Week 11 - Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Friere

Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Friere - Chapter Four
Podcast lecture transcript on Chapter four

In chapter 3, Paulo pointed out the major difference between animals and humans:  that we have the ability to reflect and practice, reflect and practice, therefore transforming our situations, doing something about our existence…unlike animals who exist for the here and now, surviving for the here and now…humans who have not been empowered, students who have not learned of their power may operate in the same vein as animals, if they are not trained to ‘think.’  He continues in Chapter 4 to point this major difference between animals and humans:  that we have the opportunity to change our situation by first posing a problem, then exercising critical thinking to begin a workable change in making the world better.

This is what Paulo is continuing to express in chapter four.  Transformation of the ills, the issues of the world, not by just talking about it:  to just talk about the problems is the same as being on the verbose side of the equation.  To truly activate this pedagogy of social justice in the classroom, one must be actively engaged, modeling, practicing what is talked about.

Most of chapter four goes on to talk about how NOT to exercise social justice pedagogy.  Friere goes on to discuss several methods of anti-dialogical behaviors:  1) conquest – this automatically sets up an 'us versus them' situation:  someone who wants to conquer, and the conquered.  2) divide and conquer or divide and rule Paulo says is about people who see life in terms of their maintaining status quo at the expense of everyone else… 3) manipulation and 4) cultural invasion…

He ends the chapter by promoting what social justice pedagogy should be about:  cultural synthesis of which he dedicates all of five pages of chapter 4 to talking about.  I imagine his work in this book is mainly to espouse a perspective of the poor, the oppressed, one that doesn’t get told very often.  His work in “We Make the Road by Walking” goes on to show how cultural synthesis could operate in reality.  He and Myles Horton discuss the realities of implementing social justice pedagogy in the classroom. 

Even in chapter four, Friere briefly touches on what cultural synthesis is about.  It is about recognizing the voices of all people, allowing all people an opportunity to be the makers of their own world, contributors of their own existence, not at the expense of others, but with the expense of all…It would anti-dialogical to allow the oppressed to become oppressors themselves, although in their quest to be free, to name their world, to exist in fulfillment of their own humanity, the oppressed may transform in this manner:  first becoming like their oppressors, but then evolving beyond, liberating both themselves and their oppressors.  It is an act of love, an act of forgiveness, one that is not taught very often.

Character education may be the brainchild of espousing social justice.  Perhaps this is something that can be carried out beginning with the very young in classrooms, co-teaching, modeling good behavior toward all people, including all people in classroom discourse, allowing students to express their realities, offering choices in assignments, teaching in a variety of ways, using a variety of methods.  Examining each child up close when they enter the classroom, perhaps dedicating at least a week of built-in examination of each child, learning each child by name, pronouncing his or her name as he or she tells you to pronounce it, not correcting their identity.  You’d be surprised how something as simple as really listening to how a student wants his or her name pronounced will identity the type of teacher you are, revealing a teacher’s prejudices.    Students make judgments about whether or not you are approachable, safe, fair, equitable in your dealings from one student to the next.  I am reminded of foreign students at a private school that I taught in for several years , who came to me complaining that the computer teacher next door to me just never pronounced their names correctly, and even pronounced them differently each time.  They were very offended, but did not approach her, correct her.  They had been drenched in the authoritative home and school life as Paulo speaks about in oppressive systems.   These students were trained to keep quiet with authoritative people who conducted themselves in this manner.

The following ASCD website offers a good definition of character education, I think  :

Character education involves teaching children about basic human values including honesty, kindness, generosity, courage, freedom, equality, and respect.

The goal is to raise children to become morally responsible, self-disciplined citizens. Problem solving, decision making, and conflict resolution are important parts of developing moral character. Through role playing and discussions, students can see that their decisions affect other people and things. http://ascd.typepad.com/blog/2011/02/character-education-for-the-digital-age.html/

I don’t think Friere in his text is talking about teachers going out trying to teach culture, specific and mainstream cultural ways of living as may be a place in a social studies classroom, but that each teacher can be a promoter of equity, social justice for all students that enter in his or her classroom.  Promotion not by speech only, not by handing out a worksheet on Martin Luther King, Jr. during the month of February, or celebrating Cinco de Mayo in May or talking about the Indians and Pilgrims during the month of November to mention a few, but by praxis:  that is reflecting on what it is students need in your classroom and then practicing the method of social justice or cultural synthesis. 

Not throwing out or replacing curriculum, but synthesizing it, including the larger picture, telling or allowing more of the whole story or other perspectives to be told.  You can practice cultural synthesis in the classroom by exercising the practice of multicultural education [that is including other perspectives in your curriculum…it may involve a deeper research, although that has been made easier with the Internet!], differentiating instruction [that is, addressing or taking into consideration the various learning needs of your students, not teaching to the middle: a one size fits all curriculum], it may involve being a mentor to some of your students, it may involve checking to see what your students' learning strengths are using multiple intelligence surveys, it may involve taking a constructivist approach sometimes to allowing students to have a place in designing their own instruction, such as giving project-based assignments that involve their learning Math, but also involves more authentic-based approaches than rote memorization of facts and theorems.  For sure, in a  classroom of this nature, the room is not going to be all quiet everyday, but it will involve the engagement, attention of all of your students.

  I look forward to interacting with you on the DSEL 794 discussion board .  Thank you.

Dr. Herring

Week 10 - Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Friere - Chapter Three

Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Friere - Chapter Three
Podcast lecture transcript on Chapter Three

I am especially thrilled at finding the book ‘We Make the Road by Walking’ which offer practical conversations by Myles Horton and Paulo Friere on social change and education.  The book does a wonderful job of further fleshing out the ideas as presented in Chapter Three of Pedagogy of the Oppressed.  Myles Horton and Paulo Friere came together in the late 80’s, each beginning to be influenced by the same ideas of how to put educational theory into practice.  Both were influenced by poverty situations:  Miles from Tennessee and Paulo’s experience in Brazil…both also had parents who were slightly more educated than those whom they lived around, so both experienced the dichotomies of the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless.  In chapter three, Paulo begins to discuss the praxis or practice of being a true educator, especially when it comes to using education or the classroom to empower all students.  He discusses how the whole idea of dialoguing, talking, speaking to others should be not in order to show off how many words one can spout out, or how verbose or articulate we can be, but words should be used to transform the world.  Words should be used for specific purposes in the classroom:  to teach students how to self-emancipate, how to become empowered to activate change in their own lives., giving them concrete examples of how to take their learning and use it for their good, the community’s good. What impresses me most about Paulo Friere and Myles Horton are that they were educators themselves.  They were not merely philosophers, espousing deep thought about how people should activate and live,but they actually walked the walk, as they talked the talk.  They were doers, very active until their deaths.  Myles started the Highlander school in Tennessee in the early thirties, while Paulo was very active in educating the poor in Brazil, going on to teach at Universities, developing adult literacy programs.  While they espoused critical thinking, they lived out their ideas.  Critical thinking in chapter Three is also a component of educating using problem-posing or problem-solving as we call it today.  You can’t have one without the other.  To be a critical thinker is to be about coming up with solutions to problems in the world.  This is described as authentic education:  A with B…not A for B or the teacher telling the student or sympathizing with the student, not A about B, with the teacher even empathizing with the student, but A with B…that is getting to the heart of a student’s needs and addressing those specifically. 

You know what it is?  It is allowing students in the classroom to raise questions, with the teacher not being afraid of that type of transaction…many times teachers are afraid of this type of dialoguing because once again they may have the thought that they should be able to respond to every question, know the answer to every question. This is not excusing the incompetence of a teacher not knowing his or her subject; but it is allowing that even though we may have been taught that the teacher is the vessel of knowing it all, even knowing what is best for the child without the input of the child, that this may not be the best way to approach all children.  Especially children who have not had the opportunity to voice, speak, learn, and voice, speak, learn again and again. 

In chapter 3, Paulo points out the major difference between animals and humans:  that we have the ability to reflect and practice, reflect and practice, therefore transforming our situations, doing something about our existence…unlike animals who exist for the here and now, surviving for the here and now…humans who have not been empowered, students who have not learned of their power may operate in the same vein as animals, if they are not trained to ‘think.’  Is not that what the true essence of education is about?  Even with the differences in pedagogical beliefs, ideas about going about educating the young?  Is not that our job as educators, to train students how to use their minds, essentially how to not be reactionary, not to be operating in survival mode only, but to actually have that privilege to critically think, to make that work to their advantage…otherwise, why are we training the young?  It is because we have a duty, an obligation to life itself…the very existence of our lives is about what we have learned from others isn’t it?

This is what Paulo is trying to express in the chapter.  That education should be about teaching others how to take what they have learned and use it to transform their situations, especially those who are ignorant of how this can be done.  He is espousing that the best way to educate the poor is to teach them the hidden rules[i] that are already known to middle/upper class students when they enter the classroom, since that is who was initially trained and taught in the earlier times…first the wealthy boys, then wealthy boys and girls, then the development of common schools for all children, eventually including all children of all ethnicities in this country…

The remainder of chapter 3 goes on to discuss how to do thematic research…how thematic research is most beneficial in reaching the poor, as that is one of the best ways to allow the poor to have a voice, to truly represent their stories in collecting the data.  I imagine I have an attachment to this form of research as it allows both the teacher or researcher and student to contribute, participate in the development of this investigation.  However, to keep this within the realms of the classroom, Paulo is saying I believe that no matter what we are teaching, when we teach it, we should do so with the students’ experiences in mind, in view…an example he gives is on page 119, where with peasants, perhaps their discussion may be about say, asking for more money, increased wages and banding together to form a union, whereas the typical  educator’s approach to this situation would be to try and get these peasants to read traditional texts that have no meaning for their real situations, real needs…instead Paulo is saying the educator should consider his or her students, where they are coming from first, acknowledging them as participants in education, not mere vessels to receive/absorb/regurgitate what the teacher has to say.  Of course, this must be done within the realms of the classroom, within the realms of what a teacher can offer at the school he or she chooses to teach at…which is why this opportunity to flesh out what your philosophical stance will be before you go looking for the school to teach in is important…with this knowledge, you should be better able to decide the best teaching environment for you and the students you will affect.

I’ll leave you with a quote from Paulo in We Make the Road by Walking…page 66:

 In order for one to know, its just necessary to be alive, then people know.  The question is toknow what they know and how they know, to learn how to teach them things which they don’tknow and they want to know.  The question is to know whether my knowledge is necessary, because sometimes it is not necessary. Sometimes it is necessary but the need is not yet perceived by the people.  Then one of the tasks of the educator is also to provoke the discovering of need for knowing and never to impose the knowledge whose need was not yet perceived.  Sometimes the need is just felt—is that right?—but not yet perceived.  There is a difference…I would tell you that a good teacher is the teacher who, in being or becoming permanently competent, is permanently aware of surprise and never, never stops being surprised.  Do you see?  One of the worst things in life is to stop being surprised.  This is why Myles is a child!  Always we have to look.  Today suddenly a flower is the reason for your surprise.  Tomorrow, it may be the same flower, just with a different color, because of the age of the flower. (p 66, We Make the Road by Walking, Horton & Friere).

I do encourage if you have the time, to pick up this book, though it is not a requirement.

This lecture will be posted to the iTunes album on History and Philosophy of Education as Chapter Three.  If you are one of the co-lead in discussants for this section of the textbook, you should now also post your annotation on Chapter Three, along with a website link for an article or reading related to this discussion and your position from the article.  I will post a transcript of this lecture as my contribution to this discussion.  I look forward to interacting with you and the rest of the class in this discussion.  Thank you.

NOTE:

---

References for hidden rules:  Poverty:  A framework for understanding and working with students and adults from poverty, Ruby K. Payne (1995).

This I believe is in reference today to Howard Gardner’s learning styles: “Multiple Intelligences”.  See http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

Let's continue this conversation in next week's posting.
Dr. Herring 
================================================================
Return to COURSECOMPASS DSEL 794'S DISCUSSION BOARD TO POST 

Week 9 Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Friere - Chapter Two

Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Friere. 
Podcast lecture transcript on Chapter Two.

Continuing with the lecture in chapter Two, Friere is beginning to become more practical in his explanation of what this pedagogy entails….have you noticed that? 

I will begin with his description of the basis of most mainstream pedagogy and that is what he refers to as the ‘banking concept of education.’  The banking concept is your traditional method of educating students:  students listen while the teacher, professor lectures or deposits or fills the students’ heads with knowledge about a particular subject or topic or object.  In this type of pedagogy, the students are seen as receivers, receptors always and the teacher is the bestower, or giver of knowledge always.  According to Friere this pedagogy is imbalanced and contradictory and lacks the true reason for education; that is, it’s transforming power or ability to change students’ lives for the better.  According to Friere the banking method poses a problem, in that students and teachers are at odds with each other, rather than being considered as partners in the education process.  This partnering allows for the teacher to be seen as teacher-student and the student seen as student-teacher…the relationship is one of reciprocity rather than dichotomous.  He refers to the Hegelian dialectic which I reference in my script of this lecture. 

The Hegelian Dialectic is a process formulated by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel who lived in the 1700’s and died in 1831.  Hegel, a philosopher, envisioned that all thoughts and ideas are processed dichotomously.  That is, someone comes up with an idea or takes a position or side in an issue, called a’ thesis.’  Then someone else provides an opposing position, called an ‘antithesis.’  According to Hegel, this thesis and antithesis eventually merges to become a ‘synthesis’ or new ‘thesis’ and another opposing antithesis challenges this new thesis until those become a synthesis and this process continues until society reaches ultimately the ABSOLUTE IDEA, or the ultimate synthesis which produces no antithesis   According to Hegel, the world will eventually arrive at this absolute or world view.  So….

Switching back to Friere,  in Chapter two, he speaks on how even a slave engaged in this Hegelian Dialectic at least is aware that he has rights to a thesis that may be one that is merged with his master’s antithesis…that this slave at least is aware that he is educating his teacher as well as being educated…According to Friere, however, in the banking concept of education, the student is not aware most times that he or she is actually educating his or her teacher as well as being educated by the teacher.  Powerful, huh?  What are thoughts on this essay? See http://www.mokslai.lt/referatai/rasinys/12815.html .

On page 73 of the text, Friere goes on to outline or list 10 attitudes or practices that dominate the banking concept of teaching and I will read these and offer an example of each:

                a. the teacher teaches and the students are taught --- an example of this would be lectures, my   pod-cast lectures

                b. The teacher knows everything and the students know nothing --- most classrooms operate from this paradigm, whether knowingly or unknowingly…the teacher is given a teacher textbook loaded with the answers, test information and the key, the teacher-ese materials…do students get the same?  It is only recently that now students have access to supplemental materials provided by textbook companies, such as quiz takers, websites, resource links…students still in most classes do not get the same materials as the teachers get…why or why not?

                c. The teacher thinks and the students are thought about…a classic example is the traditional syllabus that students receive at the beginning of a class…the teacher created it with the students in mind, but the students are not consulted in the traditional classroom.

                d. The teacher talks and the students listen—meekly---again, most classrooms still are dominated by mostly teacher talk, unless the teacher takes measures to be more inclusive in allowing student talk…even when teachers modify the classroom to include more student input, students may feel put upon, uneasy in that they are used to being poured into, taught from the banking paradigm.

                e. The teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined---an example here would be to ask who assigns grades for the course, who provides the assessment?  The teacher does…who sets the parameters for discipline if the student does not follow the syllabus?  The teacher does…

                f. The teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply…again, the teacher chooses the textbook, materials and curriculum, or at least some educator has completed this process before the students enter the classroom.

                g. The teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher….in other words, the teacher models the appropriate classroom behavior and the student follows.

                h. The teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it…this sounds like setting the syllabus before class and then passing it out to the students.

                i. The teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she or he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students…

                j. The teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects…this is one of the most explanatory themes of the banking concept…the teacher is the subject, that is human and the students are seen as objects, or non-human depositories.

The flip side of the banking concept is the problem posing method of education.  In this atmosphere, the student and teacher are both teachers and students, interchangeably working together.  In this vein, students are allowed to create and re-create knowledge.  According to Friere, problem posing education makes students critical thinkers, encouraging students to take control of their own learning.  Problem posing treats students as subjects, human beings capable of making choices, decisions that will enhance their lives.  When students are allowed to engage in their own learning, beyond just listening and memorizing facts, they actually begin to think in terms of the usefulness of their learning.  This is liberating.  I often say that under the traditional banking model, the teacher gets to refine his or her craft in that he or she practices, re-affirms this knowledge every time he or she gets to recite it, write it, lecture it, speak it.  Problem posing education extends this gift of affirmation to the student as well.  When students have to teach something to another, then they become engaged in a completely different way…they get their hands on the data directly, thus becoming transformed in how they internalize it and teach it to another.  Problem posing education liberates the student from the role of passivity to that of action.  Friere refers to this as ‘acts of cognition’ rather than simply ‘transferal of information.’

Let's continue this conversation in next week's posting.
Dr. Herring 
================================================================
Return to COURSECOMPASS DSEL 794'S DISCUSSION BOARD TO POST