Recently, I have started a new term in school. I had missed out on the first meeting of my Monday classes, due to Holiday. On my arrival to the second class session, I found myself captivated in a discussion on an article, that I had yet to read. This particular piece was written by Bell Hooks "Engaged Pedagogy". For those that are unfamiliar with her, as I was, here is a link that my provide more insight: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/hooks.htm.
So there, I sat listening to my peers discuss their ideas on learning and teaching methods. I thought I was able to understand and relate to some of the ideas flowing around. Such as, "teacher's that are engaging tend to be deficient or trying to compensate for not having the full knowledge/understanding of the material." I was able to relate to this statement because of experiences I had with teachers previously. Also, from the understanding of the word 'engage' to mean occupying one's attention. Just because a person is able to occupy anothers attention does not mean that they are able to effectively teach. Other's students said culturally that they had a different way of looking at education/learning/teaching. In their culture, a teacher's job was to teach the academics. To engage students would be unprofessional. For students to inquire with the teacher would be considered rude. The student's job was to learn, by any means necessary. This opinion was echoed by the majority of my peers in the room. One person's opinion was strikingly different. She stated that instructors that "engaged" the students were the best for her learning style. That the classes in which the professor was engaging had the most lasting influence/affect on her life. Then the discussion, again turned to the different learning styles and how those would effect the preference of the type of teacher one liked.
With that said, I want to bring you back to the article, I had yet to read. The mentor of this class really liked this article and Bell Hooks. She said the article had moved her. I wanted to know why. So I read.......
What a different idea I had about the article base on the discussion provided by my classmates! What great ideas! This is the difference between "teaching" and "pedagogy". (Pedagogy: is the art of teaching.) Bell Hooks philosophy on teaching has to do with consciousness. In the culture of the United States, generally speaking, I believe that there is lack of consciousness. The ideals that have been embraced by this society have neglected the wholeness of individuals. The goal is to work hard, and keep working harder. To have more money. To accomplish more activities in the day. In this "rush" to achieve and be successful, people have forgotten what it is to truly live. To be aware, in the moment. Consciousness is more of an abstract idea. The living zombie that is so busy thinking of what next and what else, that they do not hear the conversation they are having with their boss, co-worker, friend, comrade, etc. The disconnectedness. Within the United States culture, many have the "can't see it from my house" attitude. Meaning that, if there is something that is not directly effecting/affecting there lives, it doesn't matter. (To Note: I do not think the people in the United States as a whole believe in this way. I see there is a movement into consciousness, and the movement is growing. In some areas of the States, I believe there to be more of a collective consciousness than in others.)
Bell Hooks describes two types of teachers that had affected her. One, Paulo Freire, believed that "education could be the practice of freedom". Where each student was to actively participate in their learning through critical awareness. The second, Thich Nhat Hanh whose believed in "'praxis'-action and reflection upon the world in order to change it". Both of these ideas embrace wholeness. Where mind, body, and spirit are united. In academia it is frowned upon for teachers to provided guidance to children on "how to live in the world." With so many different beliefs, religions, practices, etc. It is generally thought, that it is the parents duty to provide their child(ren) with the tools and information needed to live in the world. Unfortunately, with the growing number of latch-key kids in single parent households, the knowledge of 'how to live', is not being passed to the generations, as it should. My husband says "what you don't learn in school, the world will teach you". Some of those lessons learned in the world can be costly, whether financially or in any other way. As the shift of children raising children climbs, it is becoming more of the teacher's civic duty to provide the guidance that is being ignored by the overworked underpaid single parent. Each of us student or teacher or both, have many distinctive experiences that make us individuals. Through our experiences we have developed unique perceptions on how and why the world works in the way it does. Since, these are unique to the individual, unless the ideas are shared, then others cannot learn of new possibilities other than that of their own. Embracing an individual as a whole person and using that wholeness in the academic environment only enriches the experience. It provides more opportunity for all to learn from and to see different perspectives. Through this sharing of perspectives, people are opened to vulnerability. Remaining solely in one's own comfort zone doesn't allow expansion. Risks are necessary to grow and expand. Stepping out of one's comfort zone, into a land of vulnerability, allows for growth. Growth leads to a larger comfort zone. More confidence, less vulnerability, equals empowerment. Empowerment, leads to more confidence. This leads back to Bell Hooks belief that "success was intimately linked with self-actualization". Where the engaged pedagogy embraces academics with life experiences.
I believe in Bell Hooks engaged pedagogy vs. teaching. Teaching allows "systems of domination." That encourages "passive consumer"ism. Where information is the product fed directly to the students mind, only for it to be regurgitated at the end of the term and forgotten. Engaged pedagogy emphasizes advancement of thought. Where students success isn't dependent on "dysfunctional behavior or participation in coercive hierarchies". The learning environment "enriches and enhances" one's life perceptions. Where the environment values creative individual expression and wholeness. The engaged pedagogy takes practice and becomes easier with time. As the cloud of unconsciousness slowly evaporates under the suns rays, one is enveloped in the world of enlightenment. Welcome!
No comments:
Post a Comment