“Engaged Pedagogy”, by bell hooks, criticizes the traditional sense of educational authority. She stressed that engaged pedagogy, where students actually engage with material instead of just passively receiving it, is beneficial to said students in the long run. Hooks says that teachers are not authority, but facilitators and they need to be emotionally invested in the growth of their students. In turn that means they should also be dedicated to their own personal growth as well. Hooks mentions holistic ways of learning and the importance of a “whole student”, dialogue between teacher and student and how education shapes the world we know today.
I couldn’t agree more with hooks in this piece. I think that pedagogies like this separate people from teaching to actually being a teacher. Being invested in the students’ growth is great for them, but also makes you feel more fulfilled and like you’re actually making a difference as a teacher. I also know that children feel this energy from adults. When they know their teacher cares about their growth academically and as a person they are inclined to put more effort in and be more engaged.
Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, also criticizing the idea of traditional education. He criticizes the “banking method”, which is the idea that teachers “deposit” information into passive students, which are empty vessels. Then those students just return that information. He goes on to stress how education is used as a way to keep people oppressed as it reinforces conformity ensuring that the people that are being oppressed (students) never notice. Frieire offers an alternative “problem-posing education”, that fosters critical thinking and dialogue. He concludes that education should be transformative, having students identify their own agency in shaping society.
I absolutely hate the banking method. I think it’s stupid and pointless and creates little robots. We do this in education now, just to get good test takers. While I understand that test scores are low and the students should be able to display their knowledge, there has to be another way. Feeding them information like that does nothing for them in the long run. What makes it even worse is once the students grow up all society does is complain about how they cannot think for themselves.
Audrey Watters` article, “The Web We Need to Give Students”, advocates for empowering students by giving them control over their digital identities. “Domain of One’s Own” is a program at UMW that gives students faculty personal web domains, allowing them to create their own spaces. This would be unlike traditional learning spaces, but Watters argues that it fosters critical digital literacy and encourages students to learn and understand the technology in our modern world.
Now, hear me out, I personally do not want to upkeep a website, unless it’s google classroom, BUT I can see how this would be useful for students, considering our everyday world. I am not totally sure if it’s necessary… but I`m not opposed.
Dave Cormier`s article, “Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum” explores the concept of “rhizomatic education”. This is a learning model inspired by the philosophical work of Deleuze and Guattari . The approach challenges traditional education by emphasizing that knowledge is proposing that knowledge is fluid, decentralized and shaped by the collective contributions of the learning community.
I agree with Cormier and his approach to learning. I think it empowers students to take ownership of their education. What you get into it is what you get out of it. I also think this way of learning is helpful for teachers because they catch a lot of slack. As soon as a child isn’t doing well the first person that is to blame is the teacher. Most times it is simply that the student does not want to participate in the learning process. I think that students that do understand this are more successful. If all of society could jump on this approach I think overall we would be more successful.
Leave a Reply