Paulo Frerie as One of the Most Influential Educationists - Essay Example

Paulo Frerie is one of the most influential educationists in the world; his views on education and the connection between education and the quest to fight oppression in the book pedagogy of the oppressed have radically changed both theory and practice of education (Micheletti). According to the education system, in majority countries is fundamentally narrative, with the teacher being always the narrator, the learner and the patient, sitting and listening as the teacher narrates, teaches as the case may be. Thus, the teacher seemingly suspends the rules of reality and the lesson are carried out in an abstract manner with the teacher only filling the students mind with information “detached from reality disconnected from the totality that engendered them and could give them any meaning” (Freire 2). As such, the writer contends that education in this context is reduced to an act of depositing knowledge in the students without any regard to the invention and reinvention necessary for the fostering of creativity in the learner. The banking concept of education ensures that teachers reign supreme and are opposed to students in as far as the levels on the chain of knowledge are concerned as such the assumption is that the student is absolutely ignorant otherwise the teacher’s existence would not be justified (Freire 2). Unfortunately, this has been the trend in many education systems that are predominantly based on retrospectively oppressive systems; therefore, education often necessitates the demeaning of student making them passive in an environment where a teacher is the sole dispenser of knowledge (“Paulo Freire (1921–1997)”…). For education to be balanced it should involve the active participation of not just the teacher but students as well; moreover, learning should be an interactive process in which both parties have an opportunity share their diverse experiences and understanding. I have had an opportunity to experience and appreciate both sides of the divide during my time in high school and college, throughout much of the former education consisted of sitting in class and taking notes. Despite the fact that they were making some effort to be interactive, I with the benefit of hindsight, realize now that their efforts often simply culminated in our rubber-stamping the teacher opinions. Conversely, in senior high school, there is one teacher who made a difference in the way I perceived education, he was an elderly Gent who loved classics and surprisingly for a teacher, in any lesson, he did the least amount of speaking and the most listening. This was radically different from what most of us were used to, and some of my classmates  claimed (Secretly) that he was just lazy, nonetheless with time we realized that we were learning more from ourselves than we would have if he just stood there dictating. This is because, when a teacher is teaching, we would often zone off and I personally had to be startled out or my reverie, as someone was reading Robert frost, in what I considered sleeps inducing tones. With time, the teacher made the readings more student oriented especially by asking a student to lead the discussion, social rivalries began to show their face in the class as students competed in a new arena, intellect. Initially, we were surprised since whenever we were confused by a problem, we would ask the teacher and he often came out with answers that were complicated, but we often assumed they were right because either it was the teacher or they made sense. This teacher was different in that he would ask an enquiring student what they thought he would listen keenly, to the latter’s opinion and instead correct by adding information. He often did this in an enquiring manner and it would not give the answer or correction directly but spur the student into thinking critically and examining a new idea carefully before he agreed or disagreed. The lessons, as one can imagine, were not very convectional and anyone looking in would assume at first sight that we are just chattering, and no serious studying was taking place. The teacher would take up our ideas and adopt them, he often used our wording, and this way we felt we owned the ideas, this method of personalizing the issues made us feel confident and literature stopped feeling like a foreign concept in foreign books but as part of what were immersed in. His methods are in direct opposition with the banking concept, which Freire considered responsible for turning pedagogy into a historically and potentially oppressive process (Freire 3). Teachers who use the banking process are often products of a similar education system and they, just like bank clerks, deposited and shuffled knowledge around with no true connection to the world outside school. This will result in dehumanizing the content of the education system, conversely our teacher “humanized” literature, Frost’s works were like a reflection life and we clearly saw the conflicts and themes within and compared them with our own lives. The banking method is potentially perilous to the learner and society, “they may discover through existential experience that the present way of life is irreconcilable with their vocation to become fully human” (Freire 5). As such, a student of this system will learn after leaving school that what he/she learnt in school will be of very little practical use in their life and career, as a result, they will rebel against the system. From this experience and other subsequent ones, I have come to realize over the years that the best method of teaching and learning is where the two are not mutually exclusive and work alongside each other. This can apply to the regular school education, adult education and other learning experiences in everyday life; this is because for one to learn anything from another, they must be willing to engage in a process of dialogue. Thus, they can make concessions since the learner cannot reasonably be assumed to be in absolute ignorance, and neither can the teacher in this case be assumed all knowing. Dialogue was a process Freire considered not just a way of deepening ones understanding in the learning process but also a way through which revolution and differences could be made (Smith). In conclusion, education is a process that does not involve passive learning or active teaching, but a combination of both, teachers must engage in dialogue with their students so that they can come to a point of mutual enlightenment appreciating the contributions from each party. Ultimately, in the words of Socrates the aim of argument is for both parties to come to a point of mutual enlightenment, and this too applies to education, teachers and students need to meet at the limit of their abilities and knowledge so that they can serve as extensions to each other. Works Cited Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition. New York: Continuum, 2000. Print. Smith, Mark K. “Paulo Freire” Infed.com. 2012. Web. 6 February 2013. Micheletti, Gabrielle. “Re-Envisioning Paulo Freire’s; Banking Concept of Education" Student Pulse. 2010. Student Pulse. Web. 6 February 2013. “Paulo Freire (1921–1997) - Conceptual Tools, Philosophy of Education, Criticism”. State University. n.d. Web. 6 February 2013. . Read More