Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(40)
-
▼
July
(13)
- How to get your marks, pick up your work...
- Open Discussion Thread
- 'Pedagogy of the Superhero'
- For Wednesday...
- Open Discussion Thread
- Notes on office hours and assignments...
- 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' chapters 3 and 4
- Open Discussion Thread
- Important notice, re: Practicum
- 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' chapters 1 and 2
- Open Discussion Thread
- Some 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' resources...
- 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed', Intro and Preface
-
▼
July
(13)
3 comments:
I noticed that chapter 3 and chapter 4 tends to connect to each other. For instance, in Chapter 3, there was the emphasis that people need to feel like masters of their thinking by discussing the thinking and the views/perspective of the world. By doing so, we come to view education being started with the conviction that it cannot show its own program, but that it must search for the program diaologically with people. Therefore, it gives the beginning of the pedagogy in which the oppressed must be involved.
Connecting in Chapter 4, it then states that "without a revolutionaly theory, there can be no revolutionary movement", therefore, a revolution is only achieved through praxis ( reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed).
Thus, with human activity, in this case, the oppressed involvement, it requires theory to reflect the action and reflection in order to transform the world, the pedagogy of the oppressed.
Agustina, I think that chapter 4 serves as a "summary" of sorts for the entire book, encapsulating the themes that are brought up in earlier chapters. Your ideas are very interesting. I am especially interested in your last paragraph, which poses a curious problem.
I cannot contest that in order to achieve liberatory dialogue, theory and reflection must both be employed. Keeping this in mind, I cannot help but to think back on a discussion that Amanda and I were having today in tutorial. Freire believes that in order for an educator to dialogue with a student, the educator must provide a student with the tools to understand this dialogue. To contextualize this, the oppressed are students and the theory used to reflect is the "definition" imparted on them by their educator. The point that proved to be problematic is that when an educator is giving a student definitions, telling a student what words mean or how to think critically about their actions, at what point does this revert to the banking method?
Any thoughts?
When a teacher provides the students with the definitions, isn't that part of the banking method because the teacher is just giving the information to the students. I thought that in order for the teachers and students to adopt the problem posing method and they would use dialogue to define words or concepts together, which would help the students become critical thinkers
Post a Comment