’t really seem like it was “unlearning” to me. I look at situations like that as a way to gain knowledge. Your preconceived knowledge on something can always be improved upon. You can always learn more, such as a different way to do something that you have already learned how to do. You aren’t “unlearning” the first way just gaining knowledge on how to do it a different way. I think as you grow up you realize that there are different points of view and you begin to learn to see things from different sides, not “unlearn” what you already knew.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: The author also mentions that as teachers we shouldn't give our students work that we ourselves wouldn't want to do...What are y'all's thoughts on this? I can guarantee I have had a teacher or two who assigned some things I know they didn't want to have to do. Do you think this is something you as a teacher will go by?
I agree that "unlearning" something shouldn't be the absolute way to go. Granted, there are some things you learned that maybe you'll never need again but I will say that there is at least some value in the foundations. And it's incredibly hard to just up and forget something that's been taught to you your whole life. I have listened to lectures that I found incredibly interesting and if you want to make a lecture more interesting, addin in questions and responses don't destroy the system. They improve it.
DeleteI have also had teachers that have assigned things that I really doubt they did or would have wanted to do. That being said, I think that it is important to be (at the very least) willing to do what you assign. I think it is important for students to feel like what they are doing is relevant and to assign something that you wouldn't do yourself, I feel they would be less likely to retain whatever they should be learning from that assignment. Does that make sense?
DeleteI agree that the idea of "unlearning" seems uninformed. I think you are right, you build on your experiences with new knowledge that lets you more effectively communicate with others.
DeleteAs for the question I think that it helps me to see a distinction between things that you WANT to do and things that you don't really want to do but know are necessary and thus do to gain experience or skill or knowledge so that you can move on to do the things you want.
On page 3 of Freire, the author wires that "Banking education attempts, by mythicizing reality, to conceal certain facts which explain te way human beings exist in the world." Human nature is a powerful and complex entity that, if understood properly, can answer several questions as to why humans do what they do or why they learn the way they learn. I learned this principle in one of my college history classes and have found that human nature connects many subjects together such as English, history, and psychology. So it makes me sad that this vital principle is being so frequently tossed aside.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of "unlearning" has come up frequently in our philosophical discussions here so I'm curious as to what everyone else's opinions are. Do y'all believe it is best to completely forget something even if te foundation has merit or do y'all believe in building upon the foundation even if you have to tear it down to its most basic state?
ReplyDeleteI think the process of tearing it down to its most basic state is the most beneficial. Examining the very core of your belief system I think necessitates a removal of all of the layers you have built upon it. In looking closely at the center of your beliefs allows us to see how it affects our other notions and ideas, which could need unlearning which would require the insertion of smothering new and fresh.
Deletei would go with the latter. it's all about the ongoing process & bettering yourself. once you have your foundation, you can always add to it or take away things that don't necessarily belong there anymore. i think building the layers & revamping the way you think can lead to something better than you could have imagined.
DeleteComment: I was very intrigued by the discussion of the word "minority" and it's use. I have always kind of winced at the use of the word and reading Wink's thoughts on it really gave me more to think about. I think that minority is originally based on a numerical observation but in North American education is has developed a certain connotation. I think that minority is now used not to describe a group that less made up of less members than another but to describe a group that has been offered less opportunity or privilege than another.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: After reading the Freire summary do you get the feeling that in order to have an engaged class where the students are practicing inquiry and being liberated from the banking method they must put forth a certain level of initiative on their own? And if so how does a teacher to help inspire this initiative?
Frier's reimagining of the educational system as a transaction in a Marxist perspective was quite an interesting take that makes us reconsider our role as educators.Too often, teachers assign work with out providing it any context, and give lectures where only their own perspective is 'correct.' The fact that the product has so few choices and is hardly appealing (and the customer service can be atrocious) makes it more understandable that some students stop coming to our "business." Of course, the student is not only the customer, but one of the primary laborers in this system. If we cannot understand that they are providing their labor in return for promises of a future career, then we cannot think of them as human beings and instead merely books with blank pages or a printer for the teacher's words.
ReplyDeleteBy reconsidering why students come into our classes, other than a vague tradition that 'prepares them for their future,' we can begin to imagine the needs we fulfill for them and the needs we are serving for ourselves if we stay attached to a broken system. Inquiry into the balance of our transactions can help us decide whether we are properly serving our students needs.