Learning to Wallow
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire discounts the "banking concept of education," whereby "knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing" (para. 6). In the banking method, then, students are deemed successful if they are able to regurgitate knowledge upon demand, or if, when filled with the requisite knowledge, they graduate.
Students, parents, and others valorize a college education as the path to a good job, success, and earning more money. Yet, critical thinking demands that students, especially, see the value in the educational process. That is, in the process of education, the important part really is the journey and the questions asked along the way, particularly, if students really do aspire to positions of management and authority, for those who know why something is done will manage those who know simply how something is done. (someone else said this last bit before me, but I can't remember who).
Educators, of course realize this. However, how can they reframe the pejorative use of "intellectual" during the academic experience so that students value the process of learning to think critically?
We are learning that to think critically is to be both a good college student and a good college English instructor. Such roles require "learning to wallow in complexity" (25) as introduced in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing (25-27). To wallow is to think critically, to ask good questions, and to become good at posing problems.
In other essays, progressive educators are being attacked by so-called traditional "conservatives" for among other things, questioning the canon and exposing students to "liberal" ideas. In The Storm Over the University, Searle would have us believe that to teach the "traditional canon" is somehow an apolitical act, while making the canon more inclusive is the act of political radicals. How is excluding women and minorities from the canon any less radical than the "liberal" goal of including women and minorities in the canon?
Searle claims that it's wrong for a teacher to expose their political leanings, and others such as Graf, say it's wrong not to. Graf may in fact have the best answer: teach the conflicts, or as A&B say, "[learn] to wallow in complexity" (25). Yet, are there times when critical thinking and questioning should be avoided? Should teachers expose their political beliefs?
In the end, is teaching critical thinking a political act? a progressive act? can all educators who teach critical thinking then be labeled liberal radicals by our government and so-called conservatives?
Students, parents, and others valorize a college education as the path to a good job, success, and earning more money. Yet, critical thinking demands that students, especially, see the value in the educational process. That is, in the process of education, the important part really is the journey and the questions asked along the way, particularly, if students really do aspire to positions of management and authority, for those who know why something is done will manage those who know simply how something is done. (someone else said this last bit before me, but I can't remember who).
Educators, of course realize this. However, how can they reframe the pejorative use of "intellectual" during the academic experience so that students value the process of learning to think critically?
We are learning that to think critically is to be both a good college student and a good college English instructor. Such roles require "learning to wallow in complexity" (25) as introduced in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing (25-27). To wallow is to think critically, to ask good questions, and to become good at posing problems.
In other essays, progressive educators are being attacked by so-called traditional "conservatives" for among other things, questioning the canon and exposing students to "liberal" ideas. In The Storm Over the University, Searle would have us believe that to teach the "traditional canon" is somehow an apolitical act, while making the canon more inclusive is the act of political radicals. How is excluding women and minorities from the canon any less radical than the "liberal" goal of including women and minorities in the canon?
Searle claims that it's wrong for a teacher to expose their political leanings, and others such as Graf, say it's wrong not to. Graf may in fact have the best answer: teach the conflicts, or as A&B say, "[learn] to wallow in complexity" (25). Yet, are there times when critical thinking and questioning should be avoided? Should teachers expose their political beliefs?
In the end, is teaching critical thinking a political act? a progressive act? can all educators who teach critical thinking then be labeled liberal radicals by our government and so-called conservatives?
posted by Marcia | 3:27 PM
3 Comments:
I don't think it is as simple as equating liberal political beliefs with progressive education or traditional political beliefs with traditional teacher-centered education. Because I know people who are liberal politically and think that a constructivist pedagogy is horrible (although in my mind I wonder how they could be "liberal" and think that problem-posing is a bad idea). Critical thinking and questioning should never be avoided. I don't think teachers should share their political beliefs (to answer your last two questions). I'm not there to sway them one way or the other. I am there to ask them to justify their opinions and ask questions to help them pose problems. Like the devil's advocate, I guess.
After reading Keri’s comment and reading the Searle collection, I am questioning what we mean by “political” in regards to classrooms. Like Keri, I was careful not to publish my political beliefs in my classroom. I was warned as I began teaching public school that the classroom was not the place to be political. And I agree that a classroom, especially one in middle and high school, is not the place for teachers to preach a political agenda. Yet in even subtle ways doesn’t this happen anyway? I’ve heard it said in different classes that there is no such thing as non-persuasive communication; that all writing and talking is persuasive. If I say “no” to something, I am making a persuasive comment. If I am silent, that too, is persuasive. Thus, if I combine Searle, Keri, and maybe Freire, the teachers’ role is one of not promoting a published agenda (either right or left, etc.), yet realizing that the content chosen, literature studied, and all we do and say is still influencing students. Yes, teachers have power, and we need to evaluate that power, balancing and being sensitive to the many voices in and out of our classrooms. I liked what Graff suggested in that we invite students into the debate as well: “The surest way to protect students from being bullied by their teachers’ political views is to expose them to the debates between those views” (May 16, 1991, p. 2). Why not let the students have a voice in choosing some of what is read (let their political agendas help guide the class?). Hopefully I can find a balance here---I feel like a pendulum moving between Searle and Freire. Yet I don’t think that the two need to be polar opposites. Isn’t there a balance to be achieved?
After reading Keri's comment and reading the Searle collection, I am questioning what we mean by "political" in regards to classrooms. Like Keri, I was careful not to publish my political beliefs in my classroom. I was warned as I began teaching public school that the classroom was not the place to be political. And I agree that a classroom, especially one in middle and high school, is not the place for teachers to preach a political agenda. Yet in even subtle ways doesn't this happen anyway? I've heard it said in different classes that there is no such thing as non-persuasive communication; that all writing and talking is persuasive. If I say "no" to something, I am making a persuasive comment. If I am silent, that too, is persuasive. Thus, if I combine Searle, Keri, and maybe Freire, the teacher's role is one of not promoting a published agenda (either right or left, etc.), yet realizing that the content chosen, literature studied, and all we do and say is still influencing students. Yes, teachers have power, and we need to evaluate that power, balancing and being sensitive to the many voices in and out of our classrooms. I liked what Graff suggested in that we invite students into the debate as well: "The surest way to protect students from being bullied by their teachers' political views is to expose them to the debates between those views" (May 16, 1991, p. 2). Why not let the students have a voice in choosing some of what is read (let their political agendas help guide the class?). Hopefully I can find a balance here---I feel like a pendulum moving between Searle and Freire. Yet I don't think that the two need to be polar opposites. Isn't there a balance to be achieved?
Post a Comment
<< Home