Reflection 3    On the fence with Problem-Posing Education                               

     

        Paulo Freire’s ideas about the banking method versus the problem-posing method of education are very obvious from the chapter we read from his book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” (Freire, 1970). Freire is against the banking method of education where the students minds are seen as empty ‘receptacles’ or ‘bank accounts’ that need to be filled and the teacher is the depositor who “deposits” this knowledge (1970, p. 72). The more full the teacher can make these accounts, the better they have done their job, regardless of whether or not the student actually learned the topic. Freire believes this is a major problem which causes creativity to be eliminated and students are unable to think and consider the reality in which they live, but rather, just accept it. Problem-posing education is what Freire sees as the answer to the banking method, which will liberate students through critical thought of the world around them and allow creative expression. Although Freire does make some very intriguing points about the downfall of the banking method, I am not sure I fully agree with all that he has to say about problem-posing education being the complete solution to the oppression that students are experiencing. There are statements that Freire makes in this chapter that I can agree with, but there are others that I am reluctant to side with, which, ironically, is exactly what Freire would have wanted - to be critically thinking about the information in front of me instead of simply accepting it. 

               The discussion of the banking method lies on the foundation that is has a narrative character in which the teacher of the classroom is the subject which narrates to the students, who are known as the objects (1970, p. 71).  I agree with this statement that the banking method does run by narration, or what could even better be described as dictation. The teacher dictates the information at the students all day and they are expected to keep it in their heads until it comes time to use it during a test. The teacher also expects that what they have taught the student will stay with them as they age and go with their lives, which in most cases, is not in fact true. An example in society to illustrate his argument against the banking method and for the problem-posing method that I can think of is in a university lecture. I have been in very few courses where the professor has intrigued me or even held my attention during the entire lecture. But whose fault is that? Some say it is my fault because I am the student and I have a short attention span and am incapable of a 75 minute lecture. Others say it is the professor’s fault because the common thought is that they don’t care if you don’t come to class, or pay attention or even succeed; as long as they know they put the information in your head, they have done their job. I can think of courses however, where I felt that the professor truly cared about whether or not I understood the material being presented and it was presented in a way that allowed creative interpretation and I was forced to think about what they were saying and not always agree with them. What I learned from those courses has stuck with me better and allowed me to apply it to other subjects. This example reinforces Freire’s ideas of the downfall of the banking method and support for the problem-posing method of education. 

     Although I do agree with Freire in that the banking method is not an ideal way of teaching, I also see flaws in the problem-posing method as well; the main flaws being loss of teacher-student interaction and potential loss of important curriculum. A main point with this method of education is to see teachers and students as equal so that they can learn from one another (1970, p. 80), which makes me uneasy. I think there needs to be order in classrooms because if not, the students would just do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted and there could be severe consequences for that. Teachers do learn from students, but more about the thoughts and mannerisms of their students, sometimes gaining bits of wisdom through their innocent nature. I don’t think students should be seen as the equal to the teacher. All sense of order and structure would be lost and we need the structure to learn basic things in school such as math and English and the sciences, both biological and social so that we can solve problems.
            In a recent article written Jerry Ameis for the Winnipeg Free Press, a question is pondered over why is it that Asian students seem do to better than North American students when it comes to the subject of mathematics (Ameis, 2012). A study done on a school in Japan found that problem-posed teaching with question asking and discussion among students in addition to the regularly mandated worksheets is what lead to such a high success rate among Japanese students. In China, it was found that traditional teaching does occur, but with specialists brought in to help teach particular subjects and with more interaction and input among teachers. This is evidence that the banking method doesn’t always work and that in order for students to understand certain concepts, the way they are taught needs to change.
      Although Paulo Freire hasn’t completely won me over with his idea of the problem-posing method of education, I do see where there is room for change and the education system does need major alterations. Students need to feel respected and safe in their classroom so that they can flourish and the only way to do that is for teachers to step down and realize they don’t in fact know everything and that each student learns in a particular way and that way needs to be considered.

Images retrieved from:

Paulo Freire cartoon

'Memorize!' Cartoon
classroom

References

Ameis, J. (2012, February 25). It doesn't add up. Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved from:             http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/it-doesnt-add-up-140405743.html
            on 29 Feburary 2012.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (pp.71-86). New York, NY: Contiuum.