Today in the United States, we trudge through school for a foundation of knowledge in order to get jobs.Therefore, how students are taught in school is vital; it is their lives on the line. The problem, then is that, the way students are taught ruins future learning and provides no such foundation. It is not the first time this problem has been addressed, Paulo Freire spoke about how the banking concept of education dehumanizes the students. It poisons the students so to speak. When you bring the knowledge you learn in the school system into the real world, it does not relate and a connection is not made, as with any poison it causes a sense of confusion. This is what Richard Feynman observed in Brazil when he worked in the Physics department
…show more content…
This system allows students to practice only a small scope of actions, including “receiving, filing, and storing” information (Freire 63). Notably the US has become overly test heavy, the curriculum is strict on what must be known by the students. This limits inquiry, and as Freire says “for apart from inquiry… individuals cannot truly be human” (Freire 63). This stalked me through middle school where, I remember vividly, in my seventh grade social studies class. We mostly just studied information from the book in preparation for the end of year test. I had the question in class on how peninsula formed to begin with, something not mentioned in my book. The teacher responded to me that we would not be tested on that so I should not bother learning it, and that the class had no time to talk about it. Besides leaving a poor impression on me, it also shows how you can undercut potential growth in knowledge when communication pathways are not open between the students and teachers. While Freire goes on to advocate that “education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students,” I do not believe we to follow Freire hopes as that could lead to chaos, but it is necessary for there to be a constant path of communication, in order to …show more content…
Ritual and music present us with models but no explanation...” (Tzu 12). Here Tzu showcases another importance of communication, it is the only way for something to be truly explained to the student. Even if you understand what is going in the book you have never interacted with it, you do not have someone to confirm nor deny what you understand, and as Feynman pointed out when speaking of the one experiment in the physics book they used in Brazil “therefore this single example of experimental ‘results’ is obtained from a fake experiment. Nobody had rolled such a ball, or they would never have gotten those results” the book can be wrong (Feynman 73). Tzu’s belief on “associate with those who are learned” reminds me very much of my ninth grade English class, which was my first year in the early college system (Tzu 12). In class we read Lord of the Flies, and since our teacher wanted to talk about the symbolism of the book, she felt the best thing to do would be to have us gather in a circle and pass around a “conch”, a la Lord of the Flies fashion, in order to speak about the book. This was a practice she would later reuse when we spoke about the Odyssey and Animal Farm. She was restricted by the same rules we were in the circle, though she did have the power to receive the “conch” over someone
This system allows students to practice only a small scope of actions, including “receiving, filing, and storing” information (Freire 63). Notably the US has become overly test heavy, the curriculum is strict on what must be known by the students. This limits inquiry, and as Freire says “for apart from inquiry… individuals cannot truly be human” (Freire 63). This stalked me through middle school where, I remember vividly, in my seventh grade social studies class. We mostly just studied information from the book in preparation for the end of year test. I had the question in class on how peninsula formed to begin with, something not mentioned in my book. The teacher responded to me that we would not be tested on that so I should not bother learning it, and that the class had no time to talk about it. Besides leaving a poor impression on me, it also shows how you can undercut potential growth in knowledge when communication pathways are not open between the students and teachers. While Freire goes on to advocate that “education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students,” I do not believe we to follow Freire hopes as that could lead to chaos, but it is necessary for there to be a constant path of communication, in order to …show more content…
Ritual and music present us with models but no explanation...” (Tzu 12). Here Tzu showcases another importance of communication, it is the only way for something to be truly explained to the student. Even if you understand what is going in the book you have never interacted with it, you do not have someone to confirm nor deny what you understand, and as Feynman pointed out when speaking of the one experiment in the physics book they used in Brazil “therefore this single example of experimental ‘results’ is obtained from a fake experiment. Nobody had rolled such a ball, or they would never have gotten those results” the book can be wrong (Feynman 73). Tzu’s belief on “associate with those who are learned” reminds me very much of my ninth grade English class, which was my first year in the early college system (Tzu 12). In class we read Lord of the Flies, and since our teacher wanted to talk about the symbolism of the book, she felt the best thing to do would be to have us gather in a circle and pass around a “conch”, a la Lord of the Flies fashion, in order to speak about the book. This was a practice she would later reuse when we spoke about the Odyssey and Animal Farm. She was restricted by the same rules we were in the circle, though she did have the power to receive the “conch” over someone