For years we have been sent to an institution that claims they are teaching us something, yet not many of us seem to remember what we have been taught. Are we going to school to be educated or are we there to make our minds dull? Society makes us think as if this education will help us out in the future and lead us into a better path, but how will that become reality if not many of the students understand what they are being taught? There are many theorists out there that say that the institution of schooling will help the young minds to prepare themselves for a better future, but these young minds are being brainwashed into thinking that all this information will be used later on in their life. When a student receives a good grade, it is only because they have reviewed the information and have followed what they were told to do so by the teacher; this does not make them smart at all. Everyone is smart, but it is their choice to be told what to do. Some can choose to go against what they are told to do, and this would label them as a “bad student”. School is an institution that forces its students to become dull, making them think the education they are receiving will lead them into a better future, but in reality they will not be able to use much of the information given at all. When teaching styles are altered, students tend to become more attracted to the learning material.
Argument One:
Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator and an influential theorist of critical pedagogy uses the banking method of describing the institution of schooling. In this method there is a give and take strategy between the teacher and student. The teacher is always playing the bigger role where she is giving out the information; she is the one depositing all the information into the students mind. The student therefore is known as the taker, he will take the information being deposited into his account. This shows that there is not much happening in the students mind when all the information is being provided. All he is doing is taking the information being given and this procedure is being thought of something being learned, yet in reality the student has not learned anything because nothing has been taught; it has only been given.
When the answer is given, the student will not be able to learn much. This proves why a student is more likely to forget about what has been “taught” because he or she will not be able to remember the experience of being given the information. In the second chapter of his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire writes: “Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits.” (Freire) The student is not learning at all because there is no communication. The dull student is being told what to do by the bright teacher who seems like she knows everything, yet she is only a poser. She is only filling his mind with facts that he needs to know, yet will forget in no time because he would never be able to remember such an experience of being taught. Freire believes that schooling is all about give and take, the outcome then leads for the student to become “dumb”.
Argument Two:
As the executive director of the Center for Urban Education and Innovation at Florida International University, Lisa Delpit believes “If teachers make judgments only according to the tests being inflicted on the children by the schools, then they can misunderstand their children's brilliance.” (Delpit) Delpit does not believe in using tests and grades to figure out how brilliant a child is. In her eyes all children are brilliant, but teachers need different ways to approach each child so they can bring out this brilliance locked up inside them. Delpit tries to transform the institution of schooling by using arts so her students can bring out their brilliance to be seen by everyone. She claims that including arts in the curriculum will help the teachers see students as a different person.
When Nile Stanley interviews Delpit he asks “Are their any strategies you recommend for discovering children's brilliance?” (Stanley) She answers: “The biggest strategy I advocate is the arts. Teachers who see their students engaged in the arts have an opportunity to see their students in a different light, whereas before all they saw was what their children couldn't do. The arts show you what children can do. Another strategy is to talk to people who have an opportunity to observe the children outside of school. Teachers should learn about the children's community. For example, some children might not be able to do a worksheet on money; yet the same children may take major responsibility for interchanges with money.” (Delpit) Without the use of art Delpit feels that her students will not be engaged in the activities. They need to be exposed to arts in schooling because it will help them discover new languages and let them interact with others as well.
She doesn’t seem to fancy the idea of the average teaching style which includes determining how well they are as a student by making them memorize unnecessary information for a test. She lets the brilliance of the children come out while they are communicating with others and becoming used to the rhythm of poetry. The use of arts in schooling will help the young become engaged in what they are learning and be able to understand, where as studying and giving a test will make them forget all of what they had forced themselves to learn. Having different methods incorporated into the curriculum of schooling, Delpit feels that it will be able to bring out the brilliance of all students.
Argument Three:
Dead Poets Society directed by Peter Weir, is a story about an English teacher who decides to teach at an all-boys preparatory school. Mr. Keating comes in the first day to teach at the school, where the students are ready to learn. He tries his best to keep his students interested by planning a class that would make his students have fun physically and mentally. He uses text as well as activities that will keep them engaged in school; he takes them outside so they can read lines from poems and take out their emotions by kicking balls across the field. He asks them to rip out pages of a book; usually this is not what a teacher tells his students to do, but this is why Mr. Keating shows that he is not an ordinary teacher. Because the students start to become engaged with his curriculum, they start to take interest in what is being taught in class. They start to follow the instructions given out by Mr. Keating and soon find themselves in a literary group named the Dead Poets Society.
Unlike most of the teachers in our society today, Mr. Keating cares a lot about his passionate, but he has even more care for their emotions and poetry because at the end, that is what matters the most. “We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. To quote from Whitman, "O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless... of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?" Answer. That you are here - that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. That the powerful play *goes on* and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?” (Keating)
Usually teachers only care about providing information for students so that they will be able to determine their future and how well their future looks. They only want to direct them to the right path by completing their job the easy way. In Dead Poets Society, the teacher wants his students to have a fulfilling life while doing something they actually love using the knowledge they have had loaded into their system, instead of having it just given to them. This is how they are able to create a literature group and take part in what is going on in class. They are actually interested in learning the material because of their teacher’s teaching style.
Conclusion:
When information is simply given to a student, he is forced to make it a part of his mind; there is so much material that a mind can be given. When the teaching style is switched around, the mind starts to work better at catching all the material and this way the student is able to understand much better. When the banking method is used, not much is being taught to the student, they are forced to be “learning”, but at the end they will figure out that they are wasting their time since they will not remember much of the material “taught” to them. Delpit and Mr. Keating are able to structure their curriculum in a way so that their students become more engaged and interested at what is being taught. This will be able to help them understand all the information being received resulting in actually understanding the concept instead of being forced to learning it then forgetting it at the end. The student will be attached to learning when he is not dominated by their teacher.
Citations:
Freire, Paulo. "Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed Chapter 2." N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr 2010.
Delpit, Lisa. "Interview with Lisa Delpit: Discovering Brilliance in Our Children." N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr 2010.
Keating, John. "Memorable quotes for Dead Poets Society ." IMBD. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment