Have any educators in this subreddit read the classic ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’? I would love to hear your insights from a teacher’s perspective. This book critiques the banking model of education, which, in my experience as a former student, still dominates teaching in the U.S. Did this book prompt anyone to reconsider their teaching methods? Is a more ‘problem-posing’ approach to education feasible in modern classrooms? Does its applicability vary by subject?
This book offers rich discussion points, and I aim to grasp its concepts comprehensively. I am creating an analytical podcast series on ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ due to its enlightening content. I would greatly appreciate the thoughts of educators on this subject.
It’s been over 20 years since I read the ebook, so my memory is hazy. However, based on the Wikipedia summary, I believe discussing educational models generically misses the core message. In the U.S., many classrooms might be teaching future generations that inherit colonial legacies. This significantly alters the dynamic. If a teacher asks students to identify societal problems, and many respond with ‘immigrants,’ applying Freire’s ideas becomes complex.
I’d like to understand more about Freire’s vision for classroom models; the popular interpretation may not align with his intent. Teacher-student knowledge exchange is common in storytelling, present in ancient and indigenous education.
Co-creating knowledge is more manageable in one-on-one settings and becomes challenging as class sizes increase. Constructivist principles, when correctly applied, are valuable. However, many overlook the necessity of substantial background support, including lectures, to guide students in constructivist approaches. I wonder how much POTO addresses the teacher’s role since the summary suggests a strong focus on students.
@Bright
I had similar thoughts. In my teacher training, I read ‘Summer Hill.’ It worked because the creator implemented it in a real school environment with children living there. It took time for students to realize their potential. I refer to it as the ‘Helen Keller system.’
When you ask, ‘Is it possible in a modern classroom?’ it seems more appropriate to ask, ‘Is it possible in a test-centered system like the U.S.?’
Yes, it’s feasible, but you need to break free from standardized testing constraints. Like any educational method, it has its strengths, but relying solely on it can be detrimental. Balance is key.
@Donna
Freire’s influence was evident in Catholic school education during the 1970s. I experienced this firsthand, and it’s how I teach as a college professor now. It’s easier when students see immediate value in the skills you’re teaching.
It’s absolutely possible. The IB curriculum shows an example of this application.
Remember, Freire’s context is adult education, which attracts motivated learners. This motivation is often lacking in younger students. I argue that using a banking model might be easier with unmotivated learners compared to a problem-solving approach. However, it should pave the way for students to engage in rich inquiry when they’re ready.
Freire’s most significant contribution is highlighting power dynamics in classrooms, where education can perpetuate societal oppression. The goal should be to empower students. I often tell students to learn to be good workers, but I should emphasize their freedom instead.
Andy said: @ScholarlySpark
Freire’s ultimate goal of freedom aligns with Dewey’s philosophy of preparing students for real life. Real life means being free!
Freire argues that if education prepares you for a life of subjugation, it’s not the same. Is the system reinforcing unjust hierarchies? If yes, it’s definitely not the same.
I’ve read about Freire, and the book suggests that his methods were particularly effective for oppressed farmers in Brazil. His aim was for them to learn to read and understand their oppression to advocate for social change. He wasn’t focused on applying this in wealthier Western societies but noted its potential for marginalized groups. In my country, there are studies on using Freire’s methods with the Roma and incarcerated individuals.
Freire was a unique, Renaissance humanist who challenged capitalism.
I studied English in Brazil, where Freire was central to the education curriculum. Recognizing oppressor and oppressed dynamics is crucial when teaching a lingua franca. As an American, I aim to foster a knowledge exchange rather than just dispensing information. I find Freire’s ideas applicable in the U.S., although standardized testing complicates building knowledge collaboratively. Despite differences in oppression, American students face constraints that limit their freedom.
In science education, there’s been a significant shift away from the banking model. The NGSS initiative aims to modernize traditional science teaching methods.
I haven’t read this book, and it feels outdated compared to contemporary works like ‘Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun’ or ‘The Death and Life of the Great American School System.’ Both provide relevant perspectives on today’s education landscape. I believe there’s a viable solution that doesn’t require a complete system overhaul. From the 30s to the 80s, education diversified with more elective options, but this was largely abandoned post-No Child Left Behind. However, some districts are reviving popular disciplines, yet pinning everything on a 1967 book may not capture the entire picture. I’m curious about your intentions with this podcast; I’m happy to help if I can.
I’ve read it multiple times and am biased since I love it. I maintain that the banking model is oppressive regardless of context. Many educators struggle with the term ‘oppressive,’ which implies complicity in an unjust system. Yet, teacher forums often reflect dissatisfaction with the current system. It’s hard to envision alternatives when entrenched in this structure. Complaints about student numbers and standardized testing exemplify how the system stifles innovation.
I wish there was a required Ed course focusing solely on this book. My undergraduate program didn’t mention key figures like John Dewey or Bell Hooks, emphasizing behaviorism instead, which felt inadequate.
I believe fostering critical thinking is essential, but critiquing the banking model is tricky. Graduates need a vast amount of information to navigate today’s world effectively.
In truth, Freire’s ideas seem unrealistic in practice. I worked at a school where applying Freirian principles led to chaos. Teachers were pressured to eliminate desks to avoid hierarchy, and when discipline issues arose, both teachers and students had to justify their actions to administration, which felt humiliating. Freire’s disdain for capitalism colored his pedagogy, viewing knowledge as bourgeois. His radical approach can create confusion and tension in already struggling educational settings. While I acknowledge Freire’s insights, his philosophy is flawed and unrealistic in practice.
Freire’s revolutionary ideas often face resistance, especially in places like the U.S., where traditional educational values are deeply ingrained. While challenging, I believe Freire’s approach is vital for social justice, especially in marginalized communities. We need to shift towards critical pedagogy to break free from oppressive cycles and cultivate a more equitable society.