From what I gathered, Freire
advocates for teaching methods that contain a large portion of discussion and
allow students to question the information they are being presented with,
rather than merely having to accept that knowledge. Freire argues against using
“banking education” – that is, he does not view students as empty receptacles
for knowledge and teachers as the sole holders of information. Instead, he recognizes
the importance of students’ ideas.
My main concern with Friere’s
viewpoint is about how much lecture he would see fit for a classroom. By this,
I mean that I would assume that a basic level of knowledge about a topic is
needed in order to properly discuss that topic. In my own experience, when
teachers ask groups to discuss what they think about a subject prior to receiving
much information about it, the discussions are often bland and without debate
or questioning. Friere says that teachers should give material to the students
and listen to students’ considerations about the material, and finally the
teacher should reevaluate his own ideas. While this is fine and dandy for a
great deal of material, I would think that some basic knowledge could be
presented more effectively in a less discussion-based format. For example, it
would hardly be beneficial to discuss the differences between written and
spoken communication if one was illiterate and had no conception of how writing
differed from speech. Instead, to me, it would seem better to present basic
information in a more factual manner, and then proceed to question and discuss
the hell out of a subject once a foundation of knowledge was established.
Overall, I thought this chapter presented
some very valid points, such as how education should be more about learning to
process, analyze, and question information presented, rather than merely
learning to repeat previously presented knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment