At the end
of the week, one of the campus organizations that I participate in hosted a
training seminar. They asked one of the university professors to attend as a
guest speaker. He spoke about leading, and although it was geared toward how to
lead within the organization, I feel much of what he said is applicable to
leading in a classroom.
He made a
very honest and valid point that our education system focuses too much on
teaching the “whats” and not enough on teaching the “whys”. I immediately
thought of an activity I did with my seventh graders earlier this week. We are
beginning a unit on relationships. To introduce the unit they were asked to
answer three questions: What defines a relationship? How is a relationship
developed? How do relationships impact our life experiences? As they were
completing the activity, I noticed a trend. Many of them could answer the first
two questions with ease, but they struggled particularly with the third
question. I tried to explain it to them, but I did not have much success. It
never occurred to me that I could ask them why.
Why do we
need relationships? Why would we want them to grow? These questions would have
prompted way more critical thinking and discussion. If you ask a seventh grader
why a relationship is important, they are going to be able to tell you a more
detailed and heartfelt answer. Education revolves around what students need to
know and how they need to know it, but would it not be beneficial to tell them
why?
Why do we
learn to read? Why do we learn to write? We teach these things so students can
form their own opinions about the world around them. Our job as teachers isn’t
to teach them how they should view the world, but to give them the tools and
experiences that can help them shape their own world.
This is
related to a philosophy I am studying in one of my classes. Paulo Freire
believes that teachers and students should have equal power in the classroom.
However, most classrooms follow a narrative relationship where the subject (the
teacher) narrates to the patient, listening objects (the students). This is
known as the “banking” concept. Educators often view their task as “filling”
the students with the contents of narration. It turns students into
“containers” or “receptacles” and inhibits the creativity and learning process
that is vital for them to one day construct their own experiences.
We cannot
view our students as objects. They are agents, born to act. Instead of giving
them all the information, I believe we, as teachers, can better serve them by
giving them just enough information for them to come to their own conclusions. Freire
offers a solution, the structure of education can be transformed so students
can become “beings for themselves,” rather than trying to force integrate them
into a structure that oppresses their innovation and originality.
My question
is: How can I make sure my students meet the assessed educational standards
without limiting or stifling their ingenuity? I want to try and make the roles
of teacher and student transparent. I want a student to know they can teach me
just as I can teach them, and I need to remember I can learn from a student as
they can learn from me. I think focusing less on the “whats” and more on the “whys”
is a great place to start.
Classroom adieux!
Sources
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the oppressed. [New York]: Herder and Herder, 1970.
