Please check spelling and grammar.
Freire:
1. In Freire’s critique of the banking model of education, he argues that students are posited as receptacles or depositories (pp.72 of original text). For Freire this is problematic because he considers the banking model inherently oppressive. Do you see a way or ways in which this metaphor can be appropriated and/or re-envisioned as something positive and or generative?
2.Why is it in the best interest of the oppressor to “change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them (pp.74)”?
3. Freire argues for a problem posing pedagogy in order to subvert and counteract the damage caused by the banking model of education: what are the primary differences within these educational paradigms (pp. 79)?
Freire & Macedo
1. On page 98 of the original text, Freire argues that: “…the notion that literacy is [only reducible to] learning the standard [i.e., dominant] language still informs the vast majority of literacy programs…” Freire clearly has a problem with this; why?
Hull
1. What does it mean to expand our conception of literacy?
Jane Hammons's "Bigger than Michael Jordan" explores the complexities and
intersections of race, gender, socioeconomics and the impacts thereof,
literacy, schooling, identity, and violence in many forms. What did you take
away from this reading and to what effect? What do you think the author
intended to accomplish with this piece?
'"The Wooden Shack Place' The Logic of an Unconventional Reading'
references "judgments about cognition" (reader p. 159), "conventional
readings" and students answers being "off the mark." What are the authors
referring to? Who sets "the mark" and to what effect? How do the authors
position themselves and the student Robert in relation to the academy and to
what effect? Furthermore, what do the authors seem to suggest as a remedy
for this "mismatch" between what a teacher expects and what a student does?
Reply to Question #1:
ReplyDeleteThe influential critical pedagogist Paulo Freire described 'The Banking Model' of education as "an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat... the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits." While this method is given a negative connotation by Freire, there are more positive and generative interpretations of this technique of introducing information to students. In her piece 'Inviting Reluctant Adolescent Readers into the Literacy Club: Some Comprehension Strategies to Tutor Individual or Small Groups of Reluctant Readers,' Elizabeth BiFuh Ambe presents some alternative ideas regarding this otherwise traditional view of imparting wisdom.
"Teachers often need to administer performance assessment measures that can provide evident of students' abilities as readers and writers," she begins one paragraph. She continues to describe a particular student's "actual developmental level" as Vygotsky may call it, as being below that of other children his age. While hardly controversial on the surface, this objective and biased approach to a child's development level in relation to his peers provides instructors with the warning signals necessary to address the issue through whatever the means the necessary deems necessary. While the solution ultimately looks to outside factor's regarding the student's slowed development in relation to his peers, it is only through viewing this issue though the context of the the Banking Method that we are able to see that there is a problem that needs addressing in the first place.
The Banking Method is also criticized by Freire as "position(ing) the student as a passive receptacle." Again, while quite negative at first glance, there are definitely reasons this passivity may ultimately benefit the student. According to BiFuh Ambe, "Understanding the meaning of words and how they connect ideas and other concepts is a necessary subskill for comprehension." The automatic recognition of complex phrases and concepts sets the passive student up for success, able to tackle material from the outset as they have a basic understanding of the ideas at play.
While hardly effective on its own, the interplay between the Banking Model and the far more subjective and interactive Problem-Posing Model can create a learning environment where any student can succeed. That said, the preconception that the latter is superior due to its more liberal approach spells doom for countless bright, yet passive, learners the world over...
Lorna Porter's Reply to Question 3:
ReplyDeleteThe banking approach to education is based upon an oppressive hierarchical teaching method in which the all-knowing teacher teaches, talks and controls the entire learning process, while the student acts as a passive ‘vessel’ to be simply filled with the information dictated toward him. The problem posing, alternatively, involves a learning relationship in which the teacher and student are both constantly learning, and the learning is not simple memorization and acceptance of what is given to the student, but involves critical thinking and cognitive reasoning. The banking approach sees men and women as objects, while in the problem-posing approach views men and women as conscious beings. The ultimate result of the banking approach is an ‘educated’ individual that simply adapts and enables the cycle of passing along whatever was told to them as the truth to perpetuate the social norm. The problem posing method of teaching does not aim to preserve the current social order, but is dynamic in what is taught and learned as to constantly question and redefine reality and truth. It is a process of freedom, in the words of Friere, not one of domination. The banking model attempts to conceal what cannot be explained, while the problem posing encourages constant demythologizing and creative thinking. The banking model sees men as static historical beings, rather then the problem posing view of humans as unfinished and open to transformation. By being taught to see oneself as static, the banking model teaches a fatalistic mentality in which one simply accepts the world as it is, with no thought toward change, rather then the problem posing model that encourages cognitive reasoning as to how one can transform oneself as well as the world around them, never to accept the role of the oppressed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Question 1 (Freire & Macedo):
ReplyDeleteFreire has a problem with this view of literacy because here literacy is seen as a systemic and mechanical tool of subordination. The oppressor, in Freire’s terminology, uses the mechanical view of literacy as a tool of manipulation, to keep the oppressed oppressed. Viewing literacy in this way ignores the culture of those people who are learning a language, like in the ex-Portuguese colonies in Africa. The colonizers of Africa wanted to get rid of native languages because the languages were seen as “bastardized and corrupted”. However, getting rid of native languages prohibited natives from expressing their “lived experiences, their history, their culture.” According to Freire, that is what language is all about, being able to relate to one’s own life and be part of the world, with it, not just in it (Freire 76).
Learning the dominant language of a society reinforces and maintains the status quo. Learning in one’s native language is better than learning in another, perhaps dominant, language. This means that only those that already speak the dominant language will stay on the top rungs of society. This does not permit much upward mobility from happening because the status quo is not challenged.
If literacy programs focused on teaching students in their native language, the oppressor would be challenged by those who are oppressed. Like previously mentioned, literacy is a way to control people; if those people are “literate” they will fight back. Teaching people in their native language gives them confidence to “develop their own voice, a prerequisite to the development of a positive sense of self-worth.” Feelings of self-worth increase the likelihood of rebellion against the oppressor, being the reason why Freire disagrees with literacy programs that teach the standard language of a society. Educators might have the mentality that they are doing students a favor by teaching them the dominant language so they can become successful, but in reality they are reinforcing the subordination of these groups of people.
Freire, Question 3
ReplyDeleteFreire views the problem-posing model of education to be of much greater value than the banking model. He sees education as the “practice of freedom—as opposed to education as the practice of domination—denies that man is abstract, isolated, independent, and unattached to the world.” In other words, education should liberate humans to think critically about the world, not suppress human creativity and true knowledge. Freire believes that true knowledge stems from interactions between human beings and the world. Without this interplay of ideas, education is futile.
The problem-posing model frees learners to think “consciously” about the world; it values avid communication between human beings and the world. To practice conscious learning, teachers and students must engage in active dialogue with one another, thereby simultaneously teaching one another and subverting the idea that the teacher is “the-one-who-teaches.” Through this interchange of ideas, true knowledge can thus be discovered. The banking model consists of the transfer or "depositing" of knowledge from the subject to the object, or the educator to the student. The student is simply expected to memorize the material presented to him/her by the educator. The student does not consciously think about the material, because it is an entity owned by the educator; it is not open for discussion or dispute. Freire argues that the banking system “achieves neither true knowledge nor true culture,” because it lacks connections between people and the world.
Andrew Huang
ReplyDeleteFreire #2
Freire in "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" describes the oppressor as interested in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them” (74). In this discussion I explain that Freire argues for the oppressors’ interests as such because it further oppresses the oppressed.
In changing how the oppressed think, the oppressed continue to adapt to their circumstances and become obsequious, thereby adhering to Freire’s “banking concept of education.” This influence on consciousness makes the oppressed more like containers and passive receivers of knowledge. This method continues oppression and prevents true independent consciousness, the “beings for themselves” (74). The oppressors do not believe in beings for themselves and their preference for influence on consciousness reflects this. Altering the situation that oppresses would give opportunity for the oppressed to become beings for themselves and go towards this opposing paradigm. To uphold their banking model, their actions must bring about this set of beliefs.
Freire and Macedo #1
Freire in "In Reading the Word and the World" describes the notion of literacy in the last decade as “a matter of learning the standard language” emphasizing “technical reading and writing skills” (98). He reminds us that this notion of literacy detracts from meaningful cultural experiences. But more specifically, in this discussion I explain that Freire argues against such a notion of literacy because it prevents subordinate linguistic groups from accessing the historical, cultural, and ideological education.
When viewing literacy as a “medium that constitutes and affirms the historical and existential moments of lived experience” (98), Freire frames literacy as an integral component of communicating culture. It is not simply learning the dominant language or knowing how to read and write; literacy is not merely functional. Rather, it brings a cultural context without which one would be disempowered. That is, literacy is cultural and thus political and in the realm of power relations. Freire takes issue with this conventional notion of literacy because it both loses and takes away so much of what it means to be of a culture.
Thomas Cycyota's Response to
ReplyDeleteFreire & Macedo #1
Any style of governance or institution that promotes one method of communication or learning over another has a broader agenda than the literacy of its intended targets. Promoting a set of values, or in this case a standard language, only serves to elevate the importance of a particular subset of the population, namely those that possess this language. Because language is just another form of possession, it can be used as a criterion for social position or advancement opportunities.
Freire has a problem with this posture because it separates the “haves” from the “have-nots.” He claims that such an outlook on literacy “systematically negates rather than makes meaningful the cultural experiences of the subordinate linguistic groups.” By promoting one language, other languages and therefore cultural groups are being denied an opportunity to express individuality. When the importance of standardization is held over that of individuality, there is no longer a “theory of cultural production” that fosters an opportunity to “produce, transform, and reproduce meaning.”
Without such an atmosphere where different ideas are able to be expressed, the circumstances are controlled by the dominant social group. History, such as the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide, have proven that when one social group declares superiority over another through policy, persecution and oppression result. Freire has a problem with a dominant language group because it is a possible first step to the oppression of one group by another.
Brian Malley's response to Freire Question #2
ReplyDeleteIt is in the best interest of the oppressor to "change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them" because to change the situation is to affect a risk to the status quo. The situation that currently creates the oppressed most certainly has benefits for the oppressor and they will always act to maintain their position. The oppressors "care neither to have the world revealed nor see it transformed"(73), and these actions are caused foremostly by creative and critical thinkers. By utilizing the banking method in education, the oppressor is capable of molding people into unconscious objects instead of cognizant beings free to think critically of the world they are deeply connected with. Unconsciousness is given to the students through blind acceptance of the banking model, and the students become accustomed to being objects merely possessed by the teacher. For the rest of their lives, adherence to the banking model will keep them oppressed, for it has set them up so that they cannot perceive that the possessor is no different from themselves, that authority is just created by the banking system to justify counteracting true knowledge that is created by logos. Since any critical thinker in their right mind will oppose vehemently being oppressed, it is much easier and definitely quieter to construct a system that domesticates the oppressed by making them unconscious. Thusly the banking model of education avoids these problems that arise from the free-thinking oppressed, while at the same time proves to be low maintenance, as the system maintains itself. As the unconscious grow they will continue to posit their close-minded ways upon the youth and perpetuate the oppression.
Hae Young Song responses to Question #2 (Freire)
ReplyDeleteWhy is it in the best interest of the oppressor to “change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them (pp.74)”?
According to the "banking" concept of education, the students just record, memorize, and receive what the teacher teaches them. The students are merely receptacles to be filled by the teacher. They just need to receive, memorize, and repeat passively, not actively. In this sense, the oppressed are not humans but animals to be trained and taught to fulfill the oppressor's needs. The oppressor-teacher wants to maintain her or his interests and values by oppressing the oppressed students' critical consciousness. In the oppressing society, education is a way of training people for the society's ruling class or the oppressing majority. The banking concept of education serves well only for this purpose. Freire argues that "the capability of banking education to minimize or annul the student's creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors"(74). By oppressing the students' creative power and stimulating their credulity, the oppressor-teacher or her oppressing society can control their consciousness. Such an oppressor-teacher wants to "change the consciousness of the oppressed" for the oppressor's interests or the oppressing society. If the oppressor allows "the situation that oppress them" to change, they will no longer remain under the oppression. This is why the oppressor resists the change of the situation. The oppressor denies any way of communication and dialogues for the mutual interests of both the teacher and the students.
1. On page 98 of the original text, Freire argues that: “…the notion that literacy is [only reducible to] learning the standard [i.e., dominant] language still informs the vast majority of literacy programs…” Freire clearly has a problem with this; why?
ReplyDeleteFriere argues that when educators and other authorities discuss literacy, they often only do so within the confines of the dominant language. This means that students are only considered to be literate if they can read and write within the dominant language. Friere has a problem with this because when instructors solely define literacy as the ability to read and write in the dominant language of society, this definition both ignores the existence of other types of literacy and represents a refusal to take the student’s background into consideration. Friere argues that by constricting the definition of literacy in this way, these literacy programs are instituting a form of social control, through which those who do not read and write in the dominant language are excluded society and inequities between the dominant and minority groups are aggravated.
Not only does a constrained definition of literacy create social inequities, but this definition sets limits to the types of dialogues students and teacher can engage in. According to Friere, when students are limited to speaking in the dominant language, they are unable to express the same ideas that they would otherwise be able to share in their native language. This suppression of ideas represents one form of social control that the dominant group can exert by monopolizing the definition of literacy.
The usage of digital media can help create more agentive young people, because it can pose as a more interesting way for others to engage and show their ideas other than through writing. Not every person feels comfortable writing their opinions. When your young, you feel like your voice is not as valuable as others, because of your age. Traditionally marginalized and therefore silenced young people can use digital media as a means to voice their opinions, because they can view the usage of digital media as new and different. This can make it seem like they are pioneering their own way of communication. Young people are always wanting to try new things and forge their own paths in society. Digital media can serve as a means for them to create their own interpretations about their communities and lives that may have been written about in the past, but have not been represented visually before. Everyone has their own perspective on their lives and other issues, but has their own unique way of expressing them. It is really important to always be open to new ideas of self expression.
ReplyDeleteSome people are visual learners, which makes it easier for them to understand and learn information that is presented in another way other than writing. I think that since traditionally, for the most part everything is done through written word, sometimes visuals are not taken into consideration. Hull states that, “many educators feel ambivalence about a reliance on the image as a core part of communication,” (Hull 231) I feel that teachers feel this way, because there is so much importance placed on literature and books as a means of articulating information. It seems to always be valued more than visual learning.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFreire's Question #2
ReplyDeleteIn the banking system, the oppressor wants the oppressed to adapt to the situation, without questioning the situation itself. The oppressed, the students, only need to take whatever is given by the oppressors. To be able to take whatever is given to them, the oppressed need to change their consciousness from a “human being” to “an object”. The better the oppressed change their consciousness to be an object; the easier it is for the oppressor to store the deposit. As an object, the oppressed will not care about the situation they are in or what the oppressor gives to them; therefore, it will be easier for the oppressor to control and dominate them. “… For the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated” (Freire, 74), Freire’s quoted line explain clearly the purpose of changing consciousness instead of situation. The banking system wants the situation to be the same (status quo), and the oppressed should not change the situation, but they should adapt to it. The better they are able to adapt to it, the more successful the oppressor is because the oppressor is able to change the oppressed consciousness. Also, if the oppressor is able to change the consciousness of the oppressed, the oppressed will become a passive being in the world, which again means a better “container” in the whole banking system. A passive oppressed also will not question the oppressor’s authority because they will just adapt to the position they are already in. Not only they can maintain their position as the oppressors, they can also make sure the oppressed take in all the information without any questions.
Response to #3
ReplyDelete3. Freire argues for a problem posing pedagogy in order to subvert and counteract the damage caused by the banking model of education: what are the primary differences within these educational paradigms (pp. 79)?
Freire believes that "those truly committed to liberation must reject the banking concept in its entirety, adopting instead a concept of women and men as conscious beings." The problem-posing method of education is one that Freire uses to counteract the banking concept. He sees the problem-posing method as "liberating education" which allows students to hold the power to perceive things the way they want; a type of learning which involves "acts of cognition" rather than merely having students regurgitate the transferred information given by the teacher. Another significant difference between the two educational paradigms are the interactions. In the banking model, there is a one way relation between the student and the teachers, that is, the teacher overrules the students and " consider themselves knowledgable upon those whom they consider to know nothing. In contrast, the problem-posing model allows the teacher and the student to learn together and teach each other. Now, what is the benefit of the problem-posing model? well, throughout their lives, the students will be faced with many challenges in which they need to be able to critically think about how to approach certain problems. "They may discover through existential experience that their present way of life is irreconcilable with their vocation to become fully human. With the problem-posing model, it will allow students to practice the acts of cognition to unveil reality-- ultimately it will help them become better critical thinkers and identify themselves as human beings.
1. On page 98 of the original text, Freire argues that: “…the notion that literacy is [only reducible to] learning the standard [i.e., dominant] language still informs the vast majority of literacy programs…” Freire clearly has a problem with this; why?
ReplyDeleteFreire sees literacy as a tool that is used to empower or disempower people through the use of dominant language and discourse. This use of dominant language, incorporated especially in schools, reproduces the cultural norms and ideology of the dominant group while simultaneously suppressing the subordinate group. Many approaches to literacy have thus far ignored language as being the driving force towards individual and self-determination . He argues that the goal of the best literacy approach is to allow “oppressed people to re-create their history, culture, and language” (100). This can only be accomplished when literacy is conducted in the native language; once this is done the oppressed could finally reclaim their “historical and existential experiences” that were once “devalued in everyday life by the dominant culture” (110). As long as the dominant language continues being taught, the status quo will remain and the cultural capital will continue to be monopolized by the dominating class.
The reproduction of the dominant language and ideas taught in schools goes hand in hand with Freire’s banking model, as described in his “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. In the banking model, the students merely memorize and passively learn the words from the teachers. This not only stifles creativity, but it also molds the oppressed to “[serve] the interests of the oppressors” (73).
On the other hand, Freire would view literacy, when taught in the students’ native language, to naturally support the problem -posing method because it would allow students to “name their world” and engage in a “dialectical relationship with the dominant class” (111).
2. Why is it in the best interest of the oppressor to “change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them (pp.74)”?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Friere, “the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that [the banking model of education] situation, the more easily they can be dominated.” And this idea that restricting the freedom and responsibilities of the subordinate simply leads to an overbearing Subject (the teacher). These tyrants of education are knowingly butchering brilliant minds with their antiquated meat cleavers. Too often has the idea of disgorging information been the so-called proper method of educating. While oppressed individuals are herded off to permeate humanity as mindless, marginal “persons who deviate from the general configuration of a good, organized, and just society,” the oppressor continues reciting the same mundane narrative for the next generation of “objects” to listen.
Friere submits that “the oppressed are not ‘marginals,’ are not people living outside society,” and that they have “always been inside.” The poignant idea that this “structure” which made them (the students) listening objects needs to change; individualistic finger pointing must cease and a collective effort must focus on the fleshy educational fist from which this veritable finger protrudes. Doing that “would undermine the oppressors’ purposes,” essentially collapsing the dichotomy of teacher and student—binding separate entities. As students realize their ontological disposition, they threaten the oppressors as engagers of critical consciousness.
Debilitating the structure of banking education is essential to impeding the dehumanization of the students. Using a problem-posing approach is conducive to the growth of teacher-student and, conversely, student-teacher roles. Employing problem-posing education can “fulfill its function as the practice of freedom only if it can overcome” the ho-hum banking education modus.
If, from the onset of a person’s education, problem-posing education is utilized then the student will be less susceptible to turning “against their domestication” and they will already be familiar with the constant transformation of reality as a process. In the best interest of the oppressor, they must realize that they harness the power and tools necessary to underscore the importance of “being accessible to consciousness.” They will be compelled to humanize and demythologize the characteristics of education.
1. In Freire’s critique of the banking model of education, he argues that students are posited as receptacles or depositories (pp.72 of original text). For Freire this is problematic because he considers the banking model inherently oppressive. Do you see a way or ways in which this metaphor can be appropriated and/or re-envisioned as something positive and or generative?
ReplyDeleteThe banking model is the technique of almost all college lectures. The professor usually talks the entire lecture period and has little time to pose questions and even less time to answer them. This system relies on either discussion or office hours to give students an opportunity to interact with the teacher. Although not ideal, the banking model is the only way to cover the vast material of most courses. Having said that, it is not oppressive in any way. The oppressive nature of the banking model is only applicable when the student is completely disengaged, meaning that they have no interest in their education or are at too early an age to actively learn on their own. I feel Freire’s assumptions that “it is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system” are completely untrue with older, already interested students (Freire 72). College students can completely enjoy and feel engaged with a banking model class if the professor lectures well. The student is there to learn and absorb, and then use what they learn in other classes and their careers. Their interest in the material, allows the model to succeed. This method can even be used by older high school students, especially with highly motivated students. Advance Placement classes usually contain a lot of banking education to cover the material on the test. The students in these classes also have the motivation and interest to allow it to work. As I said earlier, the banking method is never ideal but it can be very effective and far from oppressive when teachers are faced with a large amount of students and a lot of material to cover.
Madeleine's response to "The Wooden Shack Place" question:
ReplyDeleteRose and Hull’s interpretation and analysis of the interaction between Rose and Robert reminds me of Hull’s first piece in the reader, in which Hull emphasizes the importance of presenting students with the opportunities to express themselves, and where they come from through a variety of modes. In Robert’s case, his background and prior knowledge gets in the way of him answering in the most standard or expected way; his answers are “off the mark.” This mark is considered the standard, traditional mode of literacy, which Rose and Hull state has been largely defined already by American University Literature programs. Robert has not yet completely learned, or become accustomed to, what these Literature scholars have assumed to be the normal reactions to prose and poetry. The way in which Robert thinks is different than expected. Rose works through this disconnect with Robert by accepting and acknowledging Robert’s mode of thinking. Instead of writing it off, Rose listens to all of it. The authors suggest that in dealing with circumstances such as Robert’s, it’s important to use a goal-driven approach, to discover why the student is thinking the way he is, and then to help introduce the new way of thinking about it (the expected way). In turn, the teacher should adjust his thought to match the student’s, to truly understand where he’s coming from. It’s a mutual learning process in which both teacher and student walk away with a new viewpoint. To draw on Freire, “banking theory and practice, as immobilizing and fixating forces, fail to acknowledge men and women as historical beings: problem-posing theory and practice take the people’s historicity as their starting point” (84); Rose has taken on the role of a problem-posing teacher, by assuming the starting point in education to be Robert’s particular starting point. The teacher-student students-teachers method is employed here.
HULL: to expand our conception of literacy means adopting new forms. Literacy is not simply reading and writing anymore. Literacy now has multiple facets that we need to start accepting and utilizing. Today “is an age in which technologies for multi-media, multi-modal authorship proliferate” (230). There are so many new ways to express oneself that are more complex and multi sensory. If new forms of literacy are more expressive then why wouldn’t we want to use them?
ReplyDeleteDUSTY (Digital Underground Storytelling for Youth) is an after school program aimed at “closing the digital divide” (230). The program, like many others forming around the nation, lets youth envision, create, rehearse, perform and revision using “language, media, their voices and bodies to represent themselves, their families and friends, their communities, their ideas, their takes on the world” (230). Multisensory communication is more affective because it gives one more layers of a piece of work to relate to. When viewing a digital media work you might relate to the voice you hear, or the images you see, or the music played, or the emotion on display. Youth love to express themselves. Sometimes it takes more than a pen and paper to get ones message across. With digital media, young people have every tool they need to express their emotions; show what their eyes see and what their ears hear.
For one DUSTY student, the ability to pair spoken word with music and image creates an ironic and humorous affect. Without these additional modes of communication, those emotions might not have gotten through to the audience. Visualization is key when it comes to literacy. With these new ways of expressing oneself and helping others visualize ones own concepts and perceptions, our branches of literacy will just keep growing.
Freire's Question #2:
ReplyDeleteIn order to maintain subordination and dominance, it is in the best interest of the oppressor “to change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them (74)". Freire explains that if the oppressed adapt to the given situation of oppression, the oppressors- educators, ultimately avoid the threat of students and their acts of cognition. By maintaining the situation, the educators further avoid integration and the students are moreover prevented from becoming "beings for themselves". The students remain to be containers, while the educators uphold the hierarchy that places them in power. Freire suggests that “the teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute; he justifies his own existence (72)”. If the students begin to be active problem solvers in the classroom and are aware of the different ways in which knowledge can become “deposited”, the educator loses this upper hand and becomes not an “opposite”, but an equal. Freire explains that the best type of learning environment is one in which the teachers become the students and the students the teachers, “the teacher is no longer merely the one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach (80)”. Ultimately, Freire explains that consciousness can be manipulated, and students can be intellectually oppressed without even knowing it. While in opposition, if a situation that is oppressing students is changed a new consciousness in regards to learning and understanding naturally follows. Thus, the banking system is a “situation” that needs to be changed.
Freire and Macedo #1
ReplyDeleteFreire has a problem with this idea of literacy because it essentially reproduces the existing cultural dominance. He mentions that in this view, literacy is all about the technical skills of reading and writing, which sounds like a “banking model” approach to literacy, in which teachers tell students how to read and write and students absorb the information. Freire also reiterates that this approach is inherently oppressive. In his words, “This view sustains a notion of ideology that systematically negates rather than makes meaningful the cultural experiences of the subordinate linguistic group…” (p. 98 of original text). Freire believes that for literacy to have meaning, it must be a way for people to produce their own culture, the subordinate culture. Literacy has to relate to the people who are using it.
He uses the term “cultural production” to describe the process by which people incorporate their daily experiences into their own ideology, one that does not reflect that of the dominant culture. In order for literacy to be used by and have meaning for the subordinate group, it cannot be all about learning the technical skills necessary for proficiency in the dominant language. For Freire, using this approach to literacy separates the acts of reading and writing from the social and political aspects of life, specifically from the lives of those who are not part of the dominant culture. According to Freire, “In part, the exclusion of social and political dimensions from the practice of reading gives rise to an ideology of cultural reproduction, one that views readers as ‘objects’.” (p. 101) By placing the utmost importance on technical skills, the teacher is taking away any opportunity for the students to express themselves.
Freire and Macedo 1
ReplyDeleteLiteracy is perception. It constitutes the way you look at the world. It’s the thought that runs through your mind when you see a Krispy Kream Doughnuts sign because of Saturday mornings eating the free, hot, freshly made doughnuts with your dad. The idea that literacy is learning the standard and dominant language is clearly problematic with Freire because literacy is perception.
Language innately plays a role in perception. Freire believes that literacy “is an eminently political phenomenon, and it must be analyzed within the context of a theory of power relations.” Possessors of the dominant language hold power over those who speak a minority language. With this splintering of the population, different viewpoints and perspectives inherently form. Forcing a dominant language on a minority population and calling it “literacy” is bogus. Learning a dominant language does not create literate individuals, but rather creates a means with which to communicate one’s literacy. A truly literate individual grasps others perspectives. A literate human manages to handle themselves in “politically correct” ways in settings they find themselves in within their society. The African-Portuguese example presented by Freire vividly displays the difference between literacy as communication in a dominant language and literacy as perception. The African population had a literacy system that worked for them before the Portuguese population colonized Africa. Portugal imposed a system of “literacy” that used their language as a language of power even though it was not conducive to African literacy. This conflict in literacies created issues and unnecessary conflicts for human beings inhabiting the area simply because literacy was viewed as the notion of understanding a dominant language of power. Now people are encouraged to become “illiterate” in Africa to find their social, historical, and political roots and forms of communication. This situation alone proves that literacy is, at a base a level, one’s perception of the surrounding world.
Freire Question #1: The Banking Model of Education
ReplyDeleteQ: In Freire’s critique of the banking model of education, he argues that students are posited as receptacles or depositories (pp.72 of original text). For Freire this is problematic because he considers the banking model inherently oppressive. Do you see a way or ways in which this metaphor can be appropriated and/or re-envisioned as something positive and or generative?
A: In his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire critques the banking model of education; a system where the teacher is the subject and the students are passive objects that simply consume the facts thrown at them. In this banking system, the teacher does not “communicate” with the students in the cooperative sense of the word. Instead, the teacher turns his or her pupils into “containers” or “receptacles” to fill with information. In Freire’s words, “the more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teacher she is” (72). The “banking” concept only goes so far as to include the receiving, storing, and filing of these deposits of information. For these reasons, Freire argues that this system of education is inherently oppressive.
While Freire does a good job at critiquing the banking model of education, there are still a few good things to come from it. The banking model is good at serving a mass of people. What we see from the shift from the common school system to the public school system is that there is a need for a system that will accommodate the basic needs for students at different levels. Schools can no longer teach outdated curriculum to a group of students that are especially age distinguished. The banking model of education allows teachers to be able to mindlessly and quickly supply the mass amounts of students with the basic information, facts, and resources that they may need to perhaps take a more individual step in their education down the line. Efficiency and consistency are the two major benefits of the banking model, and while they may not satisfy Freire’s desires for a more cohesive teacher-student relationship, the curriculum is still learned (albeit in the most basic sense of the word).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. In Freire’s critique of the banking model of education, he argues that students are posited as receptacles or depositories (pp.72 of original text). For Freire this is problematic because he considers the banking model inherently oppressive. Do you see a way or ways in which this metaphor can be appropriated and/or re-envisioned as something positive and or generative?
ReplyDeleteForty years later, despite its flaws, and despite alternatives such as the problem-posing model, the banking model is still widely used today in universities. I would argue that in certain instances, Freire’s criticisms of the banking model are overblown, and the benefits of the banking model are overlooked.
While the lopsided distribution of power between teacher and student is suitably captured in the banking model analogy, that does not imply that students automatically assume all qualities of banks—particularly the banks’ (as with all other inanimate objects) lack of volition. Indeed, in education, students always have the choice to learn or to not learn. Whether or not learning is socially beneficial is another matter, but to posit that education is necrophilic (77) oversteps the explanatory power of the banking analogy.
Freire’s claim that education “[projects] an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression,” (72), is correct in the sense that students must submit to the authority of the teacher, but deference to authority is not necessarily a bad thing, especially in a large group setting like university lectures. Consider if one student kept asking questions, or asking for additional explanations when confused. While spending the time to answer that student’s questions would benefit that particular student (and perhaps a few others), the exchange would likely be irrelevant for the rest of the class. Thus, submitting to authority is a way to maximize total transferal of information. It is better for 400 students to learn at reduced rates, than have 5 learn at optimal rates and 395 not be learning at all.
Furthermore, while the banking model, in comparison to the problem posing model, is restrictive with respect to student inquiry, it is accommodating with respect to student schedules and learning preferences. The banking model clearly defines a syllabus of what must be learned by what date, but is silent regarding what study methods students choose. This omission grants students relative freedom to opt to work ahead vs. cram, skip class to work at home, go to office hours or not, etc. A different education model which does specify methods of learning would forfeit this flexibility.
The reading of Jane Hammons’ “Bigger than Michael Jordan” made me grasp the pivotal role an individual’s socioeconomic, gender-based, and ethnic backgrounds have on his or her academic, social, behavior, and professional life. I assert that this contemplation of cause and affect was the author’s intent, and she executed her goal efficiently.
ReplyDeleteWhereas before I would not have attributed Jarod and Hammons’ school performance and behavior with their personal histories, I now have a different view. I can now understand that living with poverty, drug abuse, and violence can greatly affect a child’s ability to attend school, let alone concentrate in class, learn to read and keep up. Besides, a child’s personal goals differ greatly with their living conditions, as seen when Hammons’ study habits decline because she understands that her family cannot afford UCLA. Subjects such as divorce and negligence are hardly associated with a child’s problem in the classroom, yet they play a pivotal role in the child’s academic, social, and professional career. Minorities are at a severe disadvantage in literacy, schooling, and self-identity because of their race, unreliable guardians, and low economic conditions.
I believe Hammons portrays the influence of a child’s life with their behavior through examples. She strongly correlates an individual’s behavior with their backgrounds. For instance, Jarod experiences a family history of abandonment, imprisonment, and violence, and he also attends a school located in what is deemed as one of the “lowest performing schools in northern California.” He is an African-American boy who reads below grade level and exemplifies anger and violent behavior. Similarly, the author deals with mixed ethnicity, alcoholism, divorce, drug abuse, and poor living conditions as a child and teenager. She later develops a drug habit, and violent behavior. Hammons contrasts both her own living conditions and Jarod’s upbringing with others such as Nancy Lopez, a skinny blonde girl, Arnold Palmer, and Jason Kidd. Her examples of successful people are predominantly white, i.e. Jason Kidd, Arnold Palmer, David Halberstan, whose circumstances directly conflict with her and Jarod’s. Hammons’ goal of associating a child with their personal history was very successful.
Rachel Fryke's response to Freire #1
ReplyDeleteFreire discusses the banking model of education, which views students as “‘containers’ and ‘receptacles’ to be ‘filled’ by the teacher” (72) with a “lifeless and petrified” (71) narration detached from reality, as a means to reinforce the control of the marginalized by an oppressive system. The banking model positions teachers as unquestionably knowledgeable and students as inherently ignorant. It rewards passivity and obedience rather than the inquiry and creativity required for individuals to be “truly human” and agents of their own social transformation and empowerment (72). The banking metaphor reminds me of international development banks like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. These institutions, by issuing conditional loans and dominating knowledge production, often establish a one-way, narrative relationship in which so-called developed countries dictate the terms of “good, organized, and just” development to the “welfare recipients” of supposedly underdeveloped countries (74). Just like students in the banking model of education, international development banks view developing countries as marginal and needing to be “‘integrated,’ ‘incorporated’ into the healthy society that they have ‘foresaken’”(74). Countries receive loans only by following the rules, conditions, and paradigms of those in control of the very system that created and reinforced their oppression, much like how students much accept and memorize the stagnant rhetoric of their paternalistic teacher.
The problem-posing model, proposed by Freire as an alternative to the banking model of education, parallels micro-financing, a different form of international development banking. The problem-posing model views students as “conscious beings” with an important role in “dialogical relations” with their teacher (79). Instead of depositing knowledge, the teacher facilitates spaces of communication and cooperation, rejects traditional teacher-student roles, and encourages the “emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality” (81). Education becomes “the practice of freedom” instead of the “practice of domination” (81). Micro-financing similarly encourages a participatory and locally-relevant form of development in which people become agents of their own transformation and empowerment. Banks give small loans to individuals, who in turn invest in a way meaningful to their personal situation. After expanding their own entrepreneurial and innovative practice, these individuals repay the bank, who can then invest in other members of the community. Micro-financing, like the problem-posing model, recognizes the importance of all involved actors as agents of change, rather than just the traditionally powerful international development banks, and encourages localized problem-solving and creativity.
In his work, Freire critiques the banking model of education which suggests that students are like empty containers in which educators deposit information and knowledge that is believed to support maximum academic success. However, Freire sees this model as being greatly oppressive for it only allows students to learn information and toolsets that are relayed to them by teachers. This method supports the concept of “doing school.” Students memorize the information and regurgitate it when necessary. It allows for no creative outlet. In a sense, Freire sees this method as a way of keeping the oppressed oppressed. It continues society’s longstanding tradition of segregating the haves from the have-nots.
ReplyDeleteThrough his work, Freire argues that literacy and education should act as a mean of relaying culture. However, in recent times, literacy in education has carried a greater emphasis in technicalities. The education system today is impersonal to the student it is intended to be supporting. Literacy should provide one with a cultural understanding without which one would be disempowered. Also, a student who is unable to communicate in their native tongue is placed at a great disadvantage. They are unable to express the same ideas or concepts they would be able to in their native language. This is yet another way of suppressing minority groups in the world of academia.
Freire 2: I believe the reason why people believe that it is best to "change the mindset of the oppressed rather than change the situation" is because the oppressors "care neither to have the world revealed nor see it transformed." Basically, they just like it the way that it is. In order to keep the situation the same, they have to change the mindset of the oppressed to simply take the system for the way that it is. It is a lot less work on the part of the oppressors and it can be implemented for generations because the mindset will be passed on. Furthermore, if the mindset of the oppressed is changed, the oppressor remains in control. The oppressed no longer have the power or the say to change their circumstance and the oppressors dictate the world. Basically, the way that this plays out in education is Freire's banking model. The students are molded to the way that the teachers will it. Eventually, the mindset of the students changes to adhere to the way that the teachers tell it, and they lose the expanse of their creativity and become limited.
ReplyDelete