Narrative learning

The readings from this week reflected the need for students to experience learning as opposed to being given knowledge such as in the banking model as discussed in Paulo Freire’s, Chapter 2 from Pedagogy of the Oppressed. I definitely understand the need to create students that are constantly questioning information and not just receptacles with which to fill, however, I feel like somewhere there needs to a “baseline” of facts that we all take at face value (at least initially) in order for us to later build our narrative and critical thinking.  Moreover, there seem to be different kinds of questions we can ask.  For example, in young children, the questions we can ask involve getting them curious about words, numbers, nature, etc. so that they learn to not necessarily question what they learn but ask questions to learn.  Whereas in older students (high school/college), these questions may be better spent questioning what they learned and from where the information came.  This is why I really like the idea of “narrative learning”.  This reflects teaching/learning as more of a facilitated discussion led by a “teacher” but participated in by all.  This is opposed to the “lecturing at” situation or the situation where students to learn to ask questions but have no basis on which to ask their questions.

I Cannot Play the Pianoforte

http://colonialquills.blogspot.com/2011/06/literacy-in-colonial-america.html
“There was a great emphasis on universal literacy in the early colonial era of the 17th century” http://colonialquills.blogspot.com/2011/06/literacy-in-colonial-america.html

In any effort to promote literacy, there is another question that comes up.  Whose literacy?   Who gets to define it?  As the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire who first described critical pedagogy said, “Who says that this accent or that this way of thinking is the cultivated one?  If there is one which is cultivated this is because there is one which is not.  Do you see it’s impossible to think of language without thinking of ideology and power?”  Ideology matters when we define literacy.  This hit home for me seeing an extreme example in a recent NPR history article titled “18 Rules of Behavior for young ladies in 1831.”  Charles Varle wrote in 1831 that his list came in part from “the most celebrated books on Ladies education.”   Here are a few: “Consult only your own relations,” “form no friendship with men,” “trust no female acquaintance, i.e, make no confidant of any one,” “Be not too often seen in public,” and “never be afraid of blushing.”  I don’t really think I need to make any commentary of what I think of these “rules.”  (Take a wild guess on that one.)  The open question is would I be considered literate under this system?  I don’t speak Latin or French.  I don’t paint or play “pianoforte.”  I study biology, but I don’t use that much gross anatomy or species identification which would have been the basics in the natural sciences of the day.  And I don’t exactly stay home with no friends either.  Under this ideology would people like me (read women…) be able to prove ourselves?  As Paulo Freire put it, could we “articulate [our] voices and [our] speech in the struggle against injustice”?  I think the answer is, and was, no.  Not really.  Putting it in this oversimplified context helps me tackle it for myself.  What would enable a teacher living under this norm support my voice?   At the heart of critical pedagogy is an idea – give me the power to question this “norm.”  Again to quote Paulo Freire, “No oppressive order could permit the oppressed to begin to question: Why?”  The idea is to let people talk and teach who may not be literate by a given standard (like most of us by the 1830s standard), but highly literate in another.  In the case of women in the 1800s, I imagine this began to happen when school became mandatory and more women were hired as teachers in response to the advocacy of Catharine Beecher.

Basically there are two approaches to trying to help people out.  The first to help directly, and the second to ask real and legitimate questions about a person’s priorities and the primary barriers to these.   There are times and places for both of these (For example, I am thinking of the International Justice Mission which works to free modern slaves and prosecute modern human traffickers.  There comes a point where a victim of human trafficking doesn’t need someone to ask them about the barriers to freedom.  Prosecuting a human trafficker is a really good first step.  You can’t stop there, but you do need to start there.)  One group that I think needs a strong support system in the U.S. is ex-prisoners.  I love way the one writing professor, Stephanie Bower at the University of Southern California, lead her class.  Instead of having students get online and research statistics about ex-prisoners, or feed a superiority complex by asking students to write about how they “made a difference” after some three-hour service project, she invited a panel of people recently released from the prison system to come and tell their stories.  I would love to get to sit in on that class.

I can think of times I have tried so hard to do something I forgot to listen.  I’m sure Charles Varle, the man who wrote the “Rules of behavior for young ladies,” thought he was being helpful.  Maybe we shouldn’t to hard on him.  Sometimes we think we are being helpful too.

Critical Pedagogy

This week’s readings shed light on my bewilderment with the previous reading “Evidence-based logic and the abandonment of non-assessable learning outcomes by Donna Riley.  In my post on that paper, I argued that the author does not understand what logical positivism is and falsely associated it with evidence-based practice.  She mentioned alternative epistemologies, but provided no examples.  I suspected we were wading into postmodernism waters, but after this week’s readings, I think we’re in danger of drowning.  At the core, this weeks readings and Critical Pedagogy make valid points.  Institutional power can be reinforced through a “banking model” of pedagogy and many recommendations by Paulo Freire should help counter the power structure and even lead to better learning outcomes for the students.  I don’t really have any complaints about the Freire readings other than the fact that they were painfully repetitive–I think the entire message could be condensed into 3-4 paragraphs!

Now on to Critical Pedagogy by Joe Kincheloe.  Let’s start with logical positivism–roughly, the idea that only statements that can be logically or empirically verified can be cognitively meaningful.  In a book edited by Joe Kincheloe, logical positivism is used as a boogeyman referred to with frequent pejoratives (seriously, look at the list!) that is oppressing their methods of Critical Pedagogy.  Only in the second to last chapter is logical positivism actually defined.  The problem is that logical positivism has been dead since the 1960s because it was realized that logical positivism cannot be justified based on the rules of logical positivism and it has nothing to do with their critique of evidence-based methods which can be justified on several positions in the Philosophy of Science.  In the previous link, logical positivism would fit within the “Naive Realism” camp (but isn’t exactly the same) and postmodernist are mostly in the “Relativism” camp, but may retreat into the instrumentalist camp when pressed.  However, some don’t.  Smart people actually believe things like “the validity of theoretical propositions in the sciences is in no way affected by the factual evidence” or “the natural world has a small or non-existent role in the construction of scientific knowledge”.  All you really need to justify trusting the results of evidence-based practice is a Reliabilist epistemology and recognizing that social factors do have some influence on our scientific theories doesn’t invalidate the Scientific Method or introduce the need for “other ways of knowing” or “alternative epistemologies”.

Kincheloe argues for other modes of knowledge.  What exactly does he mean?  First, let’s define knowledge: well-justified true belief.  That’s a reasonable, if not 100% philosophically defensible, definition.  Kincheloe lays out several proposed forms of knowledge.  First is normative knowledge, which “concerns what should be”.  This is by no reasonable definition “knowledge”, it is a moral theory or your values.  Second is empirical knowledge–knowledge from data or observations  derived from the senses– which Kincheloe thinks you should at least be acquainted with.  How much weight it should be given relative to other “forms of knowing” is unclear.  Third is political knowledge.  This isn’t really defined, but it “focuses on the power-related aspects of teacher education and teaching”.  How you acquire this without data and observations from your senses is beyond me.  Fourth is ontological knowledge.  Again, not defined, but “has to do with what it means to be a teacher”.  Fifth is experiential knowledge which “involves information and insight about practice”.  OK, I think we’re talking about knowledge about different categories of things, not different types of knowledge or ways of knowing.  Sixth is reflective-synthetic knowledge-“bringing all of your knowledges of teaching together so they can be employed in the critical pedagogical act”.  Putting knowledge about different things together is a new type of knowledge?

Kincheloe further argues that some knowledge forms have been previously excluded.  Some are just areas of study such as African American studies, but others seem to imply they provide alternative ways of knowing, such as psychoanalysis and indigenous knowledges.  Psychoanalysis and many forms of indigenous knowledge (e.g. acupuncture, chinese herbal medicine) have been demonstrated to be pseudoscience when evaluated by the imperialist western Scientific method.  In what sense does something that is false constitute knowledge?  Further, how does the “epistemic plurality” of Critical Pedagogy not leave the door open to all sorts of dangerous psuedoscience and conspiracy theories?

I do think the core ideas of Critical Pedagogy have merit–I just think they would be much more compelling and understandable if they were not dressed up in postmodernism which Noam Chomsky once described as a combination of over-inflated polysyllabic truisms and nonsense.  If you’re bored, here is a postmodernist random essay generator if you want to check it out.  Refresh for a new essay!

Critical Pedagogy in Standardized Courses

 

“Leaders who do not act dialogically, but insist on imposing their decisions, do not organize the people–they manipulate them. They do not liberate, nor are they liberated: they oppress.”
― Paulo FreirePedagogy of the Oppressed

Before this week, I had never heard about the Critical Pedagogy and Paulo Freire. The reading materials and the movie were very interesting. I am so glad I learned about the critical pedagogy.

My undergrad program was more like the Banking Model. However, my master degree courses were project based and were very similar to critical pedagogy model. I feel I learned a lot more in my master and what I learned in those courses I will never forget. Now, after reading about critical pedagogy, I have a better insight about my experiences and why I liked my master program more than the undergraduate one.

Overall, I think the critical pedagogy is a great model to use in teaching, especially at the present time that the business organizations need innovative people. However, I am not sure about applying it in all types of courses.

I feel applying critical pedagogy in a graduate level course is much easier than applying it in an undergraduate level course.  For example, in a course such as undergraduate Quantitative Methods for Decision Making (what I should teach the next year) the methods and concepts are very basic and solid. We expect all students learn the basics methods because they are the foundations for the next courses. Of course, there are some critical issues in the methods, but the topics are far beyond of an undergrad course.

The instructor in this course should make sure that the students learn the basics, considering that time is limited. I like using connected learning techniques in this course and increase critical thinking using the problem-based learning technique. But, I am not yet convinced that “raising awareness of critical issues” about some basics concepts, which are beyond an undergraduate course, will help students in that undergrad course.  Actually, with current settings, applying critical pedagogy in some standardized courses seems almost impossible to me.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed…Freed…or Entitled?

This week involved reading excerpts from Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Pedagogy of Freedom.

There are two nicely contrasting quotes which I think highlight a key issue as the classroom has begun to modernize.

“….it transforms students into receiving objects. It attempts to control thinking and action, leads women and men to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creative power.”

“…The teacher who thinks “correctly” transmits to the students the beauty of our way of existing in the world as historical beings, capable of intervening in and knowing this world.”

Many of us will agree, progressiveness in the classroom makes for a wonderful experience when executed well. Many have likely experienced the repercussions of  authoritative instructions on a student’s creativity.

In my opinion, we live in a generation of entitlement. On a college campus, if you do not have a smart device, access is likely not far out of reach. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had instructors make comments like “Kids these days…” and roll their eyes. I’ve also had many classes with an anti-technology policy. I think for too long entitlement has been viewed as a negative by product of technology, rather than an asset in the classroom. In a generation where there is so much innovation that nothing is innovative, I wonder, how to we not only leverage that to our advantage, but adapt it to our teaching style all while maintaining a relevance to the course?

Theatre and Education of the Oppressed

Theatre of the Oppressed is a set of theatrical forms derived by Augusto Boal in the 1960s. According to Boal, the human “was a self-contained theatre, actor, and spectator in one.” This means that humans have the remarkable ability to simultaneously take action and observe themselves in action. This idea removes the transnational nature of the performative arts and dissolves the barrier between artist and audience or in this case, performer and observer.

The roots of Theatre of the Oppressed include economics, philosophy, ethics, history, and politics. Theatre of the Oppressed exists as a form of social activism and public dialogue that fosters discussion between the audience and performer. In many cases, this framework recognizes the role of audience AS performer and the role of the performer AS audience. In this context, the act of theatre is a form of social and political commentary that engages people in discovery, critical reflection, and dialogue through the process of liberation.

Boal’s techniques include using images, sounds, and words through a series of games meant to draw attention to various forms of oppression through dialogue and interaction. The major branches of Theatre of the Oppressed include: Image Theatre, Forum Theatre, Invisible Theatre, Newspaper Theatre, Rainbow of Desire, and Legislative Theatre. While I could spend time digging into the each of the branches, that is not entirely the point of this blog. If you’re interested, there is a wealth of easily accessible online resources. Instead, the point is to draw connections between Theatre of the Oppressed and the work of Paulo Freire with the understanding that the relationship between teaching and performing is so incredibly close.

Boal’s work was heavily influenced by educator and theorist Paulo Freire. It’s easy to see the correlation between Freiere’s work in critical pedagogy and Boal’s work in Theatre of the Oppressed. In the Foundations of Critical Pedagogy, Freiere describes teaching as a political act arguing that teachers, “should embrace this dimension of their work and position on social cultural, economic, political, and philosophical critiques of dominant power at the heart of the curriculum” (p. 70). Both Ferire and Boal operate by recognizing that oppression is a system of control that forces individuals to adjust to, and accept the world around them and inhibits creative power. Critical pedagogy forces practitioners to recognize the role of teacher and student is not a subversive relationship but a fluid one. The same can be applied to audience and performer as previously mentioned in the work of Boal. This type of work examines the importance of education and the importance of artistic expression as a form of survival. At the heart of this discussion is the idea that oppression is a result of the imbalance of power. Both education and artistic expression are tools that when properly employed have the ability to shift power by providing commentary and critical understanding to the world as we perceive it to be, not as we are told it exists.

The relationship between Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Theatre of the Oppressed is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, there are several organizations and academic journals that specialize on the topic. It just goes to show the intrinsic nature the arts have with the human condition. Where there are learners there are teachers and where there are teachers there are artists.

“Learning is not child’s play; we cannot learn without pain” – Aristotle

“Man cannot remake himself without suffering, for he is both the marble and the sculptor.” –Alexis Carrel

TO Tree English 400

Are the students active or object in the classroom?

I read that Ira Shor, a professor at the City University of New York, believed that the role of students should change from the object to active. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy)

I love his idea! I always hated to be an object from others. Though this reflects my personality, I think that a constructive classroom must have an active atmosphere for the students. They need to sense that their roles are very important in the classroom and if they do not participate in the class, they missed a major part of their life!

I remembered that some of my teachers had tried to motivate the students to show up in the class by some rules, for example, they had stated that the participation in class is 10% or even 20% of the total grade. I am sure that the students show up with this type of rules, but we should evaluate its efficiency. They may be in the class but they check their social network accounts like Facebook, twitter, and Instagram.

So, how can we motivate the students to be more active in the class? How can we reconstruct the relation between the teacher and students?

I have an idea that may work and it is worthy of mention. We may randomly select the students to present a brief lecture about the last session in a few minutes at the beginning of each session. This may help them to feel as a teacher and they think that they are teaching the course. I know that some instructors ask the students to present some contents of the course but I do not like this method of motivation. Because the students are not familiar with the topic and they may feel disappointed. Instead, we may teach them and ask them to review the materials and develop more details about it. It may work better and motivate them to deeply think about the course. Additionally, they feel that they are leading the class and it changes their mind about the atmosphere of the class.

In the last session, Professor Nelson asked the student to read their peers’ syllabus and criticized it. This is exactly an appropriate method of motivation. All students feel that they are grading his/her peer and learn more about another syllabus. Another positive point in this course is that the students must comment other blogs. They need to read other blogs and think about them then write a logical and meaningful comment. Both these methods are perfect ways to engage the students in the classroom.

Finally, I believe that the students should feel that they are learning an important topic in the class and if they miss one session they may lose a major knowledge. To create this perception, the teachers should use innovative methods of teaching and recreate their relations with students via social activities out of the class.

Raising of critical thinkers: it is harder than it looks

This week’s readings about critical pedagogy may prompt some of you to apply those teachings in your current and future classrooms. Except that I have been trying to raise my kids to be critical thinkers and it is harder than it looks.

I always try to make time to explain to my kids every thing that I am doing, why I am doing it and what would happen if I don’t do it. I  try to give them the choice of doing something or not doing it. I  travel as much as possible with them, widening their views on existing cultures so they can question how the world works and start a dialogue. Most of all, I respect the choices they make and their individuality.

I cannot begin to articulate how challenging and tiring that way is.  My oldest (six and a half) has developed a keen sense of logic and sometimes his arguments make more sense than mine and I have to adhere to his requests. And my younger one (there and a half) is completely independent, he wants to do everything himself and sometimes wants to make decisions for us.

On days when I am not completely overwhelmed, I can appreciate that I am raising critical thinkers who will not take matters at face value but rather question and validate their choices. But, on the other hand, it takes so much work and time to keep up with them, being the guide rather than the enforcer of rules.

Needless to say, I appreciate Freire’s approach to education and rejecting the “banking system” and all it takes is a conscientious shift on our behalf from automated teaching/learning to eternal seekers and givers of knowledge.

Teaching like a flashcard? Memorize, Recite, Repeat

The reading this week for class were very informative. The analogy of students being the “receptacles” that the teachers must “fill” from the Paulo Freire text really caught my attention. I have never really heard of the “banking” concept before. It made me think back to all the days, I spent memorizing word for word bullets off PowerPoint slides and writing down each key statistic to reproduce on the test. This definitely limits creativity, transformation, application, and knowledge.
Teaching should be conversational! Much like a strategy used for health counseling called motivation interviewing, the conversation should be two-sided and should be facilitated or guided by the instructor. Taking an authoritative approach where there are no connections between instructor and students will suppress creativity and damage the learning environment. Asking for questions, allowing for discussion, and opening the floor to all types of learning will allow for an opportunity for student success. Is there a place though for directness, memorization, and recitation? Is a traditional “banking” education model a foe to the progression of teaching education? What is the correct mixture of “banking” information and application?

 

pop_education

http://chattanoogacreek.utk.edu/popular_education.html

Bank balance

In reading the excerpt from “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” by Paulo Freire, I am again in throes of processing such sensational pedagogical writing. My problems are: (1) the gross generalizations are laughable, and with many of the writings and discussions in such vein, I would like to see the data to back up claims that most educators are “Narrators” depositing information in “banks;” and (2) this movement seems much more apropos to our current K-12 system, as it is mandated by governmental regulation.

In either case, the instructors I know–both K-12 and at the university level–actively work against the stereotypical approaches of instructor-student dynamics in the classroom. I am well aware of how impressive my friends and acquaintances are, and I’m optimistic that this approach is more widespread than we give credit.

The excerpt is only chapter 2 from the book, so I am curious to read the rest and gain a broader perspective of the narrative. It’s a bit much to choke down much of what Freire writes in somewhat isolation–such as, “Education as the exercise of domination stimulates the credulity of students, with the ideological intent (often not perceived by educators) of indoctrinating them to adapt to the world of oppression.”1 In regards to this specific quote, I am also curious to know more about the time and place Freire is drawing from, because to apply this to 21st century pedagogy in the US seems far-fetched at best. While I am the first to criticize and call for the retraction of Common Core, I in no way think it is an exercise of domination over students/citizens.

Again, how does this apply to the university? The banking concept, at least, can apply pretty readily, but is it prevalent (as many would have us believe)? I would like to see data on that. I cannot think of an instance in my university studies in which student participation and contribution in the classroom was discouraged. Of course content must be given, and often in a lecture method. It is here that I come back to a common argument of mine in that half of a student’s education (if not more) is dependent on student responsibility. If the student needs more than what is given, approach the professor.

The practical reality of the University is that we have thousands of incoming students every year, and thousands of outgoing graduates, all with the goal of earning a degree that all but guarantees a given knowledge-set bestowed on the student. Instructors are in the position of making sure adequate and appropriate information is given and received in the classroom. There are going to be plenty of instances of banking this knowledge, and plenty of instances of going beyond merely lecturing to the student (dependent on the instructor, the students, class size, and material, among other variables).

Freire’s philosophical approach makes for a good read, and is certainly passionate, but I look forward to more practical approaches in aiding the learning process.

——————————

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the oppressed.New York: Continuum Books, 1993.


1 2 3 4 5 6