Comment on Chris Kurz’s Freedom of Education

After reading Freire’s and Douglass’s pieces I thought that they would have had a lot to agree on; and after reading Chris’s paper, I can see that he thought the same. However, he brought up a point that I never thought about. He says in his response to Douglass and Freire that “Freire saw the established communication between a teacher and a student as being much like that of the oppressive association between master and slave.” I think this was just a great connection between the two pieces and I first I didn’t agree with what he said but after taking a closer look I can see the connection. The only difference I would say that they shared was that Freire seemed to believe that all teachers were essentially evil. While Douglass believed that people were good but turned evil under the pressure of society; like his mistress would teach him until she was told not to. So my response is just to point out that the view is a good connection and I thought it was very clever.  

Response to Henry Robertson (Douglass and Freire)

In Henry Robertson’s post about Frederick Douglass and Paulo Freire, he talks about how much of the emphasis in learning falls on the student. I agree with this whole-heartedly. Henry mentioned that students must, “learn on their own” at some point in their education. This is a very good point. The teachers can only impart their knowledge to you. It is the student who must make the decision to embrace the material and learn from what the class curriculum offers.

The self-motivation that goes into learning is paramount to the education of people as a whole. Just about anyone can get by in school and leave with a degree; however to truly become educated knowledge beyond the classroom is what must be the overall goal. When one is able to see the joy in learning something new or have the desire to approach a new subject just for opportunity to learn, then learning has begun. Usually the effort you put into something goes hand in hand with the level of motivation you have towards the subject.

Response to Carley Buttelman’s Post, “Enjoying Learning”

Learning is everywhere. If it’s in class or through a life experience, it’s everywhere. However, I honeslty believe that if one enjoys what they are learning that they will be more motivated to aquire that knowledge. For instane, classes that interest someone always seems to be their favortive and always goes by faster than a class that they might not enjoy as much. I feel that enjoyment plays a huge role in motivating someone to learn. In elementary school, learning had to be enjoyable thats why games and prizes are always involved. Motivation is a huge key in the role of learning. If it’s learning a certain topic that interests a person, than I feel that motivation to continue to learn will be there as well.

I strongly agree that it is necessary to enjoy learning in order to stay motivated toward acquiring knowledge and to be successful in doing so. But what makes us interested in some subjects and not in others, and is it always the subject of the class or the manor in which it is taught? When young it is necessary to reward learning with prizes, but as we mature don’t we realize the benefit of being educated, is that not enough of a reward? A strong education seems to provide financial stability later in life, is this not an appealing goal to everyone, why do some need more than this to feel the need to expand upon their knowledge. How can education be made more enjoyable? Newman would say that a liberal knowledge would provide a more emotional, personal state of enjoyment whereas useful knowledge may provide financial enjoyment, but what comes of that?

response to bethany8

The practical applications of knowledge are many. They basicly deal with the skills you need to survive in everyday life–how to work and get along in society. This practical application is both good and “useful”, but it ends as soon as it’s put to use. I agree with Newman that knowledge doesn’t need to serve any “useful” social purpose to be worth aquiring. Knowledge can be obtained from numerous sources and helps a person to become a self-thinking individual–one who seeks to think about and reflect back on all that life has to offer. This type of knowledge may not have a physical or useful application, but it benefits the individual intellectually. The knowledge continues on with the individual and is there for them to use for the rest of thier life. Even if knowledge isn’t directly applicable or “useful”, the individual still benefits from it-therefore it is worth aquiring.

    Bethany I agree with you that some practical applications of knowledge only serves the purpose to be recalled once.(i.e. remembering dates for a test) But would agree that there are situations is which people must be able to recall their ‘practical’ knowledge. For instance what about people who operate heavy machinery or perform open-heart surgeries? I think most people in general, and on a daily basis, must rely on the fact that they know and remember how things in our society work.

    The knowledge does not simply cease in its function, it only changes in how it is applied.

I also agree that the ‘liberal’ education that Newman speaks about is ‘useful’ because, like you stated, it is still serving a purpose in the life of the person. Why would people want to learn anything if it was not of some use to them? This key point is one I believe Newman fails to see. Personally, why should there be a difference between ‘practical’ or ‘liberal’ they are all important and they each serve important purpose in one’s life.

Response to Keely Boulton

I read Keely’s post after having talked to her in class.  I found that we both had similar views on Newman and what he thinks about knowledge.  As Keely says, Newman has a very distinct view on knowledge, he says we have Liberal knowledge and Useful knowledge.  As I mentioned in class I see no clear line separating the two types.  After all, any liberal knowledge that one person gains through their lifetime was at some point “useful” knowledge to someone.  If it is worth learning then clearly it was useful and that is why I think that liberal knowledge and useful knowledge are without a doubt dependent on each other.  Thanks Keely!  Your post agreed with me!

 Kurt

Response to Samantha Kujala’s thoughts on Rousseau

   “I found some of Rousseau’s thoughts to be very bizarre, but in some ways I agree with them. For example, Rousseau thought the more educated you become, the more you become evil and we are all born good. Well, I don’t disagree that we are all born good, you’re a baby of course you’re good. Although, I don’t see how becoming educated makes us evil. Some things we learn in life are bad and can possibly impact us for the worse. But what about people who read the Bible, is learning from that making us evil? Also, was Rousseau judging herself, because her ideas were educated ideas and being able to write requires learning? So is Rousseau admitting she is evil too? Rousseau also hinted toward the idea that people become successful by luck. “

I like your response, but I’m not so sure I agree that education itself makes a person evil (or that you thought this is what Rousseau was getting at).  An education may “open someone’s eyes” to reality–therefore exposing them to the not so good aspects of society.  But a person needs to be exposed to the “real world”  in order to learn to deal with life.  If anything, I think an education can help a person cope better with the twists and turns of life because it is through an education that a person becomes truely independent and self-thinking.  I guess I just feel you maybe interpreted Rousseau’s thoughts in a different way.  What I thought Rousseau was saying is that people are naturally good–but at the same time they must be careful to avoid the negative apects of life (ones which are presented to us by society).  One such example would be becoming self-interested.  Even though this doesn’t seem like much of a crime, it is a result of being influenced by society.  These day,  a lot of people are just concerned about their own lives and success.   They will step on other people and go to extreme measures just to get ahead.  I feel Rousseau would say this is a direct result of a person moving away from nature and allowing the negative influences of life move in.  A person is naturally caring and good–so they must obtain an eduation (one as close to nature as possible) in order to preserve that natural goodness within.

Peer Response to Samantha Kujala on Rousseau

 

“I found some of Rousseau’s thoughts to be very bizarre, but in some ways I agree with them. For example, Rousseau thought the more educated you become, the more you become evil and we are all born good. Well, I don’t disagree that we are all born good, you’re a baby of course you’re good. Although, I don’t see how becoming educated makes us evil. Some things we learn in life are bad and can possibly impact us for the worse. But what about people who read the Bible, is learning from that making us evil? Also, was Rousseau judging herself, because her ideas were educated ideas and being able to write requires learning? So is Rousseau admitting she is evil too? Rousseau also hinted toward the idea that people become successful by luck. Some people may be lucky by having someone they know be able to help them out and make them successful, but I totally disagree that people are successful by luck. At least in today’s world, if you really want to be successful you have to work hard at it. Say you’re trying to get a job, today you have to have a good resume to show experience, qualifications, and you have to have interviews so they can get to know you. I don’t believe life happens by luck, you have to work hard to get what you want, maybe not hundreds of years ago but today you do. With the reading from Hsun Tzu, I thought it made more sense and I liked the metaphors used to make you understand him. I do think it shows a lot about a person who gives up and drops out of high school. A person who is just lazy and doesn’t care about the education they could have, I agree with Hsun Tzu about, I don’t think they can ever really call themselves a man or woman.  But I don’t think that is totally true either and I kind of have a theory of my own. This is, when you do stop reading from texts and you’re not pushing to learn something new, you still do learn something new everyday, without even knowing it sometimes. Life is full of questions and answers.”

I disagree with a few fundamental statements made in this response. First, Rousseau never argued to that becoming educated results in becoming evil. Rousseau believed that humans have an innate goodness about them. He believed that society and government corrupted people’s innate nobility (Rousseau, 479). In his view education could serve as a barrier against the corrupting forces that are all around us. So, in effect he is arguing the exact opposite of your statement. He sees education as a tool to promote the goodness in people. Hsün Tzu and Rousseau have the same opinion on this fact, they both believe that education can make you a better human being. Therefore Rousseau never believed that he was evil himself. It is more likely that he believed himself to be rather good due to his extensive personal education.

I agree with you that hard work and determination are key to being successful. But I believe that luck plays a substantial factor in our lives as well. I am going to use your example from above about, somebody trying to get a job, to illustrate my argument. Sometimes you have to rely on luck to give you the edge over someone else that is applying for a job. For example becoming hired might just be dependent on your recruiters mood during your interview. There are many examples were luck plays an issue. A lot of wealth built in this country is a direct result of luck. Foreseeing a trend can make you rich in a heartbeat, but being able to foresee that trend may just depend on how lucky you are. Luck can not truly be categorized, but it exists and everybody knows what it stands for. It is debatable how much of an effect luck has on our lives, but it is undeniable that there are effects that result from it.

Response to Carley Buttelman (Newman)

 Benjamin Burns

Peer Response

“In Newman’s opinion, what role does enjoyment play in the motivation to acquire knowledge? In your opinion, is learning most enjoyable for its own sake or for its use value.

Learning is everywhere. If it’s in class or through a life experience, it’s everywhere. However, I honeslty believe that if one enjoys what they are learning that they will be more motivated to aquire that knowledge. For instane, classes that interest someone always seems to be their favortive and always goes by faster than a class that they might not enjoy as much. I feel that enjoyment plays a huge role in motivating someone to learn. In elementary school, learning had to be enjoyable thats why games and prizes are always involved. Motivation is a huge key in the role of learning. If it’s learning a certain topic that interests a person, than I feel that motivation to continue to learn will be there as well.”

If you were to think about it, everything that we do in life we do to get some sort of reward from it. No matter what we do, we do to benefit ourselves, whether it be learning, fishing, skiing, or any type of sports. The thing about people is that when we are children, we didn’t see the big picture and sometimes didn’t realize why we were doing some things and what the “real” rewards were for doing them. So to fix this problem, adults had to “motivate” us with “fake” rewards. Whether this be with treats or extra play time or something. What this did was keep us going and doing what we were doing so we could get the next treat. When we were very little we would get some sort of reward or treat after every correct answer, or after we did something right, but as we matured we no longer needed a reward after every correct answer or after every good thing we did. This space in motivation is due to the maturation of people and the greatened understanding of why we are doing the things that we are doing. The need for motivation is always present in all aspects of education, its just the “simple” aspect of it that dies along with immaturity. In your post, you don’t really answer the second part of the question. It asked you whether you find education enjoyable for its own sake for for its value. I believe that learning is most enjoyable for its value in life because during this point in our lives, education itself has become our motivation and our reward.

Peer Response to Kirsten Jensen

Liberal knowledge is that that is pursued for its own sake, while useful knowledge is that that has a practical application. Useful knowledge is what trains us for careers and liberal knowledge’s only purpose if for seeking further knowledge for one’s own improvement. I some what agree with the fact that we are trained to do certain tasks to carryout out jobs in society and earn a living for a family. While we also learn certain activities that are solely for our enjoyment, a person’s career should also reflect personal enjoyment to fully be successful. However I think that the two should be combined and the career you set out to accomplish should be one that you are truly passionate about. I will find a job that gives me enjoyment everyday I go to work, because when a person is truly passionate about what they are doing the job gets done better.

  Samantha Kujala     ENGL 121  Post 4        

            Kirsten, I felt your statement that liberal knowledge’s only purpose was for seeking further knowledge and for self improvement was too strong. I don’t believe that is totally true, because isn’t liberal knowledge what gives us the basic of learning to read and write? In my opinion, I feel that liberal knowledge is a necessity and comes first; then we seek more useful knowledge for our future. In a way I agree that useful knowledge is what trains us for our careers, but it sounds like you’re stating that we could do without any liberal knowledge.  Liberal knowledge is what gives us a variety and diversity of different subjects to learn about, even though some of these subjects do not interest us. But when one of those subjects does interest us, we use useful knowledge and further our interest and knowledge in that field. Though, I did like how you describe and how you make it sound like everyone is destined for a certain career and I believe that everyone should be passionate about the career they pursue.

Response to jhquey post, Douglass vs. Freire

 Original Post:

 By comparing Douglass’ love for education to Freire’s loathing for the common process of learning, it is difficult to determine for myself what I think of the system set up for children to gain knowledge through. It seems that the earlier stages are as Freire describes, but then the later stages are as Douglass depicts learning. Starting with before preschool through the beginning years of high school, all that is learned are facts and history; towards the end of high school and then through university, personal thought is encouraged, thinking outside of the box.

In elementary school, a child is required to take classes that are universal throughout all the classes. Basic math, the alphabet; both are bases for later learning, so how can Freire criticize what is meant to be the basis for progressive learning? I find what he describes as the “Banking Concept” crude. It is true that children are told things and are required to spit them back out, but a child isn’t one to learn on their own. Some kids are excited about going to school, because they know that they will see their friends. Children aren’t known to know what’s best for them, so having parents and the government makes them learn, they will not appreciate it until they are further along in their lives. I personally am extremely grateful of my high school learning, they way my teachers encouraged me to express my ideas without having to worry about them being wrong or not. But is everything that children are being filled with true?

There are so many topics that are touchy, and the type of learning that Douglass discusses is what’s so important for young learners to know. It can shake your world and it can open your eyes to the oppression and craziness that is the world today, but it will build up your ideas and that is what allows progression in the world. Take global warning, for an example of a touchy subject; so many people just believe what the entertainment industry is putting out, about how we need to save the planet and stop using pollutants. They don’t take the time to research it and find out that it could just be a high point in an endless cycle of warming and cooling the earth goes through every 100 or 1000 years; and this is what causes the populace to be ignorant of today’s issues. I personally don’t believe in global warming. Living in Alaska, we are at the head of the global warming rocket and the climate change is that of a minimal amount. I have done papers and watched anti-global warming shows, and they all have a common thread- the earth goes through stages, the ice age as an example, and though it is a good thing to help slow down the burning of the ozone layer and to reduce the greenhouse gases, it is not a thing that will kill us all in 1000 years. I just hope people will come up with their own ideals and not follow those that are put out into the air. I think this is some of what Freire is talking about when he calls students ‘depositories’, how people just take in what they are told and not thinking about it critically. Only if children were encouraged to be different and were not penalized by their peers for it would the education system be better.

Response:

Personally, I really like the ideas presented by the author.  There is a really good flow of argument and I think they make an excellent point.  What I would ask you is why you think it is as late as high school that kids are tought to think more for themselves, “out of the box” as you say?  Don’t you think kids should be taught to think more on thier own before they even enter high school?  I think that if students are taught long before highschool (as early as 5th grade) to have thier own ideas, then they would be more apt to adopt thier own ideas about tough issues such as globall warming.  Overall I agree with argument very much.  Most younger kids need help to start learning the basic materials and I think they should be helped.  Yet long before thier were structured schools kids were learning thing pretty well by themselves, without the influence of government, teachers and such things.  I guess I just wonder what your thoughts are on kids being taught to think on thier own even earlier than high school.  Do you think it would help the problem your describing? Worsen it?  Anyway, I liked your post very much, just thought I would give you some food for thought!

Thanks!!!

Response to Keely Boulton’s Freedom of Education

  No one can understand the meaning of freedom better than someone who has been under harsh oppression all their life. I think many Americans take for granted the freedom that we have and the price that has been paid, that is still being paid. One of the many things our country takes for granted is the freedom of education. Yes, most people would say that education is not always fun, its expensive in many cases and a good education requires a lot of work on the student’s end. Yet when we look at people such as Douglass and Freire it should seem easy to appreciate the freedom of education.    I tend to agree with you on this argument.  The argument can be made that we are enslaved to different things such as some of our habits, but we have all the freedom in the world, especially when compared to Douglass.  Americans’ definitely take our freedom for granted, and for those who do understand freedom, most of those don’t understand how education creates and reinforces that freedom.  Thus, it would be greatly beneficial if everyone understood how important education is, especially since it reinforces our freedom.

A question I have for you is what would you suggest to combat this apathy?  Is there something that can be done in general to increase the significance of education among the masses, or is it a problem that must be dealt with individually?  There are some people who I will give the credit of trying to get as much as they can out of their education, but what about the masses?  I think some countries (Asian and African countries) give us examples of how we should pursue education, because the students there are totally driven by oppression.  They know if they don’t go as far as they can with their education, they are going to be stuck in bondage.  They use every minute they can to pursue their education, so why aren’t we?

Thanks!

Peer Response to Carley Buttelman

In Newman’s opinion, what role does enjoyment play in the motivation to acquire knowledge? In your opinion, is learning most enjoyable for its own sake or for its use value.

Learning is everywhere. If it’s in class or through a life experience, it’s everywhere. However, I honeslty believe that if one enjoys what they are learning that they will be more motivated to aquire that knowledge. For instane, classes that interest someone always seems to be their favortive and always goes by faster than a class that they might not enjoy as much. I feel that enjoyment plays a huge role in motivating someone to learn. In elementary school, learning had to be enjoyable thats why games and prizes are always involved. Motivation is a huge key in the role of learning. If it’s learning a certain topic that interests a person, than I feel that motivation to continue to learn will be there as well.

Learning is certainly more enjoyable when we appreciate what we are learning. Direct application to a student’s life make the end very apparent, but we spend the majority of our time studying subjects that we have little or no interest in. While we lost the games and prizes we have gained other incentives such as money or a better job. Do you think these incentives are better or worse and for what reasons?

Posting 4 – Response to Peer Post – Due Mon 11 Feb by 5pm

Please select one of your classmates’ posts and thoughtfully respond to it.  Your response may involve asking questions of the original author which would deepen his/her argument concerning or understanding of the texts.  You may add something to or disagree with something in a post so long as you are respectful in your comments. 

 

Your post should not be entered as a “Comment” but should be its own post with a title such as “Response to James D. on Freire’s Classroom Model.”  Copy and paste the relevant portion of the post to which you are responding at the beginning of your post.  Suggested length is 1-2 paragraphs (5-10 sentences) of critical response (not merely critique or summary and containing substance).