Saturday, April 9, 2016
Week 12, April 5 - 11
Freire begins his argument by focusing, in general, on what is necessary in the preparation of a teacher. I interpret some his key terms and ideas seem to be: progression (beyond the “unfinishedness of the human person” (p. 21)), the inevitability of impartiality (p. 22), and the indispensability of ethics and ethics training (p. 23 - 27). I noticed (or imagined) a tie-in with Davis, namely Freire’s description of ethics as, “affronted by racial, sexual, and class discrimination” (p. 24). How do you make sense of Freire’s use of the term “presence”; is Freire’s presence Brunner’s “self”(see Brunner, pp. 15-16)? Does anything else grab your attention from chapter one?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the key terms for Freire’s chapter two are the following: banking system, epistemological process, correct thinking, curiosity, autonomy, other, object, and subject.
ReplyDeleteLet’s start with “object” and “subject”. I have, until Brunner, understood “subject to be the object. What I mean to say is, I’ve become accustomed to substituting the term “class” or “material to be studied in class” as the subject. I believe, though that Freire comes closer to the original intention of the word, which I understand to be “thinker” or “actor”. I am seeing the term “object” more as a what I thought of as the subject or material to be studied. I would say, after reading chapter two, that the object (or objective) is, “to engage in a decision-making process, leading to a break, an option, which becomes concretized…” (p. 44). Does anyone see subject and object differently in Freire?
Freire seems to point us away from seeing the teacher as both the “subject”(thinker) and “object” (the only source of knowledge) of our education, while pointing to the student as another (an-other) object and potential subject. Concerning the term “other”, Freire asserts, “bearing in mind that the otherness of oneself does not signify the exclusion of other. Because it is the otherness of the “not I” or the “you” that makes me assume the radicality of the “I”. In this elaboration, I think that Freire is simply saying that we, as teachers should disengage from selfish, arrogant, unethical practices in the classroom, and instead promote student’s autonomy (or agency) and curiosity so that they can be subjective and not passive.
I applaud Freire’s boldness in explaining “right thinking”. I don’t recall a specific absolute one-time definition, but I agree with him that, Proper to right thinking is a willingness to risk, to welcome the new, which cannot be rejected simply because it is new no more than old can be rejected because chronologically it is no longer new” (p. 41). This statement (among many) reminds me of Macedo’s introduction and denunciation of Harvard’s School of Graduate Education.
If I were pressed to explain Freire’s epistemological process, I would turn to page 35, where Freire explains, “it is as necessary to [1] immersed in existing knowledge as it is [2] to be open and capable of producing something that does not yet exist” (p. 35). This statement causes me to think about how we encourage children, maybe when they bring-us a “coloring” that is anything but inside the lines or a drawing of a house that looks more like the aftermath of a tornado. I don’t think I’m alone when I they proudly say, “Look what I made!”, and I follow with “Oh, look at that. You did so good!” I wouldn’t dare to say, “Now what exactly is this?! You didn’t do it right!” My congratulations to the child comes solely from a place of wanting to encourage and build their curiosity and autonomy.
I feel safe in saying that Freire is passionately opposed to the traditional modernist/rationalist/empiricist teacher-as-object centered classroom. Throughout the chapter, he details his view of “right-thinking”, as based on ethics, or a set of ideas of what is decent (right) and what is indecent or irreverent (wrong).
I have a question concerning “banking system”. I think that we’ve seen this term before, maybe in Brunner or Gee’s “The Social Mind”. I was super-glad to feel “in-the-loop” when Dr. Ruan mentioned it in Thursday evening’s class. I understand “banking system” a depositing of knowledge for later withdrawal when solicited. I was impressed by Freire’s statement that, “learners can circumvent and outmaneuver the authoritarianism and the epistemological error of this “banking system” (p. 32). Here’s my question: Are Vygotsky, Brunner, Freire, Gee, etc. examples of one’s who circumvented the “banking systems” of their formative years? I’ll admit that my question is based on an assumption that all of these theorists were not so privileged to be students of Freire’s progressive teaching model.
Reginald,
DeleteI think you gave a very thourough explaniation of Chapter 2. I see subject as the one who is learning, and I agree with you that Freire's "object" would be what I would have considered the subject being taught. I do like Freire's use of both terms and it does make sense that both the teacher and the learner are subjects and then they are trying to obtain the object of learning.
I too love that Freire is bold,I feel that he is a full out constructivist, much like Bruner. However I feel that Freire gives a much fuller disclosure of what role he feels the teacher ought to be taking. It is clear through Freire's book that he is first and foremost a teacher and that he lives what he expects others to do. He has the highest most respect for his students and he uses ethics in a way that just seems should be the norm for all educators all though so many times it is not. Would you agree?
I love Freire's ideas of teaching and education.... to teach is not to transfer knowledge, but to create the possibilities for the construction of knowledge, to educate is to form. pg 30 & 39. I think that Freire is clear that as a teacher we should be guiding our students to come to their own conclusions, that we should be using what knowledge they have and that we should be building on that knowledge. On page 106 Freire states, "The role of the teacher is essentially one of inticing the student to produce his or her own comprehension of the object using the materials that have been offered."
I also, like Reginald, picked up on Freire's "right thinking." I believe that Freire was saying that there really is no "right thinking" as a means of a teacher saying what would be right or wrong. Thinking correctly is an act of communication, "not something that is simply spoken of, or an experience that is merely describe." pg 42. I believe that Freire was trying to express how we should be leading students to think... not so necessarily concerend with what they were thinking?
My favorite quote from Chapter 2 is "sometimes a simple, almost insignificant gesture on the part of a teacher can have a profound formative effect on the life of a student" (p. 46). I hope that I actually live up to this quote! I think Freire whould say that when teaching take a step back or a few minutes to really see your students, students will gain a deeper respect of you and the subject when they know you have an intrest in them. Students who are hungry when they come to school do not care about learning mathematics, they want to know how not to be hungry.... I think as educators we have to be able to put ourselves into our students shoes, like Reginald said, and that we have to be open to the real conversations of the real issues of their lives. Once we gaing a common ground, understanding, and mutual respect, then the student can begin to dive into, my case, mathematics.
I had the same thought about that quote in chapter two. I wrote in the margin, "All this seems like a tall task for teachers in 2016." I don't think it's impossible, but I think it takes involving all those different types of knowledge, or good ol' common sense, that Freire mentions in chapter four.
DeleteThose moments seem rewarding once a student opens up and lets me know I have proved to her or him that I value them and that I am not just trying to talk at them but to them, from one human being to another.
DeleteFreire's teaching is very nonlinear with feedback loops between the students and teachers. Perhaps it is iterative to converge on a social solution to change the status quo.
DeleteAlana,
DeleteI totally agree with your description of Freire and I would like to add that I’m impress how he defends a universal human ethic that extends not only to schools but also to teachers’ training: “The education of the teacher should be so ethically grounded that any gap between professional and ethical formation is to be deplored” (p. 24). Freire believes that one of teachers’ responsibilities is to be well prepared, which is also the responsibility of schools of education. And in the process, training should go beyond technical preparation; it needs scientific formation, ethical rectitude, respect for others, coherence, and capacity to live with and learn from what is different. My question here is with all the budget cuts are schools still have enough money to train teachers this way?
I like being human. I like being human because I have opposing thumbs. I like being human because I can wear shoes - and I can put myself in other people’s [shoes]. Do you like being human? Why?
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if “putting one’s self in another’s shoes” is a common idiom in portuguese, but I think it’s message of recognizing one’s own incompleteness goes along with Freire’s message in chapter three. So far, I see Freire’s prescription for progressive, critical teaching as the following: recognizing your own unfinishedness can lead to a critical self-awareness of “self” and “other”, which, in turn, can lead to epistemological curiosity and ultimately “reciprocal learning” between student and teacher.
I’m angry. No, I’m not enraged, not driven to violence. I’m angry, though, in the Freirean sense. I’m angry because I wasted so much of my childhood worshiping TV and the little to nothing that it had to offer. I liken it to “The Nothing” in the 1980s cult classic “The Neverending Story” (one of my favorite movies). Like “The Nothing” which diminished and eventually devoured everything in its path, TV ate my time and stifled my curiosity. When Freire proposes the “excellent weekend task” of singling out “the most striking curiosity he or she has experienced, connected with TV news propaganda, a videogame…”, and later asks, “What type of response did they make to their curiosity,” I feel like my answer would be, “I dunnoh. I like to watch TV. My favorite show is…” I agree with Freire idea of provoking curiosity, it’s just that I wasn’t challenged much in front of the TV - because it was not a treat or novelty in my life. It was merely a part of my daily routine. I haven’t met many who shares this sentiment.
I like being human, because I love to communicate and share my thoughts... I realize that other species have some communication, but humans are the only ones who can network and share what they know and feel. Freire said humans invented language to "grasp" and communicate pg. 53 and this fall into line with what Vygotsky had to say. Vygotsky said "speech acquires a synthesizing function and is instrumental in achieving more complex forms of cognitive perception" (p. 32).
DeleteOne thing that I really liked in Chapter 3 was the fact that Freire described our necessity of solving problems as a fact that we as humans recognize our unfinishedness. I had never thought of gaining more knowledge as being a solution for unfinishedness. It seems that Freire would say that this unfinishedness drives the curiosity which leads to knowledge. On page 57 Freire said, "This incompleteness implies for us a permant movement of search." I see this in alignment with Bruner's narrative and problem solving. Did anyone else pick up on this link between Bruner and Freire?
One thing I had a question on is Freire said, "to learn is to construct... education is gnostic and directive" (p. 67), however I do not see Freire's view of education from a gnosis as Davis describe perspective. I see Freire as being closer to intersubjectivity? I think Freire would say that knowledge is out there but the students need to construct their own meaning, not EVER be told. The teacher is considered a learner as well growing and increasing knowledge with the students. I get from Freire that he considers no one, not even him self, as ever being an expert or done learning. Would you agree?
I definitely feel everyone is in position to learn anytime. No one knows everything and the teacher has to continue learning either from the student, about oneself, or more about the subject taught just as the student is learning.
DeleteDo you like the way “Pedagogy of Freedom” “ends”? Does it end at all?
ReplyDeleteI like the way Freire’s Pedagogy of Freedom “ends”; it doesn’t. I don’t think translation from portuguese is to blame, or credit, for what I see as Freire’s “in medias res” or abrupt “end” to the admonition that is chapters one through four. I’ll hypotehsize that Freire saw no particular need to wrap-up his words in a nice bow, nor comprehensive summary. I’ll risk saying that I’m certain that he wanted the conversation to continue into 2016 and beyond.
Hey, teachers. Which one of the quotes from page 118 offends (or angers) you the most?
Some things anger me. Other things make me feel ashamed. I used to teach middle school and high school choir. I’m no longer that authoritarian/obliviously arrogant teacher that I once was. I was reminded of the old me as I read through pages 117 through 119. One of the statements on page 118 caused me to feel not angry, but humbled, embarrassed, ashamed, and then grateful. It’s not any of the many racist generalizations; it’s, “Do you know to whom you are talking?” This “pulling-of-rank” nonsense, in my view, indicates an exponentially ridiculous level of HSGE arrogance, and it almost never works. I found out the hard way, and it was only a matter of time before I returned to teaching at the college level. In my defense, I had no training at all. All I knew was piano technique and music theory. I knew nothing about the necessary knowledges needed: how to listen, how to care. I was professionally incompetent. I would recommend, though, that everyone teach middle school (or at least high school) before teaching at the college level.
Well, I’ve found a couple of things to be angry about now: the mere thought of me “pulling-rank” to gain demand students’ respect. Also, the fact that I was not properly prepared to teach (I wanted to try a sentence fragment, too). For this appeal to teacher preparation, I am super-excited about reading “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” - in portuguese - which I don’t really know how to read - but I’m curious.
Reginald,
DeleteI was most angered by the quote, "He is from the northeast of Brazil. But he is a good chap. Serious and helpful." The "but" is what I can not stand!!!! I hear this all the time and I do not understand why the "but." Like where someone is from or what religion or nationality they are matters. I am a firm believer that there are messed up "bad" people in every culture, every soci-economic status, and every race. Using anyone of these descriptors with and "excuse" or "a praise" for a particular behavior is wrong. WE ARE HUMAN, But we are still judgemental.... I don't particuliary like this "but" however I feel that to break this in society is a huge obstacle!
Pulling rank only makes students more rebellious and hateful of the teacher. That is the end of a teaching relationship as it is not based on reasoning with the student nor is it based on mutual respect.
DeleteReginald,
DeleteI love the way this book ends. I think the last paragraph of this book reveals the secret audience that probably brought Freire to develop his own passion, determination, and the importance of working with rigor and commitment for transformation — those educators, researchers, and intellectuals who, in the name of science and professionalism, forget about the real people they study and theorize —.
In my opinion, Freire’s human and epistemological positions have opened more possibilities and had greater real impact on improving education and the life of oppressed peoples than those of intellectuals who either hide themselves under anti-theoretical populism or, at the opposite pole, close themselves within their scientific status. What do you think? Am I right?
One thing that really struck me as I read Freire was the idea of reflection. I know that during my pre-service teacher training all I heard was "reflection, reflection, reflection." We had to reflect on what we read, lesson plans we wrote, actions of the students, actions of ourselves, etc. I can remember that first year of teaching every lesson plan I reflected at the end, however this habit soon dewindled down. I think I began to think to much of myself as an "expert" of math education than to be bothered with time consuming reflection. However I know how important it is for not only where I am at in the learning process but to be aware of where my students are as well. After reading Freire I hope I am recommitted to begin regular reflections again. Even is they are not formalized on paper I should be taking time to think about how a lesson went not just jumping to the conclusion "it was great, because I taught it."
ReplyDeleteOn the line of reflection, I did do some major reflection this weekend as I was reading Chapter 4 at the softball fields. On page 97 Freire began talking about parents and the decisions they make for their children. I wanted to get on the loud speaker and read, "parents ought not deny that they must know and assume that the future of their children belongs to their children and not to the parents... they need to emphasize their children's freedom to decide, even it they make a mistake." pg. 97 As I was reading this I was watching hundreds of parents live vicariously through their children. (By the way I am not one of these crazy parents.. I hate parents making their kids participate is something they hate... I would be talking about my husband here). I do see this not only in sports but in many aspects of students lives. So often parents will not allow their kids to make a mistake, they always bail them out. I am a firm believer, as I would assume Freire would be too, that mistakes are an opportunity for someone to learn. If bailed out or not allowed to fail a major teaching moment is missed. It takes children and adults the opportunity to make decisions so that they can learn to be autonomous. "No one is first autonomous and then makes a decision... no one is the autonomy of someone else" (p. 98).
The following quote in chapter three was very powerful to me, because last week in my group we were talking about the student attitudes toward school. We talked about different ways to help students to change it and I think Freire’s idea would do the job. “One of the basic questions that we need to look at is how to convert merely rebellious attitudes into revolutionary ones in the process of the radical transformation of society.” (p. 74) How do we take the “I don't care” or “This ain’t gone do anything for me” attitude and transform that into the “I am the only way we can see a brighter future” attitude. Based on the urban society we are apart of students feel as though education isn’t going to help their situation but if we [educators] get those students to put all that energy into changing their own neighborhood then the transformation needed will extremely rise. Don’t you agree?
ReplyDelete