Fundamentally. the point of view of this single chapter offers a strong point. A point that I could support. Unfortunately, the work itself sets my teeth on edge and I cannot swallow it without grimacing. The basic premise of this chapter is that teachers should not simply stand before a class as if they are the all knowing depositor of knowledge in the empty vessels which are called students. That instead of the vast distance between the position of 'teacher' and that of 'student' the roles should be combined. Teachers should admit that they are constantly learning from their students and students should be given the chance to offer their knowledge on whatever subject is being discussed. I agree wholeheartedly with this concept. In my future English classes I hope to lead many discussions among my students. I want to hear what they thought or felt about the subject at hand. I want my students to work together to create the intellectual world they inhabit. I think that in an English class it is highly problematic to teach literature where the only interpretation is the one that the teacher offers. Students are diverse, they have experiences and cultures which no other human has ever had. Students have unique ways of looking at the world and expressing it. I want to give these tendencies as many chances to grow as I can.
Then I read this chapter and was reminded of a sign I recently saw. It spoke of how Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, were not the enemy ... extremism was. I feel the same applies to this text. The idea of celebrating and using a student's individual knowledge in the classroom is a wonderful one. This text instead makes it sound as though the current system (which the author posits does not incorporate student knowledge) is a threatening dictatorship which is creating mindless automatons through its education system. The text paints education is a great evil within the limits of the current system and that it is destroying fundamental human rights. This view point is extremism at its finest. The system is flawed, I agree. And when the text was written in 1993 there were still miles to go before student voice was regarded as a fundamental part of learning. I would not go so far as to consider it the source of evil that this text paints it to be. Changes had already begun in the education system by the time this was written. Educators were growing to understand that the old ways of teaching were leaving far to many children unprepared by graduation. There is no mention of growth or changes in the text. In fact, the text itself has only small portions of intellectually gratifying inclusions. I admit that there is a great deal of quotes from great books and historical authors. The language used is complex, though at times grammatically incorrect. It is the fact that pages of this chapter are repetitious and unhelpful to anyone who might want to take up the torch lit within these words and move the system forward. My above mentioned agreements with the text contain most of the useful advice that the authors offers on how to best move beyond what he calls "the banking method of teaching." The remainder is an emotional tangle of disquiet about the current system.
I spent most of my reading grimacing or groaning or rubbing my forehead in frustration at the overworked tirade that the vast majority of this chapter contains. I agree that simple memorization of facts is not the only way, and often not the best way, to teach a student. Yet the fact remains that the human brain works in such a multitude of ways that there are learners who need to memorize facts to comprehend the material. Teachers cannot ignore those learners simply because discussion is better at facilitating critical thinking in most cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment