Gatto compares school to a factory or prison which, generally speaking, are not fun places to be. This style of diction, with Gatto consistently projecting new words of the same connotation suggests his point of view on rejection of this prison-like system. The author appeals to anyone who has or has not questioned the usefulness of education. He appeals to our common sense by asking a simple question: why do we need this? Almost every student has thought the same thing at some point, but lacks the confidence needed to express these feelings to the public.
According to material in item A, sociologists such as Becker claim that teachers label different groups of pupils and treat them unequally. Labelling in education means attaching a meaning to a student i.e. calling them hard working or mischievious. Researchers want to know whether labelling actually happens and how much it affects people's self-esteem and achievement. There are various types of experiments that are used to research this, however comparitive experiments should not be used as we are only studying a group of people in education, not the whole population.
A Comparison of Paulo Freire and William Brickman Paulo Freire and William Brickman were both advocates for educational freedom and had significant impacts on their areas of focus. This paper takes a look at each man’s professional goals and contributions, the resistance they faced, how they differed, and the factors that had an impact on their success. Freire’s Contributions Paulo Freire believed education was a tool that could either set the learner and teacher free or oppress the student while putting the teacher in an oppressor role. Traditionally, students were given deposits of knowledge by the teacher without any thought or respect to his or her lived experiences. Freire called this the ‘banking’ concept (Flanagan, 2005).
Priestley does this to show the audience that socialists are the way forward. We know that the Inspector is trying to act as a teacher through the play because he says ‘If men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish’. His role is much more than an Inspector; he is also a preacher of what he believes in. By finding out who learnt a lesson during the play, the people that did not learn should also be considered. Mr Birling is a very one minded man who is solely interested in business and social class.
It is important to understand these two educational concepts because that way we can see the oppression, and might cause us to think a bit more about our education, encouraging us to take a few steps forward into demanding a more effective one. Giving our society a more effective education, in terms of one that will motivate students to think, will produce a new generation of people that will question the world they live in and have the liberty of proposing their own ideas and thought about the world. How is it that the banking concept obviates thinking? Simply by blocking our critical mind. The concept makes us retain a large amount of information or knowledge, but never encourages us to take it further than just “knowing” it, or to look deeper into some topic by ourselves and/or for our own personal growth.
According to deontological theories, students should not be purchasing these assignments. Buying these assignments isn’t fair to everyone involved. It’s not fair to the student because it doesn’t prepare or teach them about the course. Also, it is unfair to the teacher because they believe the student has an understanding of what is being taught. The solution to the dilemma using the deontological theories would be for the student to do what is right by everyone, which is completing their assignment on their own.
Traditionally, approaches to teaching have regarded the learner as an ‘empty vessel’, to be filled with knowledge and information about the world imparted by an expert These traditional approaches, which see learning as primarily a cognitive, internally driven process, rarely take into account learners’ linguistic and cultural worlds outside the classroom (Hall, 2012). A sociocultural perspective of learning, on the other hand, makes clear the links between individuals’ sociocultural worlds and learning, and acknowledges the crucial role these worlds play in shaping a person’s world. Despite concerns over the increasing use of digital media reducing youth participation in literacy, often fanned by moral scare stories in the media (e.g. Thompson, 2009; Beck, Ritter and Lash, 1992), it has been acknowledged that a wide range of literacy practices are occurring in most people’s everyday lives (Ivanic et al, 2007; Lunsford, 2009). Ivanic et al.
Freire believes that this concept of education is suited for oppressors, to have the overwhelming control in aiming the student to adapt to this doctrine. He opposes to this educational system and one can understand it diminishes the divergent thinking of the student. This creative, authentic thinking, that seeks to talk and communicate inside the reality being faced, is oppressed by the teachers when using only narrative, predictable, motionless and static teaching and making the students rely only on what’s being taught and deposited into their minds instead of making it interactive and discussions based class. The student loses the ability on feeding and/or expanding their critical thinking in the conscious mind; this term is called the critical
His explanation of the teacher student relationship reveals the readers assumption of his subject matter. ` In Friere’s first dichotomy of education the teacher lectures, “…about reality as if it were motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable” which in turn loses the interest of the student. In doing this, the teacher is doing nothing for the student, but engaging in what Friere calls “the banking concept of education”. The banking concept involves direct lecture of the teacher on any topic, going over each aspect expecting the student to simply memorize rather than understand what they are learning. Thus, the teacher is making a “deposit” into the “bank” or mind of the student where the information sits accordingly.
Paulo Freire came up with a theory that education is “just an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor.” (Page 1: Pedagogy of the Oppressed) He goes on to say that the banking concept does not allow a “dialogue” between student and teacher and that the student becomes a passive person from the lack of this communication. He tries to explain to his readers that banking trains people to being passive later in life. He goes on to say that he pities teachers because they do not realize that they are “banking” today’s new generation. Those who use the banking approach, knowingly or unknowingly (for there are innumerable well-intentioned bank-clerk teachers who do not realize that they are serving to only dehumanize), fail to perceive that the deposits themselves contain contradictions about reality. (Page 3: Pedagogy of the Oppressed) Paulo Freire thinks that teachers and students are separated through a “dichotomy” and that we don’t communicate with each other.