Model Outline by Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Book Report/Review Example

The distinction between the dialogical and model outline by Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1996) and the irrelevance to current management students [Name] [Professor Name] [Course] [Date] Introduction The banking model approaches education as a structure for depositing knowledge to passive recipients, where the students form the depositories of knowledge while the teachers assume the role of a depositor of knowledge. This model, therefore, suggests a paradigm of education called the banking education (Rugut and Osmun 2013). The teacher provides communiqués and knowledge deposits that the students acquire and, memorize. The centrality in banking education, as Freire explains in his works the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” is the teacher-student relationship, where total dichotomy exists between the learner and the educator. Accordingly, the teacher has absolute knowledge, which suggests his authority to control the students, and where the student remains meek in order to absorb the knowledge transmitted by the teacher. On the other hand, the dialogical model relies on Freire’s dialogic action theory, which suggests that dialogue or interchange of knowledge plays a crucial role in education. The dialogical model suggests a paradigm of education called the problem-posing education, as it involves dialogue between the teacher and the student. In this approach, the student and the teacher cooperate while finding a solution to a problem. Accordingly, the teacher and student engage with the truth, which the two consider it a component of the praxis. This paper discusses the difference between the banking model, the dialogical model, and their irrelevance to modern-day management students. This paper argues that between the banking model and the dialogical model, the dialogical model is more irrelevant to the modern management students, as it places emphasis on dialoguing, which makes it inappropriate for formal education that characterises the curriculum-based and teacher-centred modern management education. Theoretical background Hence, within the “banking” model, the scope of action is limited to issuing of knowledge deposits, which are received, filed, and stored by the students. According to Freire (2005), the banking concept considers the teachers to be knowledgeable instructors that bestow knowledge to recipients who know nothing. Accordingly, it would project the total ignorance of the management students, an attribute of the Freire’s idea of “oppression.” Because of this, the teacher portrays herself to the students as their exact opposite, as she considers the management students to be ignorant of the management concepts. On the other hand, the students remain alienated and acknowledge that they are ignorant in order to be filled with concepts of management (Rugut and Osmun 2013). Freire (2005) also proposed the dialogic action theory, which suggests that people are inherently given to dialogue. The theory hypothesizes that dialogue or interchange of critical thoughts plays a leading role in education. In this second theory, the management students and teachers continually dialogue with each other, and through this process, knowledge of management concepts are created and recreated. Based on the dialogic action theory, dialogue approves the democratic choice of both the students and the instructors. For this reason, to be able to encourage a free learning environment, the teachers have to create conditions that support dialoguing, as well as encourage the student’s curiosity to learn the management concepts (Rugut and Osmun 2013). The objective of the dialogic action would, therefore, be to impart knowledge through interaction. Distinction between the Dialogical Model and Banking Model During the recent past, the model of dialogical learning has been associated with Freire’s dialogic action theory. Based on the theory, anything said by one party to another is motivated by the things that have been said before by another party. Rugut and Osmun (2013) suggests that Freire relied on the Dialogic Action Theory to make a distinction between what can be considered as dialogical action or what should not be. Freire may have attempted to show that dialogical actions promote some form of liberation, understanding and interaction by allowing for dialogue between the students and the teachers. Durakoğlu (2013) also relies on this perspective to note that those actions that do not permit dialogue and rely on power rather than interaction to generate knowledge should not be considered as being dialogic actions. It is clear from the description that Durakoğlu (2013) was referring to the banking concept. An underlying distinction between the dialogical model and the banking model is that while dialogical actions promote some form of liberation and interaction by allowing for dialogue between the teacher and the student, the banking concept does not. The dialogical concept also relies on the dialectical method, which Freire (2005) explains that is concerned with creating a dialogue between two or more parties that hold divergent views regarding a subject, and, therefore, seek to determine the truth using logical arguments. In which case, the teacher and the students hold different views regarding the subject matter and, therefore, engage in dialogue to establish the truth. The dialectical method differs from the approach used by the banking model. In the banking model, the teachers are not dedicated to their viewpoints and may tend to shift their points of view, as they feel fit, although consistent with the curricular (Freire 2005). Additionally, the teachers do not need to use persuasive language, as whatever they say is regarded to be the key truth. On the other hand, the dialogical model requires that teachers have to be dedicated to their points of view and need to persuade the students to adopt it in the process of imparting knowledge. In this case, the dialogical model argues for a form of debate, where those who are more convincing win the debate. According to Alam (2013), the “banking model is appropriate for the oppressors. The model approaches the students as empty vessels where teachers deposit knowledge. What Freire attempted to show is what happens within the domains of banking education. The teacher is perceived by the model to “know” as she has formerly received the authorized curriculum knowledge that is subsequently taught as an out-of-date, inactive account to the students. Hence, the teacher is the ultimate medium that delivers the education package to the learners. According to Durakoğlu (2013), the dialogical model places emphasis on dialogue, which makes it appropriate for informal education. This is different from the banking concept that relies on curricular, and is, therefore, formal. Westbrook et al. (2013) also support this viewpoint by suggesting that formal education depends on curricula while the informal one depends on the dialogue. Alam (2013) also reasons that Freire took his assumptions to a greater level when he suggested that dialogue must have additional elements like respect. This is different from the banking concept, which requires that dialogues should have some level of power. Hence, the underlying difference between the dialogical model and the banking concept lies in the possession of respect and power respectively. Freire (2005) goes on to argue that in the dialogical model, the action of one party acting on another party, such as the teaching acting on the student, is not allowed. Instead, the parties work together. When it comes to the banking concept, the teacher can just act on the students. Essentially, therefore, the banking model suggests, as well as motivates the teacher to teach while the students to be taught. Again, the teacher portrays herself as knowing everything while the students are approached as knowing nothing. This is different from the dialogical model, where the student is not approached as knowing nothing. Again, in the banking model, the teacher has to do all the thinking. The dialogical takes a different approach, where both the students and the teachers think simultaneously. Additionally, selects and imposes her choice, while the students only need to submit. Irrelevance of Dialogical Model and Banking Model to current management students Modern-day education is teacher-centred (Alam, 2013). It is, therefore, without doubt a 'banking education,' as the teacher portrays himself as the subject of authority who transmits knowledge into students, who are in this case empty vessels that are supposed to be filled with knowledge. This also applies when it comes to teaching the modern-day management students (Alam, 2013). Indeed, consistent with the modern-day education, the students gather in class to absorb knowledge during the learning process, rather than the dialogue with the teacher to share and create solutions to management issues. This, therefore, implies that the banking education is far from being irrelevant to the modern-day education than the problem-posing education. Freire had also argued that between the dialogical model and the banking model, the second is more relevant to the modern-day education, as it portrays the teacher as the sole subject within the walls of the classroom, rather than the teacher and the student. Rugut and Osmun (2013) also argued on premise to show that while the students remain simple objects, the teachers remain the subjects in the modern schooling system. The banking concept approaches the management students as manageable and adaptable objects, which fits with the purpose of modern day management studies (Ottewill & McFarlane 2001). It is, therefore, difficult to argue that it is irrelevant. When the students seek to store the deposits of knowledge imparted to them, they fail to develop the significant realization of their role in the learning process. Again, by accepting their passive roles, as designated to them by their teachers, they only adapt to the world in conformity with the knowledge deposited in them. In modern education again, the management student is exempted from participating in the acquisition of knowledge directly. Rather, it is someone else’s knowledge that is given to the student regarding objects (Ottewill & McFarlane 2001). For instance, management students do research to gather knowledge from management journal and books. Hence, they explore someone else’s knowledge. Again, the students are exempted from active inquiry or as Freire’s terms it; they are “filed away” (Freire 2005). Additionally, in a typical management class, the instructors remain the authority in the class due to their greater knowledge of management concepts (Ottewill & McFarlane 2001). Conversely, the students remain the empty vessels due to their deficiency of management concepts. Freire (2005) agrees with this assumption and even suggests that despite the fact that modern private schools do allow some level of leeway for the students to experience some degree of social control, the teachers are still the knowledge transmitters while the students are knowledge absorbers, which only confirms that the banking education is more relevant to the modern-day schooling system compared to the problem-posing education (Rugut and Osmun 2013). Hence, the dialogical model is more irrelevant to management studies. Again, the key function of the modern-day schooling system, including a business management college, as Cameron and Whetten (1983) notes, is to enable students acquire critical management knowledge and skills, rather than share their knowledge with their instructors. The teachers are assigned the role of delivering knowledge while the management students are assigned the role of passive learners, who do not inquire into the knowledge, as they are mere objects. In this case, the contemporary education system leads to a manipulative economic system, where students who acquire knowledge better management concepts are assigned better roles in the corporate ladder by going for the top and the more influential management positions while those who fail are assigned, the lesser influential management roles. This only implies that the banking education prevails in the modern business management institutions. Freire appears to agree with this argument when he argues that the banking model serves to prepare the society into an exploitative where the oppressor dominates over the oppressed, as well as where the achievers become the oppressors while the under-achievers become the oppressed. This also shows that unlike the dialogical model, the banking model sustains the myths of living in an exploitative society rather than a liberal society. Hence, the dialogical model is more irrelevant to the modern day management students. Next, the fact that modern-day management courses use a formal curriculum also means that banking model is more relevant than the dialogical model to the management students (Wankel 2011). The banking education serves to alienate management students by alienating them from critical engagement with the reality since they use the 'curriculum' rather than dialogue, which would have allowed them some freedom of critical thought (Ottewill & McFarlane 2001). The use of curriculum has made today’s management courses to be formal. On the other hand, the dialogical model places emphasis on the use of dialogue, which makes it appropriate for informal education and, therefore, out of sync with the modern management students who are taught using curricular. Cameron and Whetten (1983) support this viewpoint by suggesting that formal education depends on curricula while the informal one depends on the dialogue. Overall, it is clear that the dialogical model is more irrelevant and non-applicable to the modern management student compared to the banking model. In fact, the banking model serves more suitable as a general-purpose system that makes sure that management students comply with the curriculum, as it engenders passivity and teaches that social conformism is proper. It also stifles critical thinking regarding realities of management concepts by teaching the management students to submit to the social authority, which the instructor personifies by training the students to submit to curricular or packages set up (Kaak 2011). In the modern-day education system, the banking education’s capacity to alienate is used in teaching of management to transform the students into passive vessels that absorb management concepts (Ottewill & McFarlane 2001). Since the dialogical model does not alienate, it becomes more irrelevant for transforming students into passivity. In fact, Freire appeared to be aware of this conception, as he explained that the banking education alienates, as it impact 'knowledge' that is static, which is, therefore, a secondary understanding or perception of truth since it provides a setting in which the teacher and student do not address the truth collaboratively by engaging in a dialogue. At this rate, it could be reasoned that the banking education’s alienating impact is its capacity to subjugate people, as well as to incapacitate their critical thinking ability, which implies that their capacity to transform the world is dormant during the learning process. Rather, the banking system stimulates the student’s credulity. The modern management education stimulates the management student’s gullibility, acceptance of authority and readiness to adapt and preserve the oppressive corporate system, where hierarchical structures of management are used (Wankel 2011). Indeed, banking education is the more prevalent model used in management schools globally, including the Western and Eastern Countries. For instance, colleges in the United States and the United Kingdom use the banking model to make the management students to be passive recipients of knowledge and to stimulate their credulity or acceptance of authority. Conclusion Between the banking model and the dialogical model is more irrelevant to the modern management students. The reason for this is that the dialogical model places emphasis on dialoguing, which makes it appropriate for informal education. However, since the modern management education is curriculum-based and teacher-centred, the use of the dialogical model in modern teaching of management is limited. On the other hand, since the banking concept that relies on the use of curricular, and is teacher-centred, it is more relevant for teaching of management. The banking model motivates the management instructor to teach while the management students remain passive recipients of management knowledge. Again, the instructor is portrayed as more knowledgeable regarding the concepts of management while the students are portrayed to be passive yet enthusiastic to learn. This is different from the dialogical model, where the management student is not approached as knowing nothing. Reference List Alam, M 2013, "Banking Model of Education in Teacher-Centered Class: A Critical Assessment," Research on Humanities and Social Sciences Vol.3, No.15, 27-31 Cameron, K & Whetten, D 1983, "A Model of Teaching Management Skills," Organisational Behaviours Teaching Journal vol 8 no 2, pp.21-27 Durakoğlu, A 2013, "Paulo Freire’s Perception Of Dialogue Based Education," International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications vol 4 no 3, 102-107 Freire, P 2005, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum International Publishing, New York Kaak, P 2011, “Power-Filled Lessons for Leadership Educators from Paulo Freire," Journal of Leadership Education vol 10 iss 1, pp.132-144 Ottewill, R & McFarlane, B 2001, Effective Learning and Teaching in Business and Management, Psychology Press, New York Rugut, E & Osmun, A 2013, "Reflection on Paulo Freire and Classroom Relevance," American International Journal of Social Science vol. 2 no. 2, 23-28 Wankel, C 2011, Handbook of Research on Teaching Ethics in Business and Management Education, IGI Global, New York Westbrook, J, Durrani, N & Bown R et al 2013, Pedagogy, Curriculum, Teaching Practices and Teacher Education in Developing Countries, Department for International Development, London Read More