Hi, thanks for your comment. I agree with your first half of the discussion regarding indoctrination and the compartmentalization of knowledge. However, criticism is an important part of living in this world. Constructive criticism is critical in making improvements to existing processes. Just because I presented a critical point of view does not mean that I don’t support schools – I am merely commenting on drawbacks of the current system which I think can be improved upon. There are plenty of folks who don’t go to school and remain illiterate – sure they manage to make a living and make sense of the world, but then they all end up voting for Trump ?

I agree with Gary, technology itself is not going to create the “epistemological curiosity” for which Freire argues. Rather it is how we use technology to foster curiosity and knowledge creation. This has theme has played over in my head as I have been revising my syllabus and thinking about ways I can use technology not to dump information on the floor of the classroom but to encourage students and myself to create knowledge through deliberate explorations. Each time I add to the syllabus, I ask myself: Is this something that will generate curiosity or could I put it on a thumb drive and have the students regurgitate the information at a later date? If the the former, then it stays; if the later, it goes in the pile of things to look at if you can’t fall asleep at night.

Thanks for your comment, Aakash. I think Freire’s work was appropriate for its time – without context it I can see it being taken as a hyperbole. We should adapt what we can from the text and apply it to judiciously to the current education system. I think this is what I wanted to convey when I said that Frier’s work presents a “pessimistic view”; hyperbole would have been a better word choice.

I am pretty sure Freire was a Pink Floyd fan and vice versa. I can imagine a conversation between the artist and the philosopher (you can debate which is which or if they are both) would include ending the imprisonment of “epistemological curiosity” in our institutions and society more broadly. That is where I think Pink Floyd’s message is often misconstrued to mean formal education is meaningless instead of what you point out in the meaning behind the lyrics which is more about the way in which we learning and create learning environments.

I think in that conversation Freire would also not advocate throwing out the conventional “dominant” ideas, but rather building and understanding these dominant ideas as a point of difference. I had a great English teacher (who was also a Catholic nun) my sophomore-year in high school, when asked why we needed to learn grammar and rules of poetry she simply said: “You must learn the rules so you know how to break them and then you can choose whether to break them on purpose.” I had no idea how true that was for grammar and life.

Awesome! Paulo Freire’s quote on language and this comment make me think of one of my all time favorite TED talks. Check it out!

https://www.ted.com/talks/jamila_lyiscott_3_ways_to_speak_english?language=en

It is a celebration of her heritage and the three different ways to talk. Every language has standards and normals.

Language is so central to culture. When people try to completely standardize language, we are essential telling those different to give up their culture.

I think that we have seen exactly that regarding technology in the classroom.

When technology has been used as a cool way to help facilitate conversation and critical thinking, such as in this class, it is a very useful tool.

However, when it is used simply to deposit information and reinforce the banking model, it does not inspire real learning. I’ve taken some online modules that try to “impart information” to me, and I typically just skip to the end and take the quiz!

I am a HUGE supporter of technology because I view it as a tool that aides our exploration of the world and generates the energy need to create knowledge. That said, I am also a strong advocate for learning without technology, be that lived experiences, written or oral histories, or any other ways. My interest in this somewhat “old fashioned” way of learning is spawned from my research interests in disasters. There is a very real chance that in our life time some event such as extreme space weather events or more likely the weaponization of electromagnetic pulses will cause widespread loss of all technology generated by electricity. Surviving an event such as this will not be about “duck and cover” or even the stockpiling of rations. Rather, how do we survive on the land and use the natural resources around us without the aid of google.

What do you mean by systematic exploration? I am trying to differentiate phenomenology from having a memory and/or past experiences shaping your behavior in the present and future…

Freire really struck a chord with me as well when I first saw his work. Immediately, I could relate to the feeling of having knowledge deposited on me from some of my former engineering profs. Interesting question about how Freire would view technology in the classroom. One thought is he may think it could be a useful tool, but could also be a hindrance if used inappropriately further reinforcing the banking model.

Thanks for the post! I agree that teacher evaluations are problematic, and, as a student, I am guilty of providing sub-par feedback. I would say, however, that students do not always provide a more negative view than reality on the evaluations. I think a lot of students also tend to mark in the “good” to “excellent” range on most of the questions to get through the evaluation quickly (guilty as charged: this is what I do), only taking the time to mark something different if they either really think something was done well or poorly. I have also thought that evaluation of teaching by colleagues (other professors) would be worthwhile, although that would be adding another responsibility onto already full plates.