Here are a few questions to get our conversation started:
From chapter 1, Freire gives an introduction to his point of view. He was clear that he was against fatalism and neoliberalism, therefore what is he for?
In chapter 2, Freire tells us that "to teach is...to create the possibilities for the production or construction of knowledge" (p. 30) How does Freire suggest that teachers create these possibilities?
What is Freire trying to tell us when he says there is no teaching without learning and that learning is teaching?
According to Freire, "correct thinking" or "right thinking":
- knows that words not given body (made flesh) have little or not value (p. 39)
- is a willingness to risk (p. 41)
- rejects discrimination (p. 41)
- is dialogical (p. 43)
- is reflecting critically on one's practice (p. 43).
Expound upon Freire's thoughts on correct or right thinking.
How does Freire suggest we change and advance from ingenuous curiosity to epistemological curiosity?
Freire, Ch. 3
ReplyDeleteIt’s had to argue with the views Freire has on what teaching is (and I would also add, what being a human is). Freire tells us to live out our beliefs and not be hypocrites, teaching in one way, but living our lives another way. According to Freire we should view our lives as unfinished, because there is always room for growth. He states, “It is our awareness of being unfinished that makes us educable” (p. 58). Do you live your life as if it is unfinished? If so, how? If not, why not?
Another principle Freire brings about is respect for the autonomy of the student, which is really common sense. Yet, what were some ways in which teachers can accomplish this, according to Freire?
At the top of page 69, Freire lists ways he has tried to be a teacher. From that list, are there any you struggle with? Disagree with? In the next section on page 69, Freire states, “…the absence of hope is not the “normal” way to be human.” Elaborate on what he means by this statement.
Freire tells us that we are “equally subject and object in the historical process” (p. 73), meaning when we see a need or injustice in the world, we don’t stand back observing, but intervene and take action. Do you find it hard to take action? Why or why not?
Lastly, Freire challenges us to be curious. But not only does he want teachers to be curious, he wants us to encourage curiosity in our students. Why does Freire feel curiosity is so important?
I have certainly changed in my reactions, whether they be passive or aggressive, in different situations over the years. When I was younger I would have acted aggressively when I shouldn't and passively when I probably shouldn't have. Now in my life I definitely spend more time watching and evaluating a situation, unless there is apparent danger or someone is going to get hurt. As in Friere's relating to his experiences within the classroom, I myself tend to watch a lot more now. I'm not as fearful of how things will go within conversations and I allow students, unless necessary, to work some things out for themselves.
DeleteThese are, however, very difficult things to teach to someone who has not been in the classroom. It's got to be very difficult to tell someone to maintain their cool when they haven't been in the moments that you know are headed their way. I think this relates to Friere's encouragement of our curiosity. To be seasoned enough to recognize a situation that needs to be shut down, but too also recognize a situation that can allow a few more breaths of life into it before you bring it to a halt or even redirect its path.
Jenny you got deep on us this week. Man!
DeleteOne thing that I struggle with is knowing my limitations. I also struggle with failing "right". By this I mean that there is a correct way and an incorrect way to fail. We know that many kids these days do not know how to fail correctly, and society sees this in youth sports, community activities/events (Girl/Boy Scouts), and at school. At some point in time we have failed to teach our students how to fail well. I struggle to demonstrate the art of failing well in authentic situations. I do ok when helping a student process how they could have handled a failure more appropriately, yet when faced with a real and very very personal situation (such as the one I am currently in regarding future employment with my district), I fail poorly, much like our students.
I realize that this is somewhat normal, and likely something that everyone struggles with at some point. I do find some comfort in this quote however........- "Education does not make us educable. It is our awareness of being unfinished that makes us educable."
When he starts writing about right and proper thinking on page 41 I think there may be a translation issue like when my group read Vygotsky. My impression is that Freire does not impose right or wrong, proper or improper, the way people think or how they speak. Instead, I think it's either inclusionary or exclusionary. I think if we put overlay those terms on the tenets listed they make much more sense probably more accurate to the readings of Freire.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that Freire was vehemently opposed to capitalism as well, but I also asked the question what might he be for. Perhaps communism, based on his comments about Marx and the fact that he is mentioned 8 times in the text. (a con of the digital version is that I can not reference your page #s, but a pro is that I can search for terms...) Or perhaps Freire supports a more socialistic view, its difficult for me to tell for sure about the economic system he might support, but there is no doubt he places humanity at the top of a list of priorities and profits or the market way down the list.
ReplyDeleteThe principle of student autonomy is huge, yet it seems like so many teachers struggle with it. I wonder if it has to do with another concept he discusses regarding authority v authoritarianism. He talks about autonomy and the importance of decision making and consequences. Perhaps many teachers feel like giving students choices would be too many to keep up with (and the feeling of losing control), that the students will make the "wrong" decision (arrogance on the part of the teacher), or that they will be blamed for the consequences instead of the student.
I think Freire feels curiosity is important for the same reason I have seen other authors promote it. I was reading about a woman who wrote about social studies curriculum (I can't remember her name, I thought she was in our notes, but I couldn't find it). She said something along the lines of you CAN'T teach everything. That was so freeing for me. Since that is the case, why not let the students decide what they'd like to learn about? Sure, within parameters of curriculum, but kind of along the idea of Freire's suggestion that students reflect on something they saw on television, video game or simply a gesture (p 95 for me). Help students rekindle their natural sense of curiosity, exploration and love of learning.
What I've loved when reading this book is how he encourages us to be human. All of the ways of teaching apply to ways of living: respecting yourself and others; having a caring and loving attitude; intervening, re-creating, and transforming the world; challenging yourself and others; being willing to trying new things; learning from mistakes; finding joy in teaching and in others; living with hope, not in fear. The list could go on and on. These are not only ways to be an amazing teacher, but an amazing human as well. Freire's views are not rocket science, they are easily applicable to real lives.
ReplyDeleteI think that is why he is so loved and loathed. It's an approach to education that demands that the teacher be an integral and purposeful part of the process. In some ways education as become a "science" and disconnected from the human aspect. I don't think all teachers or even most feel this way, but at the policy level, at the authority level, it I think it may be viewed as such.
DeletePerhaps this is why his writings tend to transcend into various professions such as psychology and religion. Because if at the end of the day we have only one thing in common, it is our humanity. And I believe that Matt is correct in identifying that within our profession, most don't, or if they did, they no longer really care about those in the classroom.
DeleteSo how do you teach someone how to care? How do we prepare someone who has the characteristics of a person who has a personality that is very much under the radar? Someone who isn't funny, likeable, charismatic, inspirational, or what we may hope for in a teacher. How do we bring that out in them or do you even have to? Can those quiet and methodical types be the great changers in the lives of students?
Adam your questions made me think of the part of chapter three when Freire says "Whether the teacher is authoritarian, undisciplined, competent, incompetent, serious, irresponsible, involved, a lover of people and of life, cold, angry with the world, bureaucratic, excessively rational, or whatever else, he/she will not pass through the classroom without leaving his or her mark on the students."
DeleteThis quote follows the section in which he states "His/her presence in the classroom never escapes the student's judgements."
As I think about this I just keep coming back to the conversation that we had so many weeks ago, and that has been at the forefront of my mind for the past few weeks. When we were reading Davis there was one viewpoint that stated that "everyone is a teacher". At the time the people that were in my discussion group were pretty clear in their disagreeing with me, however I am still grappling with the idea. I don't know that everyone is a teacher of some sort. (And yes I know that we aren't talking just about the kind that stand in the front of a classroom full of 4th graders.) I wonder what Freire would say about this. I wonder what his answer would be.
Ch. 4
ReplyDeleteOn page 93, Freire states, “…nothing can justify the degradation of human beings.” Do you think that Freire would consider our ways of testing students as degrading? For example, testing 3rd graders on reading and having them repeat 3rd grade based on their scores. The stress, anxiety and humiliation that some students experience with these tests are not only heartbreaking but also unnecessary. I have a hard time justifying the benefits of such tests. In addition, if teaching is a human act, which according to Freire it is, students must feel respected. Do these tests show respect for our students?
I think Freire would consider our testing protocols as a manifestation of authoritarian power. In a way it subjugates the students and so in a way they are degrading. I do not Frerie would be completely opposed to teaching, but they have to be culturally and educationally appropriate as well as benefiting the students. It benefits students by allowing the teacher to assess what students need more instruction in.
DeleteI should have been more specific, state testing: OCCT and EOI's. Students are being assessed by their teachers the whole year, so are these state tests needed?
DeleteI assumed so and tried to craft my response to reflect that. I guess I didn't do well either.
DeleteI agree with Matt that these types of high-stakes tests are authoritative and degrading, and Jenny I agree with you that they can be humiliating and anxiety producing as well.
DeleteI also think that there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that they do not require critical thinking or creativity, and there are plenty of biases present within the instruments themselves, as well as their administrators.
I think that Freire might see them as part of the "banking system" that he refers to in chapter two, but is from "Pedagogy of the Oppressed." It uses the metaphor of the student as a container that is filled with the knowledge that a teacher gives them, which really means that the giver is the one with the power and the "gift", and the receiver knows nothing and has "nothing". The tests tie into this system because if one does well on the tests, they are rewarded with promotion, scholarship, continued education, etc... They become the teachers. They become the givers of knowledge. To those who have no knowledge.
Does that make sense?
:)
ReplyDeleteJenny, you posed the question, "What is Freire trying to tell us when he says there is no teaching without learning and that learning is teaching?
ReplyDeleteI agree that we learn when we teach. I often learned new ideas about my content, but even if I didn't, I often learned about my students' perspectives, or about them personally. But I think it is interesting because I also agreed with Wenger in Communities of Practice when he says, "Learning and teaching are not inherently linked. Much learning takes place without teaching, and indeed much teaching takes place without learning."
Is this first idea inline with mysticism, that anyone or anything can be a teacher? Its about the experience that you have, and that this can happen without a "guide"?
Did Bruner comment on this either way? I thought he also had something to say about teaching and learning and their relationship, but I can't seem to locate anything specific in The Culture of Ed text.
All I found was on page 22 when Bruner tells us that learning is an interactive process because we learn from one another.
DeleteFreire said, "...there is no valid teaching from which there does not emerge something learned" (p. 31). Maybe the key is "valid" teaching. You make a good point that we could be teaching and a student might not learn from what I am teaching. What could account for the student not learning?
Perhaps if we mean learning that is internalized and long lasting. I can think of a lot of that NOT happening! If there are not opportunities for collaboration and reflection as Bruner suggested, the "learning" might be fleeting. So then, was there really learning!? :) Ahh!
ReplyDeleteI think that there is always learning taking place. We're always assimilating and becoming disequilibrated. So then we must then continue to accommodate and requilibrate. The problem I think that you are expressing Lindsay is that there is fear that they have requilibrated in the wrong ways. Unfortunately, we only meet our students at one point in their life, I don't think that we can suggest that the learning is fleeting, but it might not stick in the way that we hoped it would. I think this because of how often I'm shocked at what a student will come and say they enjoyed or what made sense in a lesson. From those conversations alone I know that much of what they gather is kept to themselves and we don't always see that on assessments. We can't see it all. So I know they walk out of the classroom with something that was impactful, I just might not ever know what it was.
DeleteDoesn't this go back to the idea that teaching is not transferring knowledge, but "creating the possibilities for the production or construction of knowledge." I feel almost like Freire contradicts himself a little bit here, which is perhaps why he also states that we must be gentle with ourselves and that the journey is never complete. (lol)
DeleteWhat I'm trying to get at it is the question of can we ever predetermine what our students are going to learn? As teachers can we state "Today you are going to learn ..."? I think that's what this whole semester has been about. Depending on what branch of the tree you are swinging from, your answer is different. The scary thing is, I think that we are now supposed to be able to say, "For the most part I hang out on this branch...", and I'm not sure I'm ready to make that statement yet...