avaron

I’ve tken this from my reaction paper re Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It’s a good read, you’d find there very profound thoughts by Freire himself, but I don’t totally agree with him.. well, here’s what I think..

* * *

Paulo Freire’s ideas about the effectiveness of a problem-posing method of education are for me undoubtedly true. He has clearly explained why such method is far more effective than the banking concept of education wherein the teacher deposits and the students collect and store. I believe that the Freire’s problem-posing method is mutually beneficial on the part of the teacher and the students, as there is an exchange of ideas and an opportunity for the students to inquire, clear their doubts and misconceptions, express their thoughts or opinions, and share their added knowledge. A classroom setting wherein the teacher and the students engage in enriching, lively and critical discourse is indeed very ideal for learning.

However, I do not necessarily acknowledge Paulo Freire’s theses and arguments that emphasize the banking education’s futility and oppressive characteristic. While I agree that using problem-posing method “from the outset” and not just as an “interim measure” is more beneficial or more favorable for learning of both parties, I don’t agree that banking education instead of Freire’s method is totally useless.

I believe that learning is a continuous process and going to school or particularly, listening to the teacher’s lecture or engaging in classroom discussion is just a part of that whole learning process. To say that banking method is useless or the problem-probing method is the only or the most effective means of educating students is too presumptuous because learning is subjective or is a personal experience.

Even when there is a very lively dialogue between a teacher and a student or among the teacher and all his students, one cannot be totally sure learning actually takes place. This is because the student, although very participative in class, may not apply what he has learned when goes out of the classroom. In the same manner, even when the teacher is the only one speaking (as in the banking method) while student merely listens, one cannot conclusively say there is no learning on the part of the student.

As what has been discussed in the modules, we may not be conscious that the process of learning or acquiring culture takes place, but we learn and acquire culture in one way or another. The transfer or culture from one person to another or from one group to another need not be verbally, tangibly, visibly or explicitly recognized in order for it to actually happen.

In the same way, a student may not be conscious that he is actually learning but he may have absorbed something from what the teacher “banks” in him or what he learns in the classroom discussions—or he might be conscious but preferred to just listen (and hence, not just to store it as Freire argues). If he shares it to his friend, classmate, or family later on, he still becomes a re-inventor (Freire says knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention). Moreover, if he is able to make necessary or significant realizations in his life through that knowledge given to him by his teacher, the very purpose of teaching is achieved—learning. In this scenario, the banking method may appear to be just an “interim method,” but it actually made a difference on the life of the student.

Specifically, Freire attacked narration and memorization describing these as “mechanical” way of teaching. I also believe that these are less effective methods but then again, they may not be completely useless. Facts such as dates, numbers, names, places, etc may have some “sense” to a student, particularly to someone or those with special interest on the subject. It is again not good to assume that they do not mean anything to the student or to assume that the students, in the absence of discourse, dialogue or exchange of ideas, did not come into a realization or did not critically think about those facts.

Looking at it closely, Paulo Freire is in fact the one “projecting absolute ignorance onto others (the students)” as he assumes that the students do not learn anything or do not engage in any critical thinking. The fact that the student listens is a proof that he acknowledges what the teacher says. As he acknowledges that knowledge given to him, he actually thinks because one cannot agree to something without knowing what it is that you agree to or without understanding it. To agree with someone or to something is not necessarily the same as saying “yes.” Agreeing involves is cognition.

About the dichotomy of teacher and students, I believe that it is impossible to completely disregard it, even in the very ideal classroom setting where the teacher does not only teach but learn from his students as well and the students do not merely learn but teach the teacher as well. The reciprocal teaching and learning, although very ideal, should not necessarily destroy teacher-student relationship. The teacher still needs to be looked upon by students as an authority (although his authority is not absolute) so that they may give him due respect. I believe that having such an authority doesn’t make the students oppressed or the teacher himself an oppressor.

The teacher-student relationship can be likened to a parent and child relationship. In the latter, reciprocal teaching and learning may also take place; however, the “dichotomy” of parent-child is still necessary. The parent remains to be the parent and the child remains to be the child.

Based on the dictionary, oppression means “to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority.” In a situation wherein the teacher lectures and the students willfully listens, I don’t think that there is an unjust use of force or authority on the part of the teacher. I believe that the student, as a human being, has instincts. Verbally questioning or silently pondering in response to a thought, information or idea given by the teacher is one of those instincts. For sure, a student would react (whether through a dialogue or through personal reflection) when he hears something disagreeable or agreeable. And in that process of reacting, learning takes place.

With regard to the prevailing culture among teachers, I observe that the banking method is generally practiced in teaching students in the elementary years as those very young students still need to be guided as to what kind of information they should take in. Since they are still in their formative years, in a way, they still need to be “spoon-fed” to ensure they are learning what they ought to learn. They have not yet gained enough wisdom to engage in critical thinking on their own; hence, they need guidance.

But I don’t think that banking method is purely practiced. Although grade school and even some high school students are more into memorizing facts and figures, I believe that recitations and classroom discussions are always encouraged; hence, what Freire calls as “oppression” doesn’t take place.