Banking Concept vs Problem-posing

This week I have been assigned to read and prepare to share with the class a portion of Paulo Freire’s seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. See the link below.

Chapter 2 of the Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire: http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html

First, I would like to provide some background on the author. I did some quick research on Paulo Freire on Wikipedia and learned that this work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is considered one of the foundational texts of the overall crtitical pedagogy movement. Taking directly from his Wikipedia page “Since the publication of the English edition in 1970, Pedagogy of the Oppressed has had a large impact in education and pedagogy worldwide, especially as a defining work of critical pedagogy. According to Israeli writer and education reform theorist Sol Stern, it has ‘achieved near-iconic status in America’s teacher-training programs'”. Some additional relevant trivia is that Paulo wrote this text in response to other contemporary works that emphasized the need to formally educate the indigenous populations of his native Brazil which is, needless-to-say, controversial.

In Chapter 2 of the book, two main teaching approaches are outlined and branded by Freire. The first, Freire calls the “banking concept of education“. In this approach “education thus becomes an act of depositing…knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing. Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry.”

Although this description is a rather cynical description of formal education, the point is made. Learners are empty vessels to be filled and (should) make no contribution to the process expect by consuming the subject matter. I don’t believe that I have ever been subjected to this extreme level of the banking concept, but I have definitely had samples. If my experience is anything like what Freire is describing, I agree with the author that this method is lousy.

The second approach that Freire introduces is one he calls “problem-posing” education. In a lengthy expert from the text, problem-posing education “breaks with the vertical characteristic of banking education, can fulfill its function of freedom only if it can overcome the above contradiction. Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-student with students teachers. The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. In this process, arguments based on “authority” are no longer valid; in order to function authority must be on the side of freedom, not against it. Here, no one teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught. People teach each other, mediated by the world, by the cognizable objects which in banking education are “owned” by the
teacher.”

This approach is one that I am familiar with and am particular to. I especially like the portion of the previous quote that says “arguments based on “authority” are no longer valid.” The authority argument, which is to say, “I have a credential therefore my opinion is right”, has always been a weak and contentious one. It removes the responsibility of the authority figure from justifying a position which is a great disservice to learners. The quality of the thought, not the diploma on the wall, is what should be graded. Beyond that, it is regarded as pretentious and a little lazy.

Let me know your thoughts on the two approaches outlined above.