Introductory Bio
Fan Wu is a graduate student in teaching and curriculum program at Michigan State University. She has been teaching Chinese at Ann Hua Chinese School for six years, and at Forsythe Middle School for two years.
Blog Entry
I have learned in China for more than 20 years, and now pursuit a MA degree in U.S.A, with those two learning experiences, I have to say that there are cultural differences between Chinese and American Education. Chinese education is closer to the Oppressed Pedagogy, and American Education is closer to the Libertarian Education.
Paulo Freire’s article From Pedagogy of the Oppressed discussed many negative parts of the Oppressed Pedagogy. For example, learning is passive, and the processes of recording, memorizing, and repeating do not help a student to develop critical consciousness and creative power. It seems like the Oppressed Education is not a good pedagogy.
If the oppressed pedagogy is a bad teaching, why does it work quite well in China? The data of Program for International Student Assessment (PISA 2010) shows the test scores of American students are only at average. Reading is at No.17, Science at No.23, and Math at No.31. But Chinese students, by Oppressed Pedagogy, got No.1 in ALL subjects. President Obama said: “As it stands right now, America Education is in danger of falling behind.”
Most Chinese-American families adapt the Oppressed Pedagogy to parenting their children, why do Chinese American families raise more stereotypically academically-successful kids? Why do those children have fewer problems when they are teenager?
Yesterday, I read Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother; the author is Amy Chua, Yale law professor. In the book, she talked about her "Eastern" style of parenting. Chua’s two daughters are not allow to go on play days or sleepover; they had to practice their musical instruments for hours everyday, they will be called “garbage” when the report cards are not all A’s. With her oppressed pedagogy, her daughters, now in their teens, have turned out very well. They all appreciate their mother’s oppressed education, so they could study at the top universities and have bright futures.
I start to think twice about the Oppressed Pedagogy. Libertarian Education emphasis students’ creative and critical thinking, but it gives students too much freedom and too many choices. It doesn’t teach students another important thing--“OBEY”. The reason Chinese adapt the Oppressed pedagogy is because Chinese believe when children are not maturity, and their cognitions are not well developed to make a good decision, it’s not a good idea to give them too much freedom and choices, the children will spend too much time on video games, watching TV, or cause the society issues, such as pregnant high school mothers. At those ages, Chinese believe Obey is more important than be creative. Chinese students believe that parents and teachers have more life experiences, so they trust parents and teachers’ guides, and they obey and listen to the directions.
Another reason Chinese adapt the Oppressed Pedagogy is because Chinese have very high expectation to education. Chinese parents will say “study hard” instead of “have fun” when their children go to school, because Chinese believe learning is not only for fun; learning is a very serious thing, which has a big responsibility. Students should do a lot practices to make the learning prefect, and students should have self-control to obey the classroom rules.
Look at my three children, I think what kind of Mother I should be; look at my students, I wonder what kind teacher I should be? I remember I read a psychology research paper about strict, permissive and Authoritative parents, it states:
* Strict, authoritarian parents have kids who excel in school, don't get in trouble, and are depressed
* Permissive parents have kids who feel good about their bad grades, will smoke a joint but probably won't use heroin. In other words, they have moderate self-esteem, lots of friends, poor performance; get in trouble, but not too much.
* Authoritative parents who are strict, but communicate love, have kids who tend to do well, have good friends, stay out of trouble, and feel good about themselves
From this research, it answered my question, and I should to be a teacher and parent of Authoritative with communicate love and respect. Instead of only practicing libertarian education, I will adapt more Oppressed Pedagogy, meanwhile, show my students and children my love.
All in all, as Paulo Freire pointed out the limited of Oppressed Pedagogy, but its positive part is obviously too. By oppressed Pedagogy, students have trust relationships with teachers and parents, so they obey teachers and parents’ guides, no matter willing to or not willing to, because it is no negotiable. PISA data proofed, Chinese students, by Oppressed Pedagogy, their basic learning foundation were much more solid. Tiger mother Amy Chua’s article shows that Chua practiced Oppressed Pedagogy to her own children. Now her children are studying at top universities and they appreciate what their mother did to them. Research shows the best parenting style is Authoritative with communicate love. When educators emphasis the important of the libertarian education, they should further consider to the positive part of Oppressed Pedagogy too.
Introductory Bio
Xinyi XU is a graduate student in teaching and curriculum program at Michigan State University. She also teaches a language immersion program at an elementary school as the kindergarten Chinese teacher.
Blog Entry
The Oppressed Pedagogy reminds me the traditional education I have experienced. As a student who was born and raised in China, I totally understand the pressure of study. Chinese teachers believe in thousands upon thousands of diligent and assiduous practices make students outstanding. For instance, one of our assignments was to recite and copy more than 500 ancient poems and hundreds of ancient articles to prepare for 30% part of the Chinese language subject in college entrance examinations. What’s more, in order to have a better grade, we had “modules” of writing to follow, and teachers explained the answer according the “standard answer” which sometimes did make any sense. Nobody likes this type of mechanical memory and drill, but we have no choice but to be pushed. From then on, I kept thinking if this is the right pedagogy of teaching. How to make the education make more sense and be meaningful. Education is supposed to “educate” people but not to oppress our students.
Paulo Freire pointed out that the oppressed education actually is banking education. Teachers are the depositors and students are the depositories. The whole process of education is “depositing”. So, the teachers are dominating the learning and students are passively accepting whatever they have been told. Students do not THINK and teachers are the subjects of learning. Freire called it is as “teacher of the students”.
Therefore, Freire argued that how problem-posing education could take place of oppressed pedagogy. Problem-posing education emphasis the importance of the independent and critical thinking from students. It is more democratic. Teachers are the one who post the questions but not throw out the whole answer. So, students can being conscious of learning. In the meanwhile, teacher is not the one who teaches, but also the one being taught. Freire indicated as “students of teacher”. The learning happens in dialogue which is the true communication. Teacher and students are co-investigators.
I totally agree that teacher should not be the one deprives students freedom and abilities of thinking. I don’t want to be those teachers strangle students’ creativity and criticality. However, as we all known, it is always not easy to apply the theories into practices in a daily base. Students, especially the young learners, are curious about new things. However, they could be also easily frustrated by learning even it is something they want to know. People are easy to give up unless there is strong motivation and initiative. I think teacher’s job is to support students learning. When students are lost, teacher is the one inspires them to find their potential and interest. On the way students are pursue their dreams, teacher is the one supports them essentially and spiritually. When the students encounter the barriers, teacher is the one encourage and motivate them. In the whole process, teacher is also learning. We cannot summarize all the strategies teachers are using, because it could be really different for different student’s needs. Teaching is not a easy job. What also makes teaching enjoyable is the learning from our teaching.
Introductory Bio
Kathleen Goran is a grad student in The Literacy and Language Instruction program at Michigan State University. She has two years teaching experience in a second grade classroom in Southside Chicago. Currently, she is working as a clerk at the Administration Building for Warren Consolidated Schools while she finishes her degree.
Blog Entry
As a movie buff, I am making this assignment work for me as Paulo Freire would have liked.
Think Pleasantville. In this 2008 drama, high school students David and Jennifer find themselves trapped in a 1950s black and white society. Moms wear floral dresses and pearl necklaces. Dads return from work at five o’clock to a warm cooked meal. Children are content accepting reality for what it is, a dehumanizing lie that alienates them from their own decision-making.
School is a well-oiled banking system churning out hundreds of disciples each year. Here, students memorize and repeat geographical features of Pleasantville and take down copious notes from their teacher detailing that Pleasantville exists separate from the world, bordering nothing, leading to nothing. In fact, Pleasantville is the world. When David (who was originally elated at the idea of integrating into the mindless culture seemingly free from conflict) inquires to what is outside Pleasantville, the class gasps. “Why, nothing is outside Pleasantville,” the teacher responds. Whereas David gradually starts to turn against his domestication and his oppressors, the others resist. Absolute ignorance is all they know. It’s pleasant.
Who wants just pleasant? Paulo Freire, author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, would be proud of David’s ensuing actions. He leads a mind-awakening revolution and transforms society to one that liberates instead of pacifies. The people of Pleasantville, adults and children, students and teachers, start to become engaged in a revolution of critical dialogue. Freire argues that the banking system of education needs to be replaced by problem-posing education which is grounded in communication and authentic thinking. The outdated “banking” concept of education treats students as buckets that are filled by teachers. The more full the bucket, the more passive and “successful” the student. However, Freire states that these buckets are the ones most separated by society. They aren’t encouraged to think critically for themselves nor do have knowledge that is meaningful enough to do so. They are worker bees and they are treated by their oppressors (the teachers) like they are suited for nothing more.
“But one does not liberate men by alienating them.” (Power of the Oppressed, 62). As I read Freire’s powerful words, I started to feel hopeful about the next generation of kids. The school I taught at was run like a military school by administration and several of the veteran teachers. And yes, the kids did listen . . . to an extent. We were told, as novice teachers, that the children couldn’t handle anything more than silence. Hallways were silent. Lunchrooms were silent. Classrooms were silent. In this system, Freire would also say that their minds were silent. And, just like he explains, certain students would occasionally rebel against those seeking to domesticate them, sometimes in extremely violent ways.
But back to me being hopeful . . . I was hired in along with ten other freshly graduated, eager minded teachers on the primary team. Our teaching philosophies were based on communication, choice, and reflection. All classrooms used morning meetings, readers and writers workshops, authentic assessment, and inquiry-based learning centers. Students were encouraged to question their learning and gave their input to what content would be taught in the upcoming weeks. I learned quickly that my students didn’t put forth much effort when they were only working to appease me or their parents. They only did what was required and nothing more. The real learning occurred when that fire inside them was lit, the one that realized the importance of learning and how they fit into it. None of us wanted our kids simply to function at minimum wage in their dangerous world of Englewood. Even as young as second grade, as the year progressed and we built trust, these seven-year-olds voiced their hopes to become something much more in life. They didn’t just learn from me. They learned from each other and I learned from them.
The process of becoming stands apart from the traditional banking system of education. It works with the nature of man, man as a revolutionary force. It works to liberate and enlighten. And isn’t that what we as teachers want to do most? Pleasantville, despite the name, leads to nothing. It’s prospect of change that gives us hope. In my mind, hope beats pleasant any day of the week.
Introductory Bio
Alysha Looney is a graduate student in the Literacy and Language Instruction program at Michigan State University. She has four years teaching experience at the kindergarten level, and lives and teaches in Michigan.
Blog Entry
Paulo Freire describes the Oppressed Pedagogy as an education banking system, where teachers attempt to control thinking and actions by filling students buckets, while the students passively accept this deposited information. Students do not engage in discussion, ask questions, participate with groups, show creativity…. students know nothing and the teacher fills their buckets with information that they deem important. Freire describes that teachers who use this banking approach knowingly or not, fail to perceive that the deposits themselves contain contradictions about reality. Eventually, these contradictions may lead formerly passive students to turn against their domestication and attempt to domesticate reality (Power of the Oppressed, pg. 60).
This "old school" style of teaching reminds me of military style schools, where teachers used rulers to swat students' desks, students worked silently in classrooms, information was drilled into their minds by rote learning, and so on. Students work silently in this routine fashion day after day, until finally an opportunity arises where they experience the "outside" world and see society in a new light. This sparks an interest and an opportunity for meaningful experiences now seem much more appealing. You see this often, where children are conformed to certain standards and please everyone but themselves, and finally they rebel against their parents/teachers.
Personally, I do not have experience teaching in a setting that Freire describes in his article, nor do I ever want to! Even as I reflect back on my own education growing up, I cannot relate to the banking concept of education. Instead, I was fortunate to experience the "trading concept" of teaching. Where the teachers and students would offer new information and concepts, learn from each others experiences, engage in open communication, and where reflection is valued.
One of the greatest opportunities I have as kindergarten teacher, is to allow for creative and meaningful experiences to happen naturally. I am able to guide discussions and create activities that excite and motivate these young learners. We build these awesome connections within our classroom community and contribute so much to our learning! I cannot imagine the banking concept in my kindergarten classroom, but instead envision hands-on play, students learning from each other during group projects, and it wouldn't be a typical day in kindergarten without hearing the words "Why?" or "How do you know?" Educators have a challenge to change the views of oppression in classrooms, and instead create multiple paths for students to learn- simply guide their questions, create authentic experiences and provide safe learning environments. It all sounds so easy, however as educators we know it's a difficult task, but I'd rather take that challenge than simply filling bank deposits.
Great blog Alysha! I'm glad to hear that your school doesn't practice the banking system of education. I find it difficult to even imagine a silent kindergarten classroom that isn't focused on developing inquiry-thinking. As a second grade teacher, I found it easier to encourage discussion than enforce silence too. As I think back to my own experiences, it seems that as the older I got, the less encouraged I was to ask questions and engage in discussions. I don't have much experience with the older kids, but I wonder if it gets more challenging to maintain focus with upper elementary/middle school/high school.
ReplyDeleteKathleen, I really liked your comparison to Pleasantville!! It's so true. I have always called it "cookie cutter". And I fight cookie cutter kicking and screaming every day. :) This article was one of my favorites as I could really relate to it because of my "War against the Cookie Cutter". What happens to a world like Pleasantville or Cookie Cutter when everyone is churned out the same with the same knowledge? What happens to art? To music? I have a good knowledge of the article Fan spoke of too as my boss's wife sent it to him and a huge argument entailed. It was quite interesting to see/hear. But I found it interesting that they were only allowed to learn 2 instruments. What about the flute? What about drums? Don't we all learn best from mistakes? I know I do. I have absolutely no regrets in life because ever mistake I've ever made is a lesson. If the oppressed aren't allowed mistakes, or creativeness, what will happen to our society? I fear that the growth would become stumped. Even corporations and banks and these companies that the author Chau wants her kids to get into need individuals with a wide range of talents. I've worked for the Global CEO of multi-billion dollar companies and trust me, they don't just want someone that knows their math. When hiring, they look for a multitude of characteristics. They look for different strengths in each person they hire. They look for diversity in talents, backgrounds, interests and personality because to have a successful company, you need all these traits.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great comments and comparisons!
Cara
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I look at the pedagogy of the oppressed I also think that in many aspects American Education has traces of it. I can't remember how many classes I sat in during my collegiate years of schooling where there was nothing but recitation and note-taking. There weren't opportunities to ask questions, and if there were out of the 250+ students in the lecture hall not everyone was given the opportunity to voice them. The point is that in many facets of learning within public and private institutions our students are like bank accounts waiting for deposits of information. We need to be careful and look critically at each one of these experiences.
ReplyDeleteI think sometimes we need to be careful of labeling "good education," versus "bad education." Sure students can learn a whole lot but if they don't take it with them later on in life then did it really help them? Just because something looks good does not necessarily mean that it is.
When I arrived U.S.A, I was so excited. There are the best universities and best education in the world. I stayed at Ann Arbor for 10 years, my oldest son is 10 years old now, and I become upset his learning. I understand no one would agree Oppressed pedagogy, and I couldn't sell out the "tiger mother" method.But time will tell us which one is better, try and fail (get hurts) or fail to try (no chance to get hurt).
ReplyDeleteFan,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog, and the chance to hear thoughts from someone who has experienced this pedagogy. You've brought up some great points, and by relating it to the article on the Tiger Mother brings up some very interesting points that show positive outcomes from this type of teaching and parenting.
I agree that the oppressed pedagogy definitely provides structure and respect for students. I also feel that it relates closely to the strict parenting style. Looking at this style and the oppressed, when children are young many things are not negotiable and students do respect teachers/parents. However, often times later in life students will move away from this style and want choices and some freedom in their education. I agree with you, and that the Authoritative style offers a bit of both and is middle ground. I feel students can benefit from this.
Thanks for sharing!! Great blog :)
Hello guys,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your blogs a lot. Your writing intrigued my thinking about Chinese and American education and their differences on oppressing.
I remembered that once I talked to a teacher friend and she told me that American's education went out of coutrol in the past 20 years. When she was a child, she was expected to obey the teachers and respect their parentsbut children nowadays don't do that anymore.
So we can tell that there is an "oppressed" period in both Chinese and American education history. I have to say that this "oppression" does brings benefit if we use them wisely. Like Fan said, Chinese parents believe that children are not able to make right decisions when they are young so they need to obey the parents. I think there is nothing wrong to tell the children to do the right thing as long as we explain the reason to them. When they understand the right reason, they will not feel being pushed and they can make the right decision in the future without parents' monitoring. I agree that limitation are neccessary when children are young, and these limitation will help them to set a good living and learning habit. However, some Chinese school went too far, they want to "control" children like puppets and the consequence is a group of "grown-ups" that do not think independently.
I think oppress education has its fors and cons. American education and Chinese education are two polarized examples. As educators, we should find out the middle point and hopefully we can nurtue responsible and happy kids who are competend for 21st century.
I've read "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" several times but this is the first that I've really given thought to it in a Chinese cultural context. This blog http://carlosesoto.wordpress.com/ is a definite must-read for anyone interested in critical pedagogy in Asia. The writer is currently working with with "low-income ethnic minority students" in Hong Kong secondary students. I really think it holds a place with this particular discussion.
ReplyDeleteFan, you asked, "If the oppressed pedagogy is a bad teaching, why does it work quite well in China?" I think part of that answer lies in the assessment practices. Like backwards design, the end goal dictates the practice. If high test scores and being admitted to a top ranking university is the ultimate assessment or end goal, then oppressed pedagogy may very well be the easiest way to get there. However, if the goal is to ultimately develop critical thinkers then Freire's concept of critical pedagogy would probably make more sense.
James Baldwin once wrote, "The obligation of anyone who thinks of himself as responsible is to examine society and try to change it and to fight it – at no matter what risk." In regards to Freire's argument against oppressive education, if the end goal is to develop in your students the ability to question all that exists in society even to question you as the teacher, then a new approach would need to take place. Students who have grown up with an oppressive education very well may not have any "issues" and will lead successful lives but are they truly contributing to making their worlds better?
I am not yet a parent and can not comment on this from that perspective. As a teacher, though, I see how both approaches to education play out on a daily basis. As I've written about several times, I often have conflict with my students' parents in China concerning the ultimate end goal. They are primarily concerned with test scores and understandably want their children to go to the best schools. I try to meet those needs by helping my students develop their English skills but I try to do it with context. However, as an outsider in China, I also see a need for Freire's concept of education. My students are not blind to the unequal standards of living by different groups in China. Nor are they ignorant to the different treatment of males and females. Through a critical approach, my students have begun asking questions about the society and conditions they have grown up in but also are taking risks to seek answers.
As previously stated, I suppose it depends on your ultimate end goal. I would like to hope that if true engagement in the classroom is taking place and students truly are developing a passion for their own learning, then both high academic success and personal growth will take place.
I wonder if the misconception that problem posing education results in lazy learners takes place because educators are attempting to teach in a way that challenges oppressive education but can't quite find a way to do so? In seeking a new approach, I wonder if the content gets lost at times?
I really really enjoyed reading your blogs and comments. Thanks a lot for bringing up this comparison between American education and Chinese education. To be very frank, this is not the education that I expected before I came to America. I totally agree with Fan Wu and Xiaochen Song, not because we are all Chinese or we all experienced this kind of “oppressed pedagogy”. It is only because I had been through that pedagogy and came to America, working with kids who are having a totally opposite educational style. I am saying which one is better but I would like to share my opinion about which one is more suitable for students at different ages.
ReplyDeleteI think nobody agrees with “oppressed pedagogy”, because it is labeled as a “pedagogy” which means it gathers all the features of possibilities. It goes to a extreme. In China we do memorization. We do practice many times. We do follow our teachers and parents but there is nothing wrong to “trust” somebody who really care about us and more experienced in life when we are not mature enough to make the right decision. Just like Xinyi said, her kids are kindergarten students. They are very young. They are curious and enthusiastic about all things but it is only momentary. They need to be guided and directed.
I am saying the pedagogy of liberation is wrong. However we need to examine the “throw-in” and “turn-out”. Sometimes we spend one week and lots of resources to a “project” which we think it would be very helpful and match with the concept of “ learning for fun”. In the end what they get from this is just a few words and back to their time doing it, mostly they were just chatting with each other or quietly “doing” it. I really doubt the efficiency of “pedagogy of liberation”.
Also I would like to say what I encountered in my classroom. American kids are raised up in a concept of “individualism”. There is nothing wrong about it and it is good for students to be encouraged to air their opinions, pursue their dreams. However, some of kids often asked me “Ms. Li, I want to change my spot, because I don’t get along with him/her.” My colleague told me “you cannot make kids to be friends.” I totally understand this situation but my thinking is if we always “spoil” them, making them think “no compromise in the world”. In the future it would be very hard for them to accept lots of things need compromise. What if you don’t get along with your boss? Change a company? In my mind, education is what we prepare students to their later life. This is not the case.
Here is just some of my thoughts. I think if we can mix “the creativity” American students and “the attitude” of Chinese students, that would be better.
It is really interesting to read this blog. I do not want to judge which one is better betwen Chinese education and AMerican education. I want to share my personal understanding about this issue.
ReplyDeleteBefore I came here and taught in Anerican schools, I used to think American education is much much better than ours, since the students do not have a lot of home work, instead they do many projects. They have a lot of free time compared to children in China. I thought this is a better way for students to develop naturaally. However, when after my own teaching here, I found my assumption was wrong. I have to admit that American education in elementary / secondary schools do not emphasize enough on students' knowledge gainning, and as a result students do not gain enough ability of learning. For example, in China when a kid learns writing, parents and teachers alwayas help him/her to writing beautifully, but here parents and teachers think students should write on their own way, so I see a lot of my students' writing very hard to read, even high schoolers. Another example, I have a mentor in the middle school I teach, and she always has her students in computer labs to do projects. She teaches social study, and I think more than half of her class time was spent in the labs for students' slef research. It is just too inefficient.
In China, students, especially high school students have too much pressure of learning, because it is too hard to get into a good university due to our large population. However, now I think this pay off, as we can see the result of the survey posted by Fan.
I want to say that the two different types of education in our two countries have their own social reason. In China, we have are over populated and the chances for higher education and good jobs are limited. That's a very important reason why the students get so much pressure in school Here this issue does not exist. I remeber in the summer I read an article for another course which was comaring the educational innovations in both China and U.S., which stated that China and U.S. are working towards the middle from two opposites on their education. I think this is a better thing, because we both draw lessons from each other.
Thanks, Fan! Great job! This blog post rings a bell as I grew up in China and had most my education experience in China. We have so many thoughts on this pedagogy since we all have experienced both American education and Chinese education. To be honest, after teaching in United States for two years I had a feeling that my Chinese education system experience had a great influence in my teaching although I had tried to use American one. Actually, the reason was that I found the oppressed pedagogy is working better in my class. To quote my students’ saying “Yeah, we have too much freedom and we don’t know how to use it.” Students are students; they are not mature enough as they don’t gain the equivalent amount of experience and knowledge as adults. Therefore, the decisions they can make and the ways they do things are more likely to be immature and naïve. In addition, adolescents pretend to be adult and want to have freedom to live their life. But they are not. However, teachers are adults and have learned, experienced what works or works not for students. That’s why it is a profession. They usually know what’s the best for students and learning. But without the oppression and to apply it to life, it doesn’t show any good of the “profession”. Some people may ague for the rights of students and the flexibility of learning’s. But my opinion is that oppressed pedagogy should be a dominant method for the content teachers are one hundred percent confident with. But teachers should also be open mined and be modest with suggestions and advice. Teachers might try new things, and learn together with students if necessary. I’ve also read Tiger Mom’s story.I wouldn’t say everything in it is helpful but it is a great opportunity for us to think about education in a perspective that we haven’t tried before.
ReplyDelete