Question 1: In Freire’s critique of the banking model of education, he argues that students are posited as receptacles or depositories (pp.72 of original text).Why is the banking model so problematic for Freire? What educational paradigm does he offer as an alternative and how does it differ from the banking model?
Question 2: Compare definitions of "literacy" in the Gee, Scribner and Freire and Macedo pieces. In each author's conception of literacy, what are the attributes of a "literate" member of society?
According to Freire, the banking model promotes oppression within society, preventing any one person from truly reaching their full potential as an individual. By having the students be receptacles to the information taught by the teachers, students never question or try to actively transform the taught practices instituted by the teacher; instead, they become better adapted to their oppressive society. Thus, they better serve as oppressed individuals and continue on a path of learning and ideas that has been predetermined by their oppressors. To counteract the banking model, Freire offers ‘problem-posing education’ as the only truly liberating educational model. According to Freire, his alternative allows for both the student and teacher to learn from each other, enabling them to stimulate creativity. By creating a student-teacher communalized relationship, both parties reflect upon each other as equals to gain educational enlightenment. In his model, there is no dominant individual, ensuring education is a “practice of freedom” (Freier, 81).
ReplyDeleteAccording to Gee, literacy is the use of language within the context and social practices of which that language is used. A literate individual will be able to not only understand the language but also identify how and in what sense it is being used. Gee’s definition is somewhat similar to Friere and Macado. To them, literacy is not just understanding a language but being able to understand and communicate within the content of that civilization’s culture. The attributes of a “literate” member of society in the Freire and Macedo piece is the ability to communicate and express ideas within themselves to the fellow members of their society. Thus, a literate individual can reproduce meaning within his or her own culture and society. Instead of arguing a definition of literacy, Scribner states literacy is constantly changing. He provides three metaphors that show literacy as composing of the following three parts: the ability to adapt and function within one’s society, the ability to understand and manipulate communication to advance within one’s society, and the ability to internalize the written word. Combined these three parts demonstrate the attributes that a literate member of society would have.
After reading Freire’s article on the banking educational system, I began to believe what wasn’t the problem with this system. Freire simply defines the banking education by saying that “students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor.” Teachers simply deposit the information into students and the students would memorize and repeat the same process over and over. Freire argues that this is problematic because it is an “attempt to control thinking and action” of the students, in other words, channeling off their capabilities to create new ideas and to use their imaginations. I agree with Freire and how the banking system is ineffective and believe that our school system has to change at least with the higher level education. I believe it is important to use the banking system at younger students to create a foundation of a good studying habit and discipline, simultaneously allowing both the teacher and student to be on equal grounds. This brings my answer to the second part of the question of the alternative ways to go about with the banking model. Friere introduces, in my words, an “interactive” system or a non-oppressive system. Unlike the oppressive banking system, the interactive system introduces the creation of a community within the classroom where students and teacher alike communicate on equal grounds. Though the teacher is responsible of knowing deep insight on topics and readings, the students also has a say on what they want to learn and what techniques works best for them.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Gee, Scribner, Freire and Macedo all have a similar look on literacy. Though there are also many differences, I would like to focus on their common ideals due to only have 50 more words left. They believe that literacy is the understanding and the ability to communicate with one another within a culture. By culture, I mean of anything. I learned by going to the after school program in St. Anthony is that the kids, with different races and ethnicities, are able to communicate and deeply understand one another due to their common culture in the hardships that they have back at home. Literacy isn’t just the reading and listening of a language but far more than that.
Freire believes that the banking model hinders, rather than promotes, learning. Friere believes that the banking model is an oppressive system because it does not allow open communication and doesn’t encourage students to ask questions, an essential element in the educational process. Students are thought to be ignorant by the teachers, and as such are never able to reach their full potential as educated members of society. The lack of communication poses many challenges, as teachers may be forcing their students to memorize and repeat information that might be outdated. Freire believes that “problem-posing education” is the positive alternative to the banking model. “Problem-posing education” allows for a system of mutual communication between teacher and student, creating a system of educational liberation. The banking model differs from “problem-posing education” because it creates a system in which teachers educate students, and vise versa creating a mutually shared experience that is constantly improving.
ReplyDeleteGee defines literacy as obtaining control of the “language in secondary discourses” (8), which can be learned explicitly through non-home based societies in the public sphere. He views literate members of societies as those who are not only able to read and write, but those who are also able to comprehend language in a social setting. Unlike Gee, Scribner expresses her belief that literacy is not something that can be defined in one way, as it is something that varies based on individual or societal experiences. Scribner does however express the belief that literacy can be described in the terms of three metaphors: “literacy as adaption, literacy as power, and literacy as state of grace” (73). She believes that a literate member of society understands situational demands and survival, can internalize the written word, and understands the value of literacy in dealing with different groups of society. Finally, Freire and Macedo deem a person to be literate if he or she is able to reestablish their cultural traditions into the culture of the dominant class, as they view literacy as a person’s ability to effectively communicate their social and political to other members of society.
While examining the banking concept of education, Freire explains the limitations that this system places on students and their teachers. One of the most problematic themes in the banking model is that the teacher is seen as the opposite of his student. The educator is seen as regulating and inhibiting a students creativity, transformation and knowledge. This oppression or overwhelming control from the banking model leads Freire to explain an alternative model called problem posing education. This model opens the door to dialogue between teachers and students, allowing them to both contribute to learning. Instead of seeing his students as objects, the educator is constantly reforming his reflections through his students reflections. Freire believes that the banking theory only immobilizes students, but problem-posing education affirms students as beings in the process of becoming.
ReplyDeleteWhen addressing the topic of literacy and defining those that are literate we will discover through the readings of Gee, Scribner, Freire and Macedo, a wide variety of opinions. Beginning with Gee, he explains about primary and secondary discourses. He believes that literacy is the control of secondary uses of language and considers those who are literate to be able to use the language of secondary discourse. Scribner takes completely different approach to defining literacy claiming that ideal literacy is simultaneously adaptive, socially empowering, and self-enhancing. Freire and Macedo simplify the term and explain how literacy can be viewed as a set of practices that function to either empower or disempower people. Literacy has the ability to promote democratic and emancipatory change. They argue that those who are literate do not simply know how to use the dominant standard language, but rather they know the theory of cultural production and see it as intertwining with literacy. These three approaches to defining literacy and determining those who are considered literate lead to the conclusion that there is no universal agreement as to the answers to these questions. Literacy has many facets and because of this it cannot be contained by one definition.
The banking model is problematic for Freire because it only promotes students ability to receive, memorize and repeat information. This does not promote learning. It is dehumanizing and oppressive. Knowledge as Freire mentions only comes from invention and re-invention. This is not promoted in the banking system because it simply creates controlled thinking and action. People are taught what is “right” without question. The banking model, therefore, projects that learning is a one-way relationship from teacher to student. This places the teacher in an artificial role where they are all knowing. The banking model ultimately limits learning and therefore hinders the development of their critical consciousness. Freire suggests the problem posing education model, which encompasses communication, consciousness and cognitive actors. It makes learning a circular process, allowing the individuals to freely question what is being taught. In this process the teacher, as well as the student, learns. This promotes the idea of education as freedom. Students can now be active liberators of the world by now being able to critically analyze and understand what surrounds them. This model creates critical thinkers.
ReplyDeleteGee defines literacy as “control of secondary discourse,” secondary discourse being an extension of the acquisition of primary discourse. Talking to a boss at work would be an example of secondary discourse because it takes the acquired oral mode one step further. Discourse in a workplace would be accounting for secondary institutions thereby building on the acquired knowledge of primary discourse. Scribner does not attempt to place literacy under one concrete definition rather she looks at literacy as three metaphors: adaptation, power and state of grace. She dissects literacy into many forms suggesting literacy is “adaptive, socially empowering and self-enhancing.” Each of these definitions differs in social motivations and believed best practices. Freire and Macedo look at literacy through active practice, and show that literacy is the ability to express concepts/ideas and communicate rather than regurgitate. Therefore to them a literate individual would be someone who could analyze the world around them. Literacy is interpreted in multiple ways. These emphasize the difficulty of answering the question: what is literacy?
In his article Freire introduces the banking model of education, calling the students ‘containers’ in which teachers deposit information. Freire has quite the issue with this model, in that it allows no room for creativity or innovation. He uses the terms ‘oppressors’ and ‘oppression’ frequently throughout the article, asserting that the banking model of education serves the oppressors needs to have complacent and obedient students, who will someday become the complacent and obedient public. The students only receive the information which teachers deem necessary, with no original thought or problem solving to go along with it. He describes how this method allows a person only to be in the world, a spectator of sorts, rather than an active participant with the world. As an alternative, Freire offers the idea of ‘problem-posing’ education as a form of liberation. This method would allow students to think consciously about what they are learning and act as problem solvers along side of their teachers instead of just being receptacles into which the dominant teachers dump information. The banking method refuses to consider students as individuals, while the problem-posing system hinges on students’ individuality and creativity.
ReplyDeleteGee’s definition of literacy hinges on the idea of multiple literacies, where literacy is the use of secondary discourses. These secondary discourses build on the primary discourses that are learned early in home life, but are connected with the secondary institutions that the learner attends, for example school, work, and churches. It is control of these secondary discourses, Gee argues, that allow a person to be truly literate. Scribner examines literacy by describing it in three metaphors; as power, as adaptation, and as a state of grace. He explains how literacy can hold all three qualities and is constantly changing and adapting to the world. Scribner and Freire look at literacy as a combination of being able to not just understand language but to use that understanding to express meaning to others and possibly enact change in a cultural context.
The banking concept of education is seen as tool of oppression, because it limits the expansion of the student’s creative power and forces them to accept their teacher’s knowledge as the ultimate truth. Instead, Freire suggests the implementation of the problem-posing method, which allows for sufficient dialogue between students and the teacher. By creating this bridge of communication, students are allowed to engage in critical thinking and feel more connected to the world and the teacher, who also has the opportunity to learn from his/her students through dialogue. In contrast, the baking paradigm resists the use of dialogue and limits any sort of critical thinking that could encourage the students to challenge themselves.
ReplyDeleteGee makes a distinction between primary discourse and secondary discourse, such that literacy is closely associated with one’s ability to control secondary uses of language. With that said, a literate member should be able to attain knowledge through explicit learning and be able to explain that knowledge to someone else. Scribner is convinced that literacy can only be looked at through a social lens. A literate person should be an active participant in “socially organized activities with written language” for the culture of association. In the Freire and Macedo piece, literacy is described as something more than just knowing the dominant standard language. Thus, literate members produce cultural meaning through literacy.
Freire argues against the banking model of education due to its tendency to create mindless masses that regurgitate whatever is taught to them in school. This type of education promotes conformity and lacks the individual free thinking that helps a person reach his or her highest potential. “In the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing” (p. 72). The students therefore accept the power of the teacher and never come to the possibility that they too can educate the teacher. They remain ignorant of their condition, whereas the teacher uses banking model as a justification for his or her existence. Obviously, Freire is dissatisfied with such a method because it turns students into slaves of the teacher. Those who do well in such a system are ones that do as they’re told without question. They are malleable and adaptable, but unable to critique the world and transform it. Therefore, Freire proclaims that a “problem-posing” education as an alternative to the banking model. This type of system enables an engaging type of education in which the students and teacher learn from each other. In this paradigm, the students are treated as equals with the teacher and this therefore generates creativity and free-thinking to “develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality in process, but transformation” (p. 83). Although the teacher is expected to have prior knowledge on the topic that is taught, the students have the right to say whether it is something they would like to learn and explain what teaching methods work best for them.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Freire, the crucial built-in problems of the banking model education are the lack of consciousness of the student and the dominant role of the teacher in the educational system. Therefore, this model will minimize students’ creativity. Moreover, The banking model of education emphasizes the teacher’s role as a narrative character that knows everything. As students, they are more like static objects rather than human beings who have the dynamical learning abilities. Freire also argued that education should be a system where is filled with creativity, communication and transformation. Therefore, he comes out with the problem-posting education model. This model emphasizes students’ learning consciousness, activeness and authenticated thinking. Moreover, it also focuses on the communication between students and teachers so that there will be no dominance in the educational system, nor oppression.
ReplyDeleteGee’s definition of literacy is the control of secondary used of language. He thinks that literacy can be various and the two main parts are the dominant and the powerful literacy. In Gee’s opinion, a literate should at least know how to write and read and the one who knows how to control literacy to learn. However, Scribner explains literacy in three metaphors, adaptation to social environment, empowering, and self-enhancing respectively. Scribner determines literacy based on the attribute of individuals and time. In her thought, a literate should know how to use literacy to adapt to the social environment, empower him/herself and to internalize written words. Freire and Macedo viewed literacy not just the development of skills aimed at acquiring the standard language, but to express ideas to others. Literacy is the tool to understand the world surrounding you and a literate knows how to apply literacy socially, politically or culturally for his/her interest.
The banking model defines the teacher-student dynamic in terms of a transaction: the teacher serves as the depositor and the student is the account or depository. Within this educational framework, a student who tacitly accepts the material deposited in the depository (student’s mind) by the depositor (teacher) is far superior to a student who actively engages with, questions and critically reflects upon the same material. Freire critiques this model, suggesting that this prevents an inquisitive child from accessing a discursive element to the classroom, from interacting with the material. In turn Freire suggests, a student’s creative mental faculties are oppressed, which promotes a perpetual cycle of stifling innovative thinking. Instead, Freire posits an educational framework founded in freedom and community, emphasizing creativity, critical thinking, equality, and active participation from both sides of the education exchange in which teacher and student both benefit from each other and thereby encourage rather than suppress creative thinking.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Gee, literacy involves understanding discourses, which he substantiates, are not always necessarily verbal or written and almost inevitably involve more than simply interpreting collections and combinations of symbols on a page. Literacy of primary and secondary discourses is for “most people most of the time only mastered through acquisition, not learning” and he differentiates between the two. Scribner also spoke to the complexity and multi-faceted nature of literacy and proposed three metaphors, which she suggests only partial encapsulate the “varied utilities of literacy”. Especially through his alternative to the banking model, Freire argues that literacy involves so much more than the static digestion of knowledge in an oppressive teacher-student dynamic, but rather involves liberating the conscience and challenging systems, structures and teaching practices rooted in mental oppression.
Freire’s critique of the banking model suggests that it promotes oppression of learning and engagement between the teacher and student, therefore depriving students from engaging and expanding their minds. Students then become receptacles, where teachers fill them with information without once allowing them to question them. Thus, they continue to be oppressed individuals where they can’t extend themselves to be “truly human” (Freire 124). Therefore, Freire promotes the “problem-posing” education where it is liberating for both men and women to interact as conscious beings, in this case the student and teacher can interact cognitively. In this liberating model, both the teacher and student teach each other without either having superior authority against each other. This allows for better engagement and expansion of knowledge, while interacting creatively. As opposed to the banking model, students aren’t filled up with information where the teacher teaches and students retain information, instead they are critical engagers in dialogue with the teacher and together they learn from each other.
ReplyDeleteGee’s definition of literacy is to use “secondary uses of language” (Gee 10), therefore a literate person is anyone who masters literacy through acquisition by using primary and secondary discourses. Scribner reveals literacy in different metaphors, where one needs to adapt to society standards, understand the written word, and understand other’s cultural group’s literacy. To be literate is to conceive all these three metaphors and follow them through the ever-changing social environment. According to Freiire and Macedo, literacy is the ability to understand each culture’s literacy meanings, and they believe a literate person knows how to use those meanings to express their interests in an active practice.
The banking concept of education has reminded me of my high school
ReplyDeleteeducation, which promoted only force-feeding all kinds of information
under the name of Knowledge and Education. During those years, it was
a social norm that students were not allowed to challenge teachers
with academic materials, but learned quietly and obediently. Rather,
students more likely didn’t need to ask questions because they were
simply (knowingly or unknowingly) regarded us as “receptacles or
depositaries” of knowledge. However, what I resonated with the
problems of the banking approach education in Freire’s critique, was
that the individuals, who educated in such concept were easily prone
to be less creative, less critical and unrealistic in terms of
reacting and responding to not static but constantly the evolving
world. As an alternative education concept, instead of the banking
concept education, Freire suggested “problem posing education” which
is to stimulate through communication and authentic thinking concerned
about the reality by acts of recognition. Unlike the banking
education, problem-posing education develops people’s critical power
in perceiving the ways of their real life as a reality in progress and
in transformation.
According to Gee, literacy is about a mixture of acquisitions in
secondary discourse, which can be attained in our everyday life after
an initial enculturation. Leaning a second language in a foreign
country could be a good example to explain this. When one visits a
foreign county to learn a new language, often the real learning takes
a place not through a formal classroom setting, but by acquisition of
the language in natural settings. For Gee, literacy is not only
about the learning ability to read and write in formal educational
settings, but more like the balance between acquisition and learning
in social settings. Unlike Gee’s perspective on literacy, Scribner
believe that literacy can be made in those three metaphors: literacy
as adaption, power and state of grace through adaptive, socially
empowering and self-enhancing forms of thinking. However, Freire and
Macedo believed that literacy can be generalized though the ability of
reproducing existing social forms, with its fundamental role of
languages.
Freire believes that the banking model is very problematic because the banking model promotes a narrative and controlling teacher-student relationship that actually oppresses the intellectual curiosity and creativity of students. Promoting a learning environment where students are seen as objects that need to be “filled” with knowledge due to the attitude that teachers knows everything and students know nothing, the banking model creates a learning environment where students are rewarded for their ability to passively absorb information without questioning the authority and knowledge of their teachers. The educational paradigm that Freire offers as an alternative to the banking model is the “problem-posing” education model. Promoting dialogical relations between students and teachers, the “problem-posing”model allows students to grow intellectually in an environment where the students are encouraged to analyze, question, and discuss topics that are taught to them by teachers.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Freire that the banking model is very problematic, I believe that a mixture of the banking model and the “problem-posing” model would be the most effective at forming knowledgeable students who are intellectually adept. The one problem that I found with Freire’s argument is that I believe that he focused on two models that are on two completely different sides of a wide spectrum. During my time as a student I have been taught by many teachers who have used several different teaching methodologies. Although some of my teachers were very authoritative and used teaching styles that were very similar to the banking model, I have also had teachers who encouraged students to think for themselves by creating a teaching environment that promoted lively discussions. Thinking back to my experiences as a student, it is hard for me to confidently say that one teaching style is superior over the other. For this reason, I believe that it is important for teachers to use a style that is similar to the banking model during a student’s adolescent years in order for them to have the intellect to participate in classes that use the “problem-posing” method in the future.
Freire’s critique of the banking model of education claims that through said method, students can only go so far to receive and store knowledge teachers “deposit” in them. This is highly problematic for Freire for several reasons, but the root of the problem, he claims, is that this stunts creativity and prevents the “receptacles” from actually formulating their own ideas and creations. Freire states, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention” (pg 72), which implies that simply being told information and not putting it to practical use will cause people to stop circulating innovative ideas, leading to a world that is static. Another issue the author brings up regarding this model is the separation between student and teacher that is produced. Because there are clearly defined roles, one who bestows knowledge and one who receives it, there is a rift that not only prevents effective dialogue between participants, but the latter group also becomes passive and therefore oppressed.
ReplyDeleteIn order to counteract the oppression caused through the banking model, Freire suggests “Problem-posing” education, which promotes dialogue between individuals, where both student and teacher are constantly learning. This promotes stepping outside one’s own mindset, constantly re-evaluating opinions and thoughts. “Problem-posing,” which seems to completely oppose the banking system, allows for new inventions and understanding to emerge in an ever-changing world.
I agree with Freire in the sense that the banking method stunts creativity and creates a wholly unnecessary division between student and teacher, but I also believe there should be a balance between methods. In my opinion, a teacher needs to be able to bestow students with important information but also promote dialogue after said knowledge has been provided. While “problem-posing” should be stressed, students should be given a foundation to work with before they begin to develop their own opinions on certain matters. If there is a mix of set facts and discussions involving critical thinking, students will have a strong base of established knowledge, as well the ability to formulate individual ideas while acknowledging other opinions.
Freire states that the banking model is problematic because it leads to first an oppression of the students receiving education and it also dehumanizes them since they are forced to become receptors of knowledge instead of critical thinkers. Freire leads this to an either greater issue that by doing this, it is oppressing and removing humanity from individuals and that a society that is based on freedom and liberation should not practice it. He offers an alternative of problem posing education where students and teachers constantly switch roles and force the people learning to think critically instead of just acting as motionless receptors.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the reason the banking model of education seems so bad, is not because it is inherently bad, but because Friere created the term in order to create a straw man to disapprove a broader and potentially effective means of education. From the get-go, this set-up was apparent by his passioned diction where he describes students as, "lifeless and petrified ... hallow, alienated, and alienating verbosity" (71). This descriptions are very extreme and polarizing of a educational method that could have merits. Although I do agree that the banking ideology has huge pitfalls, a gently modified version could be very efficacious. Friere seemed not satisfied to give this methodology even a slight chance, and therefore made some great assumptions. First, he describes the entire teacher authority as a model for effective domination. Granted that an authority figure can always be corrupted or interpreted as an oppressor, it is a non-unique argument compared to any other form of "accepted constructive authority" such as judges or even doctors. Furthermore, Friere takes an extremely pessimistic view of the students as purely receptors. Just because they are listening to an authority figure does not mean that their minds will be shut off from critical thinking on their own. For example, a persons creativity will always continue to work even if they are persistently lectured because, as Friere described, it is limitless and cannot be molded. Therefore, Friere creates his own banking model dilemma in order to further a polarized argument to prop up problem-posing education.
Freire’s major issues with the “banking” model of education are its similarities to and propensity to mirror oppression. He develops his argument by first pointing out how this system by definition polarizes teachers and students from each other. The teachers possess a knowledge that they basically have to pour into the students, which is as arrogant as it sounds. In Freire’s words, the idea behind banking education is that “knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable up those whom they consider to know nothing.” This is how he addresses the natural coexistence between the banking model of education and oppression. According to Freire, this model of education rewards passivity and adaption, and eliminates creativity and individuality. A major problem for Freire is that banking education turns the student into a “spectator,” effectively forcing them to objectify their world instead of interacting with it.
ReplyDeleteWhat he offers up instead he calls problem-posing education, a system he bases instead on consciousness. Rather than trying to insist specific, decided to be of importance for one reason or the other information on the “oppressed” students, he believes in teaching them how to think, in “in acts of cognition” rather than the “filling of receptacles.” The differences he poses are directly related to the problems he poses with the banking model. Instead of polarizing the concepts of student and teacher, his problem-posing model pulls them together; both are teachers, and both are being taught. In my opinion his general argument and idea are essentially sound, but difficult to implement. While reading the point by point list he made about banking education “mirroring oppressive society as a whole,” my first thought was that this mode of education was the lazy, easy way out; without enough money, resources, and even teachers, unfortunately, this could possibly be the only way: to control large classes, to keep students competitive with students in other schools, etc.
Freire describes the banking model of education (a model, he claims is the main mode of education in most classrooms) as education in which teachers fill students with knowledge (in the same way one deposits money into a back account, hence the metaphor). Students have no agentive voice in this process and rather accept and seek to retain the teachings of the instructor. They are not expected to question or “color outside the lines” but rather passively accept. In such a model the most passive and docile students succeed. Freire believes this model dis-empowers children and has a negative impact on the young. In its place he offers the question posing model of education: an educator questions children to help them understand and realize there potential. A students knowledge and voice is treated as valid and meaningful and the teacher embraces the idea of learning from the child or children, just as it is hoped the student will embrace the interactive process of exploration and discovery the engage in with the teacher.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, Freire’s conception of learning and the problem posing model of learning serves as a compliment to the zone of proximal development discussed earlier. In the Zone of Proximal development model a students ability is not just measured by his/her ability to perform alone on a test, but also his/her ability to understand and conclude things with a certain amount of help from a teacher or more knowledgeable peer. This fits with Freire’s idea of a dialog well: the teacher and the student work together to help the student achieve his/her potential. The hope is together the student and teacher can help a student do more than if the student is solely drilled and then tested. Just as a venture in to the zone of proximal development requires strong cooperation between student and teacher Freire conceives of a model where mutual interaction is key to a student’s advancement.
-Luke Edwards
Gee defines literacy as control of secondary uses of language. Secondary discourse is to learn consciously and purposely. You are better able to explain things in secondary discourse as opposed to primary discourse in which you subconsciously learned literacy. In primary discourse you are much better at performance than explaining. An example of primary discourse is being born into an English-speaking household and subconsciously learning English. In addition to this, an example of secondary discourse would be after learning English through primary discourse, moving to Mexico and having to learn(acquire) Spanish.
ReplyDeleteScribner takes a different approach to literacy. She uses three metaphors to describe literacy: literacy as adaptation, literacy as power, and literacy as a state of grace. Literacy as adaptation is functional literacy because it fulfills situation demands. Adaptation is symbolized by the Vai Script being used as a secret language outside of the main, known language. Literacy as power is the relationship between literacy and a group. Power is symbolized as English as the language of government and of public schools in the U.S. Literacy as a state of grace. To sum Scribner up, literacy changes over time, is context-dependent, and is social/cultural.
The other authors see literacy in a different scope, literacy as based on writing and expression of abstract thought in order to better make their social positions known or even that of a group.
While each author has their own view, the one thing that I see in common is that the ability for people to communicate is important. It doesn’t matter on the level they communicate or how critical their thinking is, but that they can interact with other human beings their needs, concerns, and feelings. Therefore literacy cannot be put in a box and set at the top of a shelf. To communicate we must understand and to understand we must keep adding to our box and our experiences and social conditions change.
~Trinity Taylor
For Freire the banking model is problematic because it posits students as receptors which leads to a dehumanization that hinders the process of life. One of the main contributors is the use of the “narration character.” Freire describes the subject (teacher) and object (student) relationship, as one that presumes students as “containers” that are to be “filled” by knowledge that only the teacher possesses. This assumes good students as passive and unquestioning of their teachers narration. In return, reality is turned into something static and no longer a process that students are a part of. Men and women, as objects disallows the possibility of change while robbing humans of what it is to be human.
ReplyDeleteFreire further describes the banking model as “necrophily,” because it does not foster life but is rather “nourished by love of death” (77). In contrast to the banking model, Freire proposes problem-posing education. He describes it as a “biophily” system where students are not receptors/objects but instead critical thinkers. This system makes it so that the teacher narration/domination ends and education engaged in freedom begins. In this men/women are no longer isolated from the world, but conciliated with consciousness and world. People are then able to experience reality as a “constant unveiling.” Humans will be able to retrieve their humanity. What is then at stake, is beyond change in education but the possibility of change itself.
-Celene Ambriz
1) Banking not only makes learning a passive experience but it also deprives individuals of their ability to grow. The student is “merely in the world, not with the world or with others, the individual is spectator, not recreator” (Friere, 75). Students are never able to find where they belong in the world. They see the world the way that they are told, not through their own experiences. This could be a problem for students especially once they are put into the real world. They will not leave the classroom with the ability to create any original thoughts. Rather than using the banking method, Freire suggests using problem posing education. The problem posing method allows students to use “cognition, not transferals of information” (Freire, 79). Students do not just absorb information, but they are expected to use critical thinking to come to their own conclusions. One of the main differences of the problem posing method is it requires the teachers to form a different type of relationship with their students. Teachers are no longer an authority or seen as the one to follow. The teacher and the student learn from each other. Teachers no longer are the authority, but able to learn things from their students as well. This way of learning encourages students to find their place in the world. They are able to create their own unique perception of the world and where they belong in it.
ReplyDeleteFreire believes that literacy is something that is not passive rather literacy is engaging and alive. Once the correct way to teach is found, students can use literacy to discover their place in the world.
2) Macedo argues that literacy is a form of power and enculturation. When taught in the right way it can be used to indoctrinate people to a certain set of beliefs. This has a tremendous effect of the way cultures are viewed. Scribner proposed that literacy can be described as adaptive, power and a state of grace. Each metaphor of literacy has to do with the social context. Gee believes that literacy depends on discourse. Culture and the settings determine how literacy is viewed and the form of literacy that is used. These four definitions have one thing in common: literacy is determined by culture and the method that it is taught. People often have a narrow view of what literacy is, but literacy is really something very dynamic and fluid.
- Cassi Hoyt
One overarching problem that Freire points out about the banking model is the skewed distribution of power that exists between teacher and student. This is because in the banking model, successful teachers are those who are able to produce students who unquestioningly “fit the world” (76). Thus, true cognition and inquiry do not matter to teachers under the banking model because teachers are satisfied with their work as long as students are able to retain and regurgitate the “knowledge” that teachers have imparted on their students. The power struggle lies in how teachers depend on the students’ compliances because students who “inquire” into the teachings of the teacher upset the structure of omniscient teacher and ignorant student. Because of this, students unsurprisingly become passive observers of the world, unequipped to change the circumstances of the world around them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Freire’s problem-posing model attempts to reconcile the problems imposed by the banking model. His main solution rests in the idea that teachers and students should rid themselves of the power gap between teacher and student, so that a dialogical relationship can exist between them. He proposes that communication between teachers and students would open the students to inquiry and metacognition. Only when the flow of knowledge becomes permeable between student and teacher will students be able to perceive the idea that they are not simply observers of the world, but active participants who are able to transform the reality of the world.
Although I appreciate Friere’s problem-posing model for its acknowledgement of today’s passive education atmosphere largely caused by a flawed education model, I feel that his model does not provide a means for accomplishing his goals of producing cognitive, active students. Communication and relationship between student and teacher is such a given ideal that it does not seem sufficient enough as a counter-solution to the banking model, for I’m still left asking how classrooms can cultivate this kind of communication and relationship between student and teacher.
In his essay, Paulo Freire examines the “banking model” of education, stating that it is an oppressive system that limits the potential of what education can actually achieve. This education model highlights the idea that the teacher-student relationship is in fact one direction, with the all knowing teacher simply inputting the necessary information into the students, who are only required to memorize what is given for them. Freire points out that this does not allow the student to develop into critical thinkers and to become individuals. Incidentally, this holds back their potential to be able to critically analyze the world around them, stalling any change that might be better for society. Even though Freire was writing about Brazil’s education system in the 1960’s, this banking model can still be seen in American schools, making Freire’s critique very relevant for today. Luckily, Freire does not leave us by only showing us the problem, but also suggests a solution, which he refers to as “problem-posing” education. This opens up for the one-way relationship between the teacher and student to become two sided, where not only will the student learn from the teacher, but the teacher can as well, by diving into their school subjects with open minds and room for critical analysis. This will vastly improve systems of education that have previously allowed anything but learning. For example, look at literacy. Gee, Scribner, Freire and Macedo all recognize the intricate system that is literacy. It is not simply about grammar and being able to know the words that you have to know, according to say, the SAT tests. Environment and surroundings heavily shape literacy, and it can be further developed and understood through critical analysis, and a two-way relationship between and teacher and student. This will also help fulfill what the writers like Freire consider as “literate” which is to be able to explain and understand political and social concepts that surround them.
ReplyDelete