February 16, 2015 - 21:52
A small but salient part of Pedagogy for Liberation was when Freire articulates the complication in expecting dialogue, which is that it is sometimes expressed as a requirement to speak "even when [the students] have nothing to say" (102). So often in classes that are trying to shy away from the traditional lecture model of imparting knowledge, the professor adds a speaking requirement into the syllabus. While I understand the logic behind their choice, I have always thought that creating speaking quotas and rules is counterproductive. For a student who may not feel comfortable being a vocal presence in class, a speaking requirement could detract from his or her learning experience by injecting tension where there doesn't need to be any. While I had never thought of the rule as creating a "false democracy," as Shor puts it, I absolutely believe that creating rules about sharing in class is directly antithetical to the goal of discussion-driven classes which is engagement and "freedom" (102). This still leaves the problem, however of people who use up too much air in class. I definitely understand the discomfort professors face when they want students to be able to express themselves and be open in class, but at the same time, sometimes students participate to a point at which it impedes the learning of other students. I think that naming the democracy of the classroom as Freire and Shor identify it could be a great way to promote discussion and dialogue within students and also curb those students who may talk more in class than is productive for the group. Democracies are about balancing personal and collective interests which could be useful in conversations about learning.