“Why on earth are you reading Freire? He’s a fanatic! A revolutionist!” This
reaction came from a colleague in the Instructional Technology department where
the works of Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner are held in high esteem and
have become mainstream theorists in our teachings. Yes, I have found the writings
of Freire quite radical. In the words of Paulo Freire (2005), education is the “instrument
for critical discovery that both the oppressed and the oppressors are manifestations
of dehumanization” (p.48). In his call for social change, Freire advocates
the importance of using education to provide the opportunity for students to
become conscious, dialogical, and active human beings, who are aware of their
own world. This education type, he believes, has the ability to liberate the
oppressed from oppression. Freire uses the theories of cognitivism and constructivism
as a basis of his strategies.
I couldn’t help but compare him to other
educational thinkers and theorists who advocate change and use social constructivist
theory in the process. Maria Montessori and John Dewey come to mind as leaders
in the realm of non-formal education and advocates of student-centered learning.
However to address my colleague’s disapproval, the ideas and works of Seymour
Papert, a mathematician and much cited researcher in the field of instructional
technology, might be a good comparison to Freire. Like Freire, Papert is a visionary,
whose idea back in the 1960’s to use computers with children was ridiculed
in most circles. In their background, their notions about learning, and their
robust advocacy for educational change similarities between Paulo Freire and
Seymour Papert can be found.
The early experiences of both Freire and Papert undoubtedly played a
role in forming the basis for many of their ideas. Each had an early
understanding
and curiosity about the conditions of the world in which they lived. Living
in poverty
in Brazil, Freire had first-hand knowledge of the problems faced by the oppressed.
He witnessed the endless cycle of the oppressed finding opportunities out of
oppression but only to become oppressors. He believed that the oppressed needed
to have an image of themselves as a model for transformation rather than an
image of their oppressors. His work as a lawyer and an educator enlightened
him as
to the disparities between education of the elite and education of the workers
and gave him cause to actively seek an educational solution to alleviate the
problems. Papert too grew up in a world of oppressors and the oppressed in
apartheid South Africa. In an interview for an Australian radio program, Papert
(2004)
explained that early in life was “fascinated by how people could possibly
think the things that [he] heard them thinking”. He could not understand
how good people could think racist attitudes. This led to his radical days of
participation in the anti-apartheid movement. Living in worlds where great distinctions
between the oppressed and the oppressors existed, in addition to a keen awareness
of disparity in these worlds, provided the foundational knowledge for each man
to develop into change agents.
In the works of Freire and those of Papert, it is evident that both shared
notions about learning. Their beliefs are aligned with constructivist learning
theory
with each advocating a paradigm shift in the role of teachers. Freire (2005)
proposes the Problem-posing method in which students are “critical co-investigators
in dialogue with teachers” (p. 81). The teacher’s role shifts to
creator rather than a narrator. Posing problems that relate students to the world
in which they live, provide students with the opportunity to become conscious,
to challenge, and to construct new meanings. “Knowledge emerges only through
invention and re-invention through the restless, impatient continuing, hopeful
inquiry [students] pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other” (Freire,
2005, p.72), but Freire believes that students’ own experiences serve
as a major source of knowledge (Bartlett, 2005).
Papert’s Principle couldn’t agree more. From his work with Jean Piaget,
Papert discovered that “some of the most crucial steps in mental growth
are based not simply on acquiring new skills but on acquiring new administrative
ways to use what one already knows” (Minksy, 1988, p.102). Freire might
bristle at Papert’s mention of skill acquisition but he certainly would
agree with Papert’s point that inert knowledge does not develop thinking,
and the role of an educator must be to provide new challenges for students to
build upon their knowledge. The acknowledgement that a student’s prior
experience must be valued and developed supports Freire’s emphasis on the
importance of historicity. From his belief that students gain real understanding
only from that which they construct themselves, Papert developed his own spin
on constructivism called constructionism in which knowledge construction occurs
through the interactions of objects and understanding. From this notion, he developed
the LOGO programming language to produce student-computer programmers rather
than computer programmed children. Papert used technology to give students power
over their learning processes and as a constructional medium to construct meaning.
He used technology to pose problems and challenges as a means to develop creativity
and critical thinking. Similarly, Freire’s problem posing education constructed
meaning by stimulating dialogue, eliciting reflection, raising consciousness,
inspiring creativity, developing critical thinking, and motivating action.
The greatest illustration of the parallels between Freire and Papert
is their meeting about the future of schools on a television program
in the 1980’s.
Papert credited Freire for his understanding that schools are not raising the
consciousness of students. Papert (2000, p. 3) states that what he learned
over the years from Freire is that the purpose of schools is to “give
[students] more consciousness of the process, more control, [and to] allow
them to throw
themselves into it.” Papert is active in expressing his thoughts about
education through addresses to Congress, speaking engagements in many forums
and in his writings. His themes focus on the irrelevance of school curriculum
and its inability to meet the needs of today’s learner, the inappropriate
image of computers in schools as a support for the traditional role of teacher
rather than a constructive tool for students, and the belief that old technologies
are holding students back. Papert goes as far to say that schools are obsolete,
that they put an end to a child’s natural curiosity that abounds before
that child enters school. In Papert’s (2000) words, with technology we “have
a new instrument with which to refuse the oppression [of school]” (p.
23). The sentiment behind these words is recognizable in Freire’s teachings
about oppression and the “banking concept of education” (Freire,
2005). While Freire’s instrument for change was not computers, he did
advocate the use of alternative strategies such as literacy programs, to promote
change.
Without a doubt, the discourses on education by both men create a stir.
Stager ( 2005) indicates that many “are alienated initially by Papert’s
harsh critique of schooling and educational computing since their professional
identity may be associated with teaching or managing technology in a school setting” (p.5).
Freire points out that the banking concept of education creates passiveness and
allows humans to be managed. Certainly in Freire’s Brazil, this revelation
to society was not received favorably by the oppressors. However, the deeds
of both men to help the disadvantage cannot be overlooked. Freire outlined
a plan
for educators to study the oppressed ethnographically to generate the words
and themes of the culture in hopes of developing the necessary dialogues towards
consciousness. Papert works with troubled teens, using technology as a means
for them to construct their own meaning and maybe towards an understanding
of
themselves. He is behind the Maine laptop initiative to provide a laptop for
every student in the state as well as a plan to provide inexpensive laptops
to students all over the world. These actions show that Freire and Papert are
committed
to their cause of influencing educational change.
An early consciousness of oppression, a belief in constructivist principles
and the notion that education must change to meet the needs of students are
features
held in common by Freire and Papert. Both outwardly express a criticism for
society’s
view of education. While Freire uses a political/economical approach, Papert
uses science and technology to make his points. As I view the back cover of Papert’s
books, I come across identical descriptions and praises seen on Freire’s
Pedagogy of the Oppressed: provocative, a call for change, revolutionary, and
inspiring. This comparison led me to view Freire’s ideas in the context
of my way of knowing and enlightened my thinking about change agents in my
field of Instructional Technology. No longer does Freirean pedagogy seem so
radical
to me and I look forward to sharing my new insights with my colleague.
References
Bartlett, L., (2005). Dialogue, knowledge, and teacher-student relations:
Freirean pedagogy in theory and practice. Comparative Education Review.
49(3), p. 344-364.
Doogue, G. interviews Seymour Papert, (July 11, 2004). Sunday Profile.
Retrieved on October 22, 2005 from http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/s1144341.htm
Freire, P., (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M.B. Ramos, Trans.).
New York: Continuum. (Original work published in 1970)
Minsky, M., (1988). The Society of Mind. New York: Touchstone.
Papert, S., (2000). The future of schools. Afternoon Journal. Retrieved
on October 20, 2005 from http://www.papert.org/articles/freire/freirePart1.html
Stager, G.S., (2005, July). Towards a pedagogy of online constructionism
learning. Proceedings of the 2005 World Conference on Computers
in Education, Stellenbosch, South
Africa.
|
