Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
- 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). For Freire this is problematic because he considers the banking model inherently oppressive. Do you see a way or ways in which this metaphor can be appropriated and/or re-envisioned as something positive and or generative?
- Why is it in the best interest of the oppressor to “change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them (pp.74)”?
- Freire argues that the inherent contradictions, which he feels are constitutive of the banking model of education, will eventually lead the oppressed to “turn against their domestication and […] attempt to domesticate reality (pp. 74 of original).” What are the inherent contradictions that he is referring to? And, what would an attempt to domesticate reality look like?
- Freire argues for a problem posing pedagogy in order to subvert and counteract the damage caused by the banking model of education: what are the primary differences within these educational paradigms (pp.79)?
Freire & Macedo, Literacy: reading the word and the world.
- On page 98 of the original text, Freire argues that: “…the notion that literacy is [only reducible to] learning the standard [i.e., dominant] language still informs the vast majority of literacy programs…” Freire clearly has a problem with this; why?
- On page 99 of the original text (fourth full paragraph), Freire appropriates Althuasser’s (1971) conception of the ideological state apparatus (i.e., ISAs, which we discussed briefly in class) to describe the educational atmosphere in former colonies. Is the analysis of the situation that he describes limited to former colonies or can it also be applied to contemporary local and National contexts? Explain.
- In this chapter, Freire lists four approaches to literacy: the academic approach, the utilitarian approach, the cognitive development approach, and the romantic approach. Do you see parallels between Freire’s approaches and Scribner’s metaphors? Please explain.
Brumer, Phonics and the politics of reading instruction.
- In Brumer’s article, what does she feel led to the back-to-basics backlash; and, what events precipitated this backlash?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the whole—language and phonics approaches, respectively? And, what would an amalgamation of the two seemingly disparate approaches look like?
Pearson, Reading Wars.
- On page 223 of the original text, first full paragraph, Pearson argues that schools and educational staff have appropriated the “whole-language label without honoring its fundamental principles…(223).” Why do you think this is, and, is the elision of issues of empowerment consistent with Freire’s critique of the banking model of education?
- Pearson argues that issues of literacy education in general and reading research in particular are inherently political: do you agree? Please explain.
It is the best interest of the oppressor to "change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them" for the basic reason that by making the people conform to the situation, they are more easily dominated. By instating the banking concept of education, which essentially defines the oppressed as unintelligent and the oppressor as knowledgeable, the oppressor can manipulate the mindset of the people to help promote his cause. Therefore, the oppressor instates a false reality into the oppressed that changes the "incompetent and lazy" people into the type of person necessary to function in a healthy society. By changing the oppressed perception of reality, the oppressor dehumanizes them since they are unable to think for themselves or learn the ways of the world.
ReplyDeleteFreire refers to the contradictions that deposits contain about reality. Because the banking model of education can be seen as a way to dehumanize the student, it is only through outside experience that the student will experience the truth. In doing so, the student may attempt to overthrow their oppressor and discover reality. Instead of being told what to think under the banking model, the student can perceive, on his own, the process that is reality that will enable him to grow as a person.
Freire’s problem with the continuing notion that “literacy is a matter of learning the standard language” and how this “still informs the vast majority of literacy programs” is because while the importance of literacy has become more paramount among educators, many people’s opinions regarding literacy have yet to change. Instead of taking into account the importance of one’s native language in relation to literacy, many people still define literacy as mastering the standard, or dominant, language. Freire states that since literacy is closely intertwined with cultural, political, and social matters, one cannot just overlook one’s native language when looking at literacy, because one’s native language plays a huge role when it comes to both cultural and social matters, and perhaps at times political.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely aspects of today’s education system that I would say coincide with the ideas of the ideological state apparatus. Just like Freire said in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed, there is a “banking model of education” that encourages (or rather, strictly enforces) the reproduction of ideas and discourages any form of creativity or deviation from the paradigm. Although I wouldn’t say our education system goes so far as to deculturate its students, there is certainly a part of it that encourages students to not stick out from others in the group or get too creative with their answers.
Earlier, Pearson argues that the whole-language label could not adapt to the criticism that was met by the education system and the reading standards established. This was because expository reading, rather than narrative reading, became the standard form of text that students were expected to comprehend and integrate in their learning. However, many student weren't able to meet up to the demands of the reading, which forced teachers to turn to a whole-class level of teaching and reading to the class. This completely undermines the principles of whole-language where students are given a set of tools to work through and understand text so as to become self-reliant in their own education. This in turn, is thought to encourage students to explore the depths of their intellectual curiosity by immersing themselves in a direction of literacy all on their own.
ReplyDeleteThis is consistent with Freire's critique as both, in some respects, believe that education shouldn't be this dichotomous relationship of teacher pontificating information for students to blindly memorize. Both argue that education should be a dialogue and learning should work both ways. Additionally, in both situations, students are viewed as empty receptacles, as ignorant and that they need to information impressed upon them. This ultimately robs them of their cognitive abilities and makes them have a permanent mechanical view of the world. As Friere puts it, through the banking model of education, students lose their consciousness, a sense of reality, and lose the essence of humanity.
Freire criticizes the standardization of the language of the colonizer in schools, as this robs students from disenfranchised background of the ability to think critically about themselves in relation to the world they inhabit. By orienting instruction around the language, culture, and history of the oppressor, the dominant culture effectively conveys the message that the native language, culture, and history are not worth learning about. Such an educational structure ensures the continued status of the oppressed culture as inferior, as it cultivates a cycle in which those who succeed have accepted the dictums of the dominant culture and have assimilated. As a result, the successful essentially become products of the oppressor’s culture rather than representatives of their own culture, perpetuating a hegemonic structure.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is evident that the United States also possesses a parallel cultural dichotomy, I find that Freire’s proposal regarding the native language becomes somewhat more problematic when applied to the many multicultural communities of the United States. Freire raises the example of the man who spoke Portuguese rather than Cape Verdian in order to command respect and criticized the necessity of this action. He argues that Cape Verdian should be regarded as equal to Portuguese. However, a classroom where there is more than one minority language complicates the execution of Freire’s proposal. Only a classroom that services speakers of a single minority language would be able to benefit from the active usage of the students’ native language, but in a number of ESL classrooms across the nation, this is unlikely.
Honestly, I agree with Freire’s assertion that the banking model of education is inherently oppressive. While many educators would suggest that problem-posing education is more favorable than the banking method, the “receptacles/depositories” analogy could be seen in a positive manner as born out of convenience or necessity. With the constant rise in classroom sizes and the teacher-student gap growing wider and wider, the banking method of education could potentially create a more efficient classroom setting. Also, with constant cuts in educational funding (especially in California), schools may lack the resources that are associated with problem-posing education, and it is simply more convenient to implement the banking method.
ReplyDeleteIt is in the best interests of the oppressors to change the consciousness of the oppressed (as opposed to changing their situation) for many reasons. First, one of the main causes (and perpetuators) of oppression is ignorance. If the oppressed are unaware of their situation to begin with, then changing their situation will do little good. Also, there are more long-term implications regarding a change of consciousness. Oppression transcends generations, so a large-scale change of consciousness would create an environment that would make it more difficult for the oppressed to slip back into the cycle of oppression. Changing the situation itself would provide a short-term solution, but there are deeper social constraints related to oppression that would resurface over longer periods of time.
The phonics approach to teaching harkens back to a classic style of learning. Advocates stress that you must first familiarize the students with the alphabetic code before progressing to full words; this is done by reading through decoding. Decoding is achieved by recognizing letter-sound relationships, sounding out letters, and blending the letter combinations together.
ReplyDeletePhonics style teaching however only tackles a simple part of learning to read. In short, the method of decoding does not fully prepare students to read but how to decipher letters. According to Zinke, "phonics rules and gimmicks divert children". It also discourages children from writing and is too small and abstract to be meaningful
Whole-language focuses on the meanings and utility of language, writing, and literacy as a whole. Zinke stresses readers to interpret, question, and reflect on their own, which in turn will internally generate reading skills. Whole-langauge does employ the use of phonics but applies it differently, since this philosophy recognizes that reading is more than just sounds. It also encourages an active learning process propelled by independent thought; provides a more nurturing learning environment. Additionally, they contend that spelling is reinforced by continued emphasis on reading.
Phonic advocates however feel that the whole-language approach abandons phonics, leaving students illiterate. This approach forces the kids to guess at the words. Supporters of phonics argue that letting kids spell words without even knowing how to say them is inefficient; you have to start with the letters and associated sounds first.
An amalgamation of the two would look something like the "part-whole" method discussed, where the process of reading is broken down into basics at first and expands as students learn the material (sounds->words->sentences->paragraphs->stories). Obviously phonics is required at the beginning to introduce the sounds and make up of words, but whole-language comes into play as soon as the students learn how to write sentences. Overall, they both would emphasize the importance of reading and writing at every stage.
Freire “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1, the banking model
Even through Freire considers positing students as receptacles and depositories problematic, there are a few ways in which his metaphor could be considered a positive thing.
The simplest and most obvious example would be the earliest education one obtains as an infant or as a very young child. At these stages, it is hard to imagine anyone using their education as a “practice of freedom” – on the contrary, it is the ‘stacking’ that is most desirable. Listening to different sounds and trying to pronounce the most basic of words builds a vocabulary to use later in life. Regardless of whether a child understands the full meaning of the words, they eventually ‘sink in’ through later experiences and development.
Another example of ‘stacking’ benefits could be expressed through high school SATs. Especially with the budget cuts and government administration re-distributing the funds to the schools which students perform better, it is hard and perhaps unnecessary for any instructor to teach his students any idea or subject that goes beyond the SAT curriculum. Rather, the test format dictates what the youth is supposed to know, and they are educated accordingly.
And finally, although it is desirable and admirable of anyone who fosters logic and solution-type thinking, even such means of expression requires an impressive body of knowledge, usually acquired through the ‘stacking’ education. It is hard to imagine a situation where a thesis or a statement would not need to be backed up by facts or other supporting material.
Throughout "Reading the Word and the World" Freire emphasizes the importance of learning literacy in the context of one's culture. When students become literate, it is essential that, throughout the process, students can relate to what they are studying. By using this method of teaching, students will remain more engaged and attentive throughout the lessons because they pertain to their culture and history.
ReplyDeleteHowever, many programs Freire studied did not follow these beliefs. Many of them chose to teach the language of the minority that ruled the country. For example, in many Portuguese colonies in Africa, the schools taught only Portuguese and neglected all of the history and culture of the natives. Students were often uninterested in learning about the history of Portugal and learning their geography; this is why Freire stressed that students should learn about their own heritage. This factor in a student's education greatly impacts their interest in school and their overall success. The more interested students are in the subjects they are learning in school, the more likely they are to excel in their education.
Freire wants schools to teach students various topics that are relevant to the lives of their students. Instead of teaching students the language of the minority, schools should incorporate the native language to enhance the learning experience for the majority of the students.
The oppressor is the one who creates the situation that oppressed the oppressed. To change the situation, the oppressor has to change himself; it is highly unlikely for a person in a position of power to step down from it. Similarly, because the oppressor prefers the status quo, changing the oppressed makes them more vulnerable to domination, granting the oppressor even more power. By assimilating the oppressed into the current society, little change occurs, and the oppressor stays in control of tremendous power.
ReplyDeleteThe primary difference between the banking model and problem posing models of education is how information is delivered to the student; the former essentially stuffs information down the students’ throat, leaving little to no room for developing ideas, while the latter encourages the student to discover the meaning of the information through analysis. An analogy would be reading another scientist’s research, and accepting it as fact (banking) versus experimenting to discover if you come to same conclusion (problem solving).
Alex Leach, I agree that the banking method may be misused for the sole purpose of convenience over quality, however, in the atmosphere where the problem positing method is more stressed upon, we tend to overlook the merits and the necessity of the banking method. While critical thinking is by any means of great importance in learning, repetative drills and simple memorizing provide the base for critical thinking. I'm not saying that the problem positing method ignores memorizing, but people tend to separate those two as opposites, and this I think is a problem.
ReplyDeleteJeff, you described the oppressors as knowledgable and the oppressed as ignorant and that the oppressors want to give a "false reality" to the oppressed. I don't think that the oppressors intend to "inject" false reality, since whether it be false or modified, the mass eventually finds about it and their retaliation becomes may be more problematic in the future. Instead, I think the oppressors try to “change the consciousness of the oppressed" by making the mass see the truth in the oppressor's point of view, distorting to the brink of falsehood so that no one can refute against it. This distortion of truth is more effective in changing the consciousness of the oppressed since it modies HOW they think, not WHAT they think.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible to diminish the role politics plays in literacy in general. This can be seen in all aspects of literacy, from our attempts to define it to the ways in which we attempt to teach literacy. The simple task of defining literacy, or setting confines to it, is political strategy and propaganda. If a politician sets “literate” to mean extremely proficient in a language, then the “illiterate” population suddenly grows or vise versa, depending on his political agenda. The way we structure classes and agendas to teach literacy is in itself a political battle. While public schools are at the mercy of policy makers, private schools have a similar local political team that structures teaching. Educational researchers exist in the hopes of making this teaching more effective, but ultimately they are only as important as policy makers proclaim them to be. It is in their power to judge what research to employ and which to deem insignificant, a lot of which is also politically driven. As Pearson points out, “expert testimony from practitioners, information about school organization and finance, and evaluations of compelling cases” are also taken into consideration, often outweighing the research. Furthermore, like the Reading Excellence Act of 1998, politicians have the power to dictate the studies being conducted. The reading research being conducted in subject to policies making the research as rigid as possible. My largest concern with this is if we, during the course of the class, have come to the conclusion that literacy should neither be rigidly defined nor entirely free-formed, shouldn’t the way we study it be the same? Why is it that politicians are attempting to make quantitive the study of a subject that is itself un-quantitive? If research could be done both for quality and quantity, and this research was the most influential part of designing a curriculum, perhaps literacy could be taught more easily sanz politics.
ReplyDeleteA couple of items: firstly, a word of clarification. To Yvonne's point, I would argue that no one comes from "disenfranchised" background per se; rather, young people, who have continuously had their culture marginalized and devalued (i.e., oppressed) become disenfranchised precisely for these reasons.
ReplyDeleteAnd, to Claire, Jeff is not espousing the oppressive view that Freire is deriding; he is simply restating the argument. Nevertheless, your point is well-taken. To be clear, what you describe is hegemony in the Gramscian sense.Hegemony works to configure the way in which the oppressed construct their world view by forcibly, though often subconsciously, controlling both what they think and how they think: According to Gramsci, hegemony is fighting to control "common sense". (Plus, these epistemological issues are cognates; they are not mutually exclusive).
Though Brumer supports the use of whole language in literacy instruction, she feels that there is some merit in the claim that whole language has done some towards children’s education. However, she contends that the whole language that the media and phonics-supporters would like to blame is not whole language as it should be. Whole language focuses on developing actual reading skill and comprehension; it does this through immediate immersion into literature that develops kids’ natural linguistic knowledge. Phonics, on the other hand, has traditionally been used to teach reading due to its simplicity and ease of instruction. Brumer claims that whole language couldn’t possibly be the cause for California’s terrible literacy rates because it was never fully implemented to begin with. Teachers were poorly trained and uncomfortable using the whole language approach, so they either teach it badly or persist with phonics instruction.
ReplyDeleteThe strengths of whole language are that they are natural and immediately useful to children. Because children are taught multiple reading techniques and because they read actual literature, kids are able to relate what they read to normal conversation, and are able to tap into previous linguistic knowledge when deducing unknown words or meanings using various reading techniques. The weaknesses of this approach, though, are that whole language is unstructured and requires much attention to each student. Furthermore, “guessing” through context clues rather than “decoding” is often viewed as unreliable, and the success of whole language largely depends on the teacher’s skill.
Phonics boasts the trait of being easy to teach and having been extensibly used already (so it must somewhat work, right?). The disadvantage of phonics, though, is that it does not work for everyone and it is a slow, detached process that precedes full comprehension when reading. Furthermore, phonics teach kids to simply decode letters through sound, leaving them with little to no other techniques for reading. Some balance of the two approaches to literacy education could possibly be a more structured curriculum of whole language, with simplified literature that contain text spelled closed to its phonetic sound.
Pearson argues that the fundamental principles are “authenticity, integration, and empowerment” (223). This relates to teaching language and literacy without understanding meaning. In many cases, students are taught to the test, and not necessarily to gain a complete understanding of a text. This also causes trouble for students who need extra attention, because some schools and teachers keep the entire class on the same page. Therefore the advanced students are being held back while the below average students are struggling to keep up. Pearson explains that this emphasizes an importance on only the content of material as well as assumes students of all levels will understand it in a similar manner. Freire critiques the banking model of education due to the hierarchy of knowledge. He disapproves of this model because it justifies a teacher’s higher standing and promotes ignorance in students. This model ignores the knowledge the teachers gain from their students because there is less interaction and exchange of knowledge. Pearson’s critique of the whole-language is consistent with that of Freire’s because both lack meaningful exchanges, either between student and teacher or between student and text. Integrating and empowering must be done through creating meaningful experiences of materials.
ReplyDeleteIt is proper that the teacher teaches the student but it can be appropriated by having a more “open relationship” between the student in teacher. The students should be highly encouraged to ask questions and think more critically about what they are being taught. The students should retain the information they are given like the banking model encourages but at the same time they should be able to apply it to the world around them. The things they learn in the classroom should assimilate to other things in the real world not just fact after fact that they should memorize for a test. If they ask questions the teacher can relate it to something that the students are more familiar with and the students would get more out of what they are taught. This way the banking model would become a more positive form of education rather than just treating the students as receptacles, which cannot apply the things they learn outside the classroom.
ReplyDeleteIf you change the consciousness of the oppress you are able to manipulate them to believe what you want, which is in your best interest for a few reasons. For example if you change the actual situation then the oppressed maybe not be oppressed anymore. The oppressor would therefore just change the situation to make them believe that it has changed for the best but in reality there situation is still the same but they believe otherwise. Those oppressed are ignorant to an extend and do not recognize what the oppressors are doing to them. The oppressors have it to their advantage because they distort the reality of the oppressed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFreire is intensely opposed to “bank concept of education” for the reason that this method of education, which ‘oppress’ students to deposit the knowledge taught from the teacher, hinder students to see the ‘real world.’ Freire asserted that ‘dialogue,’ communicating, is the only way to make students a critical thinker so that they can see the ‘actual world.’ However, when considering the number of teachers are small in proportion to the students, and, accordingly, limited amount of time students has with teachers to interact, implementing ‘dialogue’ education is quite far from reality. Even though she was disapprove of utilizing the banking method as an interim measure as a means to expediency, having students ‘learn’ from teachers a broad knowledge first and then executing the ‘communicational’ education is practical when considering the reality of our society and finances of education.
ReplyDeleteIn the banking concept of education, knowledge is something bestowed by those who considered to be knowledgable upon those who considered to be ‘know nothing.’ Also, this concept of education assumes individuals and world is dichotomized. Therefore, the way of ‘educating’ is one-way, students are ‘depositing’ the knowledge given by teachers. However, in problem-posing education, students are getting to know the world or be knowledgable by ‘acts of cognition,’ in contrast to transferable of information, through ‘dialogue’ with teachers. In the problem-posing education, teachers is not merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students. Students and teacher both are responsible for the process of learning.
The framework for whole-language learning, in and of itself, seems logical--in ideal situations, it can encourage students to learn beyond just spelling out words or reciting information. Its ultimate goal is greater: to encourage students to interpret meaning, think critically, etc. However, when whole-language learning was implemented in 1987, the results were not as good as expected--in fact, according to the NAEP, 56% of CA 4th graders were at below basic comprehension levels. Statistics like this facilitated the back-to-basics backlash. According to Brumer, it was not the framework itself but the educators who were to blame for its failure. Many who were used to the "teacher proof programs" of phonics advocates had little idea how to properly implement whole-language learning in their classrooms.
ReplyDeleteThe main strength of the whole-language learning is that it encourages comprehension--the ultimate goal of learning to read. Instead of simply reciting information, children are challenged and encouraged to interpret. Real literature is often used in whole-language learning. However, by "guessing in context", it has the potential to deemphasize phonics and the very basic first steps in reading. On the other hand, the phonics approach gives children a strong foundation in the building blocks of reading. However, English isn't exactly phonetic--with as many exceptions as there are rules, teaching "gimmicks" and phonics rules can divert students from the larger-picture goal of comprehension, and confuse/discourage them. Being able to "sound out pages without knowing what [they] mean" is not exactly useful. An amalgamation of these two seemingly contradictory approaches would look very similar to the whole-language approach; this is because whole-language learning doesn't devalue phonetics. Both approaches agree that decoding is crucial for reading.
Brumer argued that the California statewide curriculum was led to the “back-to-basics backlash” because of the low NAEP test scores of the students in California and how it occurred after the school system adopted the whole-language method. Since the phonics way of teaching seemed more straightforward and many critics of the whole-language system argued that it only left children to guess at words instead of decoding them, traditionalists blamed the whole-language teaching method for why the scores went down. However, Zinke pointed out several key factors for why the overall scores suffered. First, the per-pupil teaching staff and libraries in California schools are the lowest funded school programs in the country leaving both the teachers and students to suffer. Also, she claims that the debate over phonics and whole-language methods was blown out of proportion in order to take the attention away from politicians’ dealing with Proposition 13 and providing enough funds for the schools. Another reason for why the back-to-basics backlash occurred is because people were unaware that when they actually tested fourth graders to see if whole-language or phonics children did better in reading that they both performed equally to each other. Zinke also points out that not many schools in California used this method and even the teachers that tried adopting whole language were not properly trained how to use it and therefore were not teaching it affectively.
ReplyDeleteIn Brumer’s article, what does she feel led to the back-to-basics backlash; and, what events precipitated this backlash?
ReplyDeleteIn 1987, the California Department of Education published an English/Language arts framework that stressed the importance of teaching language through literature, and moving away from phonics-only teaching. This was a fairly revolutionary proposition, and for the next seven years it was supposedly implemented throughout the state. However, in 1994 when state-to-state comparisons of reading ability were observed, California was among the lowest scoring in the country. The blame for the abysmal performance was immediately thrust upon the framework published in 1987. Moving to whole-language learning was seen as a departure from phonics based learning, and it was believed that a return to the traditional method of instruction would bring reading ability back to competitive levels. It was the poor testing results in the state of California that prompted the back-to-basics backlash.
As a result of the backlash, a large divide has been made between those who believe in teaching phonics and those who believe in a holistic language learning experience. The irony however, and this is pointed out in the reading, is that whole-language teaching does not exclude phonics from the curriculum. There is no claim being made that phonics should not be taught, because it is readily apparent that one must be able to decode words in order to understand their meaning, but instead that phonics should be taught in conjunction with an emphasis on the meaning and significance of language in human culture. What Zinke advocates is helping students be able to figure out words not only through phonics and cold decoding, but through contextual clues and the overall meaning of a piece of writing.
One quote that I found especially interesting was on page 12, where Brumer is describing a claim of phonics instruction: “Readers’ eyes don’t skim over texts, they say. They take in every letter of every word.” I find this claim to be particularly ridiculous based not only on my own reading experience, but also on that silly email all of us have probably received. The body of which reads something like:
“I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.”
We do read words as a whole, and do not waste time processing every letter.
In 1991-1992 "basal education" was quickly reforming to become more comprehensive of the creative component and freedom of mind that education provides for the students, creating a "whole language" approach to education. However, at the end of the century this "whole language" movement was strongly opposed, and the educational system quickly started reverting back to "basal education" techniques. Now, Pearson states that schools and educational staff have appropriated the "whole-language label without honoring its fundamental principles..." (279). The fundamental principles, are "authenticity, integration, empowerment" (279). I believe that even the teachers who are supportive of the whole language movement, are guilty of putting a rigid structure to the whole language approach. With the intention to provide students with comprehensive understanding of authentic readings (the teachers provide) in various ways, even to the point of telling the students the meaning of the text they failed to read, it destroys the purpose of the whole language movement. In other words, after setting the bar high, some teachers try to compensate for the lack of student's understanding. They think that it is better to keep the class on the same page, and try to emphasis the meaning of the reading as the most important aspect of the reading process. This is not true. In the attempt to compensate for the gap between what the teacher expects and the lesser outcome of the student's actions, the teacher is putting a cap on what the students can achieve. Also, by trying to bring the whole class to the same page by reading aloud books that should have been read by the students, the students are reliant on the spoken language rather than reading the written language, and therefore, are put into a rut of understanding what the teacher says rather than feeling the reading for themselves, and exploring different interpretations than what the teacher could say. Also, though there may be many teachers who support the whole language movement with passion, if their knowledge of a certain subject does not meet the needs of student's interests outside the text book, then the teachers cannot provide the goal of the whole language movement, of authenticity, integration, and empowerment. I believe these three aspects can come with the interest and deeper understanding of education with one's own interpretation. Without the teacher having sufficient knowledge, the student's will not be able to attain this core meaning of the whole language movement.
ReplyDeleteThese issues of empowerment is consistent with Freire's critique of the banking model of education, because the teachers are now telling the students how to interpret a certain reading, and ultimately presses their views on the students so the students can take it in meekly like a "good-students". As the negatives of empowerment is consistent with Freire's banking concept of education, his problem-posing education is also consistent with the whole language movement. This is because the whole language movement strives for students to communicate with the teacher rather than have the teacher communicate to them what is important. It provides a new dimension to learning, which is what both the core of the whole language movement and problem-posing education entails.
In relation to learning with the dominant language in schools, this teaching method is highly oppressive. It allows the oppressive state to continue its reign on a new generation of students that may want to learn more about their history. However, with the dominant language in place, it means that the students are forced to learn a new history, culture, etc. that does not cohere with their individual backgrounds. Furthermore, this dominant language idea makes it seem as though the students' native languages are irrelevant in an academic arena. Leaving education to a dominant language ruins the vast diversity in the classroom and, once this language is learned, simply leads to a forced assimilation that erases entire cultures within the academic arena. Anyone who tries to teach with the students' native languages has to make the decision of how to do that without reverting to the same methodologies of the dominant language oppressive education. These radical educators need to have a highly specialized and organized curriculum that will allow them to teach students and encourage them to know their own histories without simply using the old oppressive method of teaching until the academic climate allows for other “subordinate” languages to be used in schools. This method of teaching does nothing more than perpetuate the dominant language teaching paradigm.
ReplyDeleteFreire opposes the notion that literacy is a matter of learning the standard language because it negates the cultural experience of the minority linguistic groups. According to Freire, in order to become meaningful, literacy has to reaffirm the culture and the everyday experiences of the learners. In addition, only learning the standard language leads members of the subordinate group to see their culture as inferior in comparison to the dominant class culture and language, and maintains the class divisions. The class divisions are maintained because the standard language only teaches the dominant class values and culture disempowering the subordinate group who are excluded this life culture. Freire states that educator must provide students with the opportunity to use their own reality as a basis of literacy, in other words they should base a literacy program on the subordinates native language because this is the only way they will be able to reconstruct their own history and culture. Language must be seen as a major vehicle by which the subordinate group will be able to participate in the transformation of their own society.
ReplyDeleteFreire’s assumption that the banking model is inherently oppressive is a bit rash. I would have to say that the banking model is beneficial for early childhood and when someone is learning something new. It is beneficial because a certain amount of information needs to be provided before to create a foundation the person can go off of. For example, each major has a language of its own, such as certain vocabulary or ways of thinking specific to that major. Now, an individual must learn the basic language of the major in order to participate competently. The banking model is essential in creating this groundwork. Put more simply, and using a cliché, a person needs to learn to walk before they can run. Once this groundwork is in place, however, I do agree that the banking model becomes obsolete, since it assumes that only a learned person can generate knowledge. The banking model is limited in this sense because ideas are always being reshaped and refined when it comes into contact with other ideas. Thus, to limit the interaction of knowledge stifles the creation of new knowledge. It is this stifling of new knowledge and independent thinking that Freire believes makes the banking model oppressive and unfavorable, so I do not believe the banking model can be oppressive to people who have not banked enough information to be oppressed.
ReplyDelete