From this week’s readings, I found the Freire article most interesting. Freire posits that the banking method of education is a tool of oppression. In this system, teachers are in a privileged position and the students are robbed of their ability to gain true knowledge “through invention and reinvention.”
I never thought to look critically at the relationships I had with my teachers in the classroom. I did as I was told. In some cases, that meant I was a passive recipient of knowledge and in other environments, I grappled with the material at hand, forming opinions of my own and reforming those opinions by discussing them with the teacher and the rest of the class. Looking back, I always preferred the problem posing method. In the banking method, I simply memorized content and spat it back out, knowing that such an act was exactly what the teacher wanted. That’s how I would get an “A.” But how much did I learn from this method? Memorization does not equate knowledge. Sure, I could define those terms or identify these patterns, but did I truly understand them? Was I investigating other ways of looking at the concepts taught?
Upon examining my education thus far, I feel as if the banking method typified my elementary, middle, and most of my high school education. Perhaps, this method was in place as my teachers were motivated by AP exams and standardized tests to “fill” their students with the “right” answers. However, my undergraduate studies more closely resemble the problem posing method. I’m not sure if the switch indicates that the paradigm is shifting (though I hope this is the case), or if it simply means that as a young adult in college, I am given more free reign to critically engage with the material.