School Climate Perceptions Among Different Stakeholders by May Anne Joy Romanes

References

Ananda, M. (2006). Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Retrieved from http://ananda.mahto.info/albert-banduras-social-cognitive-theory/

Awkins, J. (2011). Are we products of our environment?. Retrieved from http://jaeawkins.com/are-we-products-of-our-environment/

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Retrieved from http://www.jku.at/org/content/e54521/e54528/e54529/e178059/Bandura_SocialLearningTheory_ger.pdf

Criticisms. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://bdrum.com/Bandura/Criticisms.htm

McLeod, S. (2014). Bobo doll experiment. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html

Shuttleworth, M. (2008). Bobo doll experiment. Retrieved from https://explorable.com/bobo-doll-experiment.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 11 (Conclusion)

            The social cognitive theory believes in the combination of the environmental, social, and cognitive factors in the development of the behavior; however, it is still unclear as to what extent these three influences the behavior of men.  Nevertheless, this theory received both good and bad reactions over the years, which means that, although imperfect, this theory has its importance.

The social cognitive theory has its truth; however, accepting it as a whole truth is not possible because of some reasons.  First, Bandura believes that people does not just respond to the stimulus presented in the environment, but uses their cognitive skills in reacting to their environment.  I agree that people does not impulsively react to their environment.  People think whether they like it or not.  But then again the extent on which people use their cognitive skills in reacting to their environment has yet to be clarified.  Second, people are different, and as they grow old, their differences become greater; thus, it becomes harder to generalize the manner of learning of all people.  For instance, Kaye is a child, who came from a family of painters, raised in a way that she was exposed to the nature of work of her family members, provided that her family persuaded her to be a painter all her life.  Even though it seems that the circumstances have conspired to make Kaye the same as her family, it does not follow that Kaye would really be a painter when she grows up.  The reason is just obvious—people change.  Our way of thinking becomes different as we grow old.  Moreover, as we grow old, we tend to think beyond our environmental and social circumstances.  Even if Kaye has been home-schooled and has been taught only to paint, it is not an assurance that she would copy the behavior of her family members (e.g. passion for painting), because chances are, she might form an opinion, a judgment, or a belief of her own, guided by her own reasons, which are independent of the outside factors, such as her family.  Third, people have their free will.  We can choose for ourselves.  Otherwise, if we held our environment and our models solely responsible for our deeds, then the law would be meaningless.  For instance, a man, who beats his child just because his father also beats him when he was a child, does not make this man innocent as far as the law is concerned.  This is because we have the power to think and to choose which is good, at least according to one’s conscience and what is required of us in the law of the country we lived in. 

To summarize, the social cognitive theory should not be generalized; it is only true in some cases. Nonetheless, it is still useful to teachers and students.  It is just important to note that more than giving importance on the technical aspect of the teaching process, the teachers need to make sure that they also teach the students how to be conscious about their surroundings including the people they interact with in order to weigh the good and bad sides of the situations around them and how it affects others.  It is also important to emphasize that regardless of the situation, we can form our own decisions.  Bandura was right in this part.  The cognitive factor has a very important role to play in learning a behavior; therefore, people need to take advantage of it.  At the end of the day, neither Bandura nor his theory would tell us how we ought to live our lives, it is still up to us through our choices and decisions on how we will make this world a better place for us and for the others.   

References

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 10

http://social.rollins.edu/wpsites/mclaren/files/2013/04/oppression.png

            In the mentioned quote by Bandura, it is affirmed that he believed that people reflect and gain control of their behaviors; however, it also recognized that our standards of behavior were all copied—something that sounded contradictory to the first statement.  If we use our own brains to think, then how did it become that how we think is just a product of how our model thinks?  Assuming this is true, these questions become necessary to ask:  How sure are we that how we reflect is not influenced by anyone? Whose standards of behavior are we subscribing to?  Have we been in chains with someone else’s identity all our life? Do the models, or rather people with prestige and power, have the right to influence the behavior of their followers?  Is our freedom of thought being compromised?  The social cognitive theory tells us something—that oppression can easily find its way to the road of learning.  If oppression is present at the starting point of learning, how can we stop it when it is already there in the first place?  The best thing that we can do, if this happens, is to unlearn what we have learned, and reflect in order to find the things that we could stand up for—something that truly defines us, at least as we perceive it, in order to have our own truth.  Doing this, however, is just difficult and somewhat unrealistic.

Doing a thing frequently makes up our truth.  If we mostly learn by following a model, we tend to make some, if not all, beliefs and actions of our model, our own beliefs and actions, which when we repeatedly do, whether or not we get rewards, for as long as we are able to convince ourselves that we are good with those beliefs and actions, these things become our realities and truths.  Other person’s truth becomes our truth, and once we made up our truths, it becomes hard to dismantle.  For instance, Rodrigo Duterte, a presidential candidate, is undeniably charismatic to the masses (at least to my belief). He has prestige and power—someone who could be looked up to by the youngsters because of his audacity, humor, and undaunted actions against the law offenders.  If a Jose, a teenager, admires Duterte so much and makes him his model, he consciously and unconsciously, over the days, will probably adopt Duterte’s behavior, such as his ill justification of extrajudicial killings and the latter’s profane words.  Over time, Jose will make Duterte’s justifications his own until these become his truth.  It is hard to say whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, because we all have our own perceptions of what is good and what is bad.  Nevertheless, it is still important to note that modeling can be a medium for something that might be bad for other people.  

Conclusion

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 9

https://cuevaseds103.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/bobo-experiment.jpg

            To prove that that all human behavior was learned through social imitation and copying, rather than inherited through genetic factors, Bandura performed the Bobo Doll Experiment in 1961(Shuttleworth, 2008).  This gave Bandura several ways to prove his hypothesis that watching violence causes aggressive behavior.  This conclusion, however, has been argued because the children, who are used as the subjects of the experiment, were said to be manipulated into responding aggressively according to what they have observed (“Criticisms”, n.d.).  If observing an aggressive behavior and being rewarded for it produces similar aggression, then would observing and watching a well-recognized diligent student produce the same attitude for everyone in the class? Perhaps, some students would not imbibe the same attitude.  In the real-world, adopting a behavior, whether good or bad, is subject to numerous factors.  Moreover, we cannot generalize how the majority, or even everyone, in the class would react, because each student has his/her own values, experiences, beliefs, and traditions.  People are different from each other.  Hence, if we say that people tend to have different reactions when it comes to what they observe, can we affirm that the Bobo doll experiment has been suggestive?  Yes, it is.  The children used in the experiment are aged between 3 to 6 years old (Bandura, Ross & Ross as cited by McLeod, 2014).  Since these children are very young and so they might not have any idea on how to play with the Bobo doll, they have to observe what others are doing with it.  It is not that the children were not using their thinking skills, but when the children are given with an unfamiliar thing without any instructions on how to use it, they would ask verbally or nonverbally: “What am I supposed to do with this thing?”.  The children, who were expose to a model with an aggressive behavior, in the Bobo doll experiment might have thought that the observed aggressive acts are the things that they were supposed to do in the experiment, and so they did. Although they did show an aggressive behavior, this does not mean that they would do the aggressive acts to other children.  Similarly, in teaching Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao in the early grades, we tend to ask the pupils questions that are somewhat suggestive. For instance, when we ask the students similar questions like: “Nag-iingay ang iyong mga mga kamag-aral habang nagkaklaklase kayo, ano ang iyong gagawin?”.  The children would most probably think of an answer that would not make the teacher angry, so most likely, they would answer: “Sasawayin ko po ang aking mga kamag-aral”, even though in real life situation, they would not really do so.  Therefore, we cannot generalize that modeling and reinforcement does assure the replication of behavior at least with the children because, as mentioned earlier, there are a lot of things to consider before imbibing the behavior of the model, and people are just different from each other.  In addition, the manner of how we learn and behave changes as we grow up, because we tend to form deeper thoughts as our brains develop (generally speaking).  Bandura surprisingly agree with this statement.  In fact, he wrote in 1991:

  

            People possess self-reflective and self-reactive capabilities that enable them [to] exercise some control over their thoughts, feelings, motivations and actions.  In the exercise of self-directedness, people adopt certain standards of behavior that serve as guides and motivators and regulate their actions anticipatorily through self-reactive influence.  Human functioning is, therefore, regulated by an interplay of self-generated and external sources of influence (Ananda, 2006, para. 2).

Continuation

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 8

            So, are we really just as helpless as the plants which have nothing to do but to keep adapting and reacting to the environment? If the weather gets too hot, the plants will wilt; it does not really matter whether a plant is able to see what the other plants are doing because it is natural for the plant to wilt in the mentioned situation.  If the soil is well-fertilized, the plant will be healthier; there is no need for the plant to have a brain to know that it has to grow better because of the fertilizer, because growing better is the natural reaction of plants to the fertilizer. Nonetheless, people and plants are still way different, because people have the power and choice of reasoning out. 

            Human beings react to the environment, and are products of it, but only for some extent. It cannot be generalized that environment solely dictates who we are and how we behave.  Ideally, the causes of our behavior must be rooted from deeper and better reasons.  Even though a well-admired relative of ours gets mad at any visitor coming inside the house, we may not feel the same though the relative, as the model, got our attention, retention, motoric reproduction, and reinforcement processes working.  Thus, even if our relative forces us to act similarly towards any visitor and rewards us for doing so, we still may not adopt that kind of behavior.  This is because we have the power to reason consciously and unconsciously.  If a person is well-guided by good reasoning (at least in his/her own perception of good reasoning), then learning through reflection becomes more powerful than learning through the environment.  Our intelligence gives us the ability to adapt to whatever we are exposed to; and unlike the animals of the earth, we have the power of reason to make moral choices based on our thought given to the possible outcome (Awkins, 2011).  Although there is some truth that reasons might also be acquired from a model, it can also be said that there is also truth in saying that individuals can also innovate their own reasons without using any vicarious experience or observing some models.

Continuation

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 7

Analysis of the Social Cognitive Theory

Though there are some good points mentioned about the social cognitive theory, it is still not far from the traditional behaviorist theories, which, somehow, Bandura is against to.  Even though Bandura included modeling, as one of the determinants of behavior, it can still be included in the environmental causes of behavior, simply because it is still an influence outside of a person.  The only difference is that the social cognitive theory recognizes the role of the cognitive factor in the production of a behavior.  Despite this, the results of the social cognitive theory still depend largely on the environment.  To illustrate, the traditional behaviorist and social cognitive theories can be compared to a mimosa plant (also called makahiya in Filipino).  Assuming the mentioned theories are absolute truths, whether or not we know that a mimosa plant has the pulvinus, its part that reacts to touch (assuming that part is their brain), or, whether or not we think that mimosa just merely reacts to touch regardless of its inner system, the causes of the resulting behavior will still be based on the things happening in their environment.  If this situation will just be the same with human beings, then what is the point of knowing that we use our brains when, we just solely behave based on our own human nature and the stimulus from our environment?  If we believe both theories completely, then we are accepting the fact that we mostly learn through our environment; therefore, it meant that even if we think, learn from other people’s experiences, find a model, or just plainly react to a stimulus, the behaviors and actions manifested are just the consequences of our exposure to the given environment.  For example, if a house is on fire, it does not matter if a person needs to think, find a model, remember an article about fire, or just go out of the house, because in the end, he will not be able to bear the heat of fire and will eventually move far from it.  If all of the mentioned illustrations in this paragraph are true, then it makes the social cognitive theory as hard to swallow as the traditional behaviorist theories, for they largely, if not wholly, rely on the environment, neglecting a lot of other factors that cause our behavior, such as our own beliefs and the results of our reflective thinking.

Continuation

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 6

http://career.iresearchnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Self-Efficacy.jpg

            Central to the social cognitive theory is the concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to the level of a person's confidence in his/ her ability to successfully perform a behavior.  It is the idea that people decide how to behave based more on their belief in their own capabilities of accomplishment rather than in their knowledge and skills (Pajares as cited by Ananda, 2006).   Having mentioned that a person’s capacity is different from their actual knowledge and skills, we can infer that a person who is much knowledgeable and skillful might have low self-efficacy, and a person who lacks knowledge and is less skillful might have high self-efficacy. Therefore, self-efficacy cannot be used as the lone determinant whether or not a person can achieve future successes, because there are other determinants of success to consider.  Nevertheless, having varied levels of self-efficacy among individuals can help explain why two individuals with very similar skills and knowledge can end up exhibiting extremely different behaviors (Ananda, 2006).

Analysis

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 5

https://bibliobulimica.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/classroom.jpg?w=723

            Modeling becomes a crucial cause of learning and behaving for a multitude of reasons.  By relying on the action of knowledgeable models, a novice can behave appropriately in a given situation without having to discover the acceptable conduct through shocked or pleased reactions to his unguided performance (Bandura, 1971).  Assuming this is absolutely true, a child would not become rowdy if he/she sees that every child in his/her class is very quiet and is sitting in their chairs properly.  Similarly, a shy child can become outspoken if he/she becomes used to a class with outspoken students.  Because people tend to follow an example (model), they are able to produce more acceptable modes of behavior (as far as their immediate environment is concerned), which is much more reinforcing than tedious trial and error (Bandura, 1971).

Next Page

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 4

http://www.nakedheart.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_6983-e1418744146764.jpg

            Modeling is governed by four interrelated subprocesses, namely: attention, retention, motoric reproduction, and reinforcement (Bandura, 1971).  First, the model must grab the attention of the subject.  The subject should recognize the essential features of the model's behavior (Bandura, 1971).  For instance, if a celebrity is to model a caring behavior, the child as the subject, must identify what makes up his caring behavior, such as the smile, sweet voice, friendly gestures, etc.  Second, the child should retain the essential features of the model’s behavior.  Third, the remembered features must produce actions. Lastly, the actions must be rewarded in order to be strengthened and repeated.

Next Page

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 3

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/01/article-2408397-1B90A440000005DC-767_634x383.jpg

            Another important element of the social cognitive theory is modeling.  Modeling is an essential form of learning (Bandura, 1971).  Under most circumstances, a good example is therefore a much better teacher than the results of unguided actions, especially when mistakes can be costly or dangerous (Bandura, 1971).  An example is when pupils are being taught on how to use the microscope in observing the microorganisms in dingy water.  If the pupils will just rely on the consequences of their actions in order to learn how to use the said equipment, they might damage the costly equipment.  Thus, it becomes more advantageous for everyone in the class if the teacher will just demonstrate the appropriate procedure on how to properly do the activity.  Another example is when the teacher tries to teach a sport, for instance, swimming.  If the students will just rely on the consequences of their swimming gestures, then the students might end up drowning themselves.  This is something that could be prevented if the teacher would model the proper way to do the different swimming techniques.  Teaching the child how to speak is also a situation wherein parents as teachers cannot rely on the consequences alone for the child to learn. Therefore, if learning proceeded solely by rewarding and punishing consequences, it would be more laborious, more costly, and more dangerous both for the teachers and the students (Bandura, 1971).  Therefore, the socialization processes, in which the language, morals, vocational activities, familial customs, and the educational, religious, and political practices of a culture, are difficult to be taught without the benefit of models who exemplify the cultural patterns of their own behavior (Bandura, 1971). 

Next Page

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 2

http://images.says.com/uploads/story_source/source_image/422500/410c.jpg

            One of the important elements of the social cognitive theory is the role of the vicarious experiences in the production of behavior.  Direct experiences are governed by the rewarding and punishing consequences, which are assumed to strengthen one’s behavior (Bandura, 1971).  However, if learning will solely be acquired through our own experiences and their consequences, then it would take a long time and would make it a lot difficult for us to learn the things, which are expected of us.  For example, if a Christian attended a Muslim wedding of a friend, and he/she is the only Christian in that event, given that he/she has no idea of a Muslim wedding, then it would be so impractical for him/her to act, solely relying on the consequences and reactions of the other guests to his/her actions.  In this situation, the Christian attendee needs to use his/her cognitive skills and to observe and be sensitive about the actions of Muslim guests in that wedding event to make it more beneficial for him/her.  In this way, undesirable experiences can be avoided rather than the person act as if he/she is an unthinking organism (because he/she will just react to the stimulus presented in that environment).  Therefore, learning becomes more efficient because of the use of vicarious experiences on top of our own experiences.

Next page

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 1

            by 

May Anne Joy Romanes

University of the Philippines Diliman

May 24, 2016

https://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20Clusters/Health%20Communication/Social_cognitive_theory/Social_cognitive_theory-1.png

         For many years, a lot of scientists have tried to find an explanation as to why people behave as they do.  Earlier behaviorists have reduced human beings into helpless reactors to their environment, dismissing the role of cognition in forming their behaviors (Bandura, 1971).  The traditional behaviorist theories did not satisfy Albert Bandura.  He challenged these earlier theories through the development of the social learning theory, which later evolved as the social cognitive theory.  This theory asserts that the cognitive capacity of men determines their behavior and posits that learning results from vicarious experiences that occur through the observation of other people’s behavior and its consequences for them (Bandura, 1971).  The social cognitive theory is much more palatable than the traditional behaviorist theories; however, it does not address the variations of people due to their genetic, brain, and learning differences (“Criticisms”, n.d.).  Furthermore, it does not mention the role of free will in the behavior outcomes of men.  Nonetheless, it is undeniable that there is some truth to the social cognitive theory; however, as teachers, we need to look closer and critically examine this theory to make it more relevant to the teaching-learning process for us and more importantly, for our students.

Next Page

Millennium Development Goals, Education for All 2015, and Education 2030

by May Anne Joy D. Romanes

University of the Philippines - Diliman
March 21, 2016

Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and Education for All (EFA) 2015 had set such sky-high and idealistic goals, despite the known problems of weak political will among world leaders, inadequate resources of different countries, the likelihood of inefficient strategies in implementing such goals (United Nations, 2015), and the passiveness of some citizens who were supposed to benefit from the said programs. As a result, not all goals have been achieved. MDG had remarkable gains yet inequalities persist and progress has been uneven. (Ki-Moon as cited by United Nations, 2015). As for EFA 2015, it has not been achieved despite the efforts of the governments, civil society and the international community (Bokova as cited by Chua, 2015).

The implementation of the MDG and EFA goals can be illustrated by a delivery man (world leaders) carrying a relatively heavy sack of goods (quality and equitable education for all, good health, satisfaction of basic needs, environmental sustainability, and global partnership for development), and trying to deliver it to the recipient (people) through any vehicle (means of achieving the goals), which is either the delivery man’s choice or whatever is available at the moment.

There are factors to consider in the delivery of the goods to the recipient (the realization of the MDG and EFA goals).

First, it is up to the delivery man whether he wants to deliver the goods or not (a question of the willingness of political leaders to implement the goals). If he decided not to deliver the goods, then the recipient will not get them.

Second, the goods can be too heavy for the delivery man to carry (the capacity of the country leaders to carry out the goals and the resources of the country). If the delivery man cannot carry the goods because of his own limitations, then no matter how much he wishes to deliver the goods, he will not be able to do it.

Third, what will the recipient do if he/she did not receive the goods (the participation of people in the realization of the goals)? How active or passive can he/she be in getting what he/she is supposed to get?

Fourth, the vehicle, or the means of transportation, dictates how slow or how fast the goods can be delivered (means and strategies employed to realize the goals). If the delivery man rides a sled, then it will take a long time to deliver the goods; if he rides a helicopter, then the goods will be delivered in a short span of time. Furthermore, the availability of the means of transportation should also be considered, because it is possible that the mode of transportation could be unavailable, such as in areas occupied by the enemies of the government.

Lastly, the circumstances that happen during the delivery of goods, such as accidents, bad weather condition, etc., can influence the delivery of the goods (events that can hasten or hamper the realization of the goals).

Recently, the Philippines adopted a new set of goals and targets to establish the global education trajectory through 2030 Education Framework for Action (Education 2030) to operationalize the 4^th goal of the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Philippines, 2015). All factors mentioned were important to realize the MDG and EFA 2015 goals. The same is true in achieving the goals of the Education 2030. This year, 2016, is an opportunity to reflect on and to learn from the past mistakes, to build on our successes and to put all countries, together, firmly on track towards a more prosperous, sustainable and equitable world (Ki-Moon as cited by United Nations, 2015).

References:

Chua, Y. (2015, April 10). ‘Education for All’ ending; PH fails to meet targets. Vera Files. Retrieved from http://verafiles.org/education-for-all-ending-ph-fails-to-meet-targets/

United Nations. (2015). The Millennium Development Goals report 2015. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Philippines. (2015, April 11). PH Affirms Commitment to the Education 2030 Framework for Action. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.gov.ph/content/article/PH%20Affirms%20Commitment%20to%20the%20Education%202030%20Framework%20for%20Action

Suggested citation (APA 6th ed):

Romanes, M. A. J. (2016, March 21). Millennium Development Goals, Education for All 2015, and Education 2030 [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://jesusnevereverrfails.blogspot.com/

Critical Pedagogy in the Philippine Context

By: May Anne Joy D. Romanes

Maria Perpetua S. Talens

University of the Philippines Diliman

March 5, 2016

Critical Pedagogy is an approach in teaching and learning which aims to eliminate all kinds of oppressive power. It intends to liberate and empower students in a humanizing way through critical consciousness or “conscientizacao”, and action. It recognizes that schools can be a medium for oppressing people because of the latter’s gender, color, race, class, and their other attributes. The major proponents of critical pedagogy are Paulo Freire, Joe Kincheloe, Peter McLaren, and Henry Giroux (Aliakbari and Faraji, 2011). Critical pedagogy recognizes that dehumanization has always been a problem throughout human’s history. It is brought about by injustice, manipulation, discrimination, oppression, domination, and the violence of the oppressors, which have manifested and continue to manifest in different forms in the course of our civilization (Freire, 2005).

Critical pedagogy is asserted by the hunger of the oppressed for freedom and justice (Freire, 2005). Interestingly, oppressors do not have the ability to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. The only way to liberate both of them is through the power that comes from the oppressed. To liberate the oppressed by the oppressors is superficial, and therefore is seen as “false generosity” [italics added] (Freire, 2005, p. 48). An example of false generosity is when a teacher gives a failing student a passing grade even though he/she (the student) did not pass any of the exams. In this situation, the teacher did not help in liberating the student from the things that hinders the latter to achieve his/her full potential, but he/she (teacher) is just relieving himself/herself of his/her guilty conscience. In this way, the teacher just prolonged injustice and dehumanization by giving him/her the grade that he/she did not even deserve. 

The participation of the oppressed in fighting against oppression is very crucial in critical pedagogy. However, the oppressed may not even realize that they are being dehumanized and dominated. Thus, it is difficult to get their involvement in liberating themselves. For as long as the oppressed think that “to be is to be like, and to be like is to be like the oppressor” [italics added] (Freire, 2005, p. 48), their liberation is unattainable. In other words, some people think that for someone to be an ideal person is to become like a specific group of persons (e.g. rich and powerful persons, fair-skinned Americans, etc.). This is already a sign of succumbing to the oppression leading to injustice, because these people indirectly accept that they are lower than their ideal beings. Hence, to identify if there is a form of oppression happening, people need to free themselves of any bias as much as possible, and probe deeper as to why they think the way they think.

The Banking Concept of Education

            Dehumanization is prevalent in schools practicing the banking concept of education.  This involves the process of treating the students as “containers” to be “filled” by the teacher. The more the containers are filled, the better the teacher is. The more meekly the containers permit themselves to be filled, the better the students are. In this set-up, education becomes an act of depositing, with the students as the depositories and the teacher as the depositor. The students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat the knowledge, and they become collectors or cataloguers of the things they store (Freire, 2005).

              Not much effort is expected from the students other than just listening to and memorizing the knowledge the teacher will provide. However, the downside of this concept of education is that it encourages a so called “culture of silence.” A culture of silence pervades a classroom where the passive students believe that the teachers are the source of all knowledge. This leads to a deceitful thinking that this is the only or best way for them to learn (Monchinski, 2008). The teacher considers the students to possess absolute ignorance, thus he gives knowledge to them and his existence is justified. Neither true knowledge nor true culture was achieved since there was no act of cognition on the part of the students. Thus, the whole educational system becomes one of the major instruments for the maintenance of this culture of silence (Freire, 2005).

              The banking concept of education also sees man as adaptable beings who accept their passive roles. This hinders their critical and creative thinking which are vital to transforming   their current situation. This kind of education becomes a tool of domination because it serves the interests of the oppressors and the students are trapped in a situation in which critical awareness and response are impossible—a situation that is highly rejected by advocates of critical pedagogy. For them, the students should be encouraged to know and respond to the concrete realities of their world since knowledge is a result of the continuing inquiry people pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other (Freire, 2005).

Problem Posing Education 

             Critical pedagogy therefore advocates “problem-posing education.” This type of education consists of acts of cognition rather than just transfer of information. In this set-up, the teacher ceases to be the only one who teaches. The teacher learns from the students, who also teach while being taught. It posits that people teach each other and become jointly responsible for a process resulting in their mutual growth (Freire, 2005).

            Communication is necessary to people as they teach each other. In the problem-posing education, students are deemed to be critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher. This kind of education is seen as a practice of freedom since there is a continuous discovery of reality and a critical intervention in reality. Furthermore, in problem-posing education, students are considered as “unfinished” with an “unfinished” reality, making the education a continuous activity (Freire, 2005). For example, in teaching Mathematics,  students can compute for salary differences across places and create maps, tables and graphs using the data. Test scores and incomes can be compared and students asked if there seems to be interrelationships between the data. Teaching language arts and social studies should go beyond names and dates. Discussions, debates and role-plays can be implemented. Bigelow and Diamond (as cited by Monchinski, 2008) ask  students to list some things in their daily lives in which the people who do the work are not usually seen. For example, a television program or a piece of fruit each needed a great deal of human labor, which we don’t see. Or think of jobs with which they are familiar—bakeries, janitorial or food preparation—that are isolated from the ultimate consumers. Then students will be asked to make a poem out of this list. Another strategy is to interview another person to make a historical timeline about him/her. (Monchinski, 2008). According to Kincheloe, critical pedagogy in social studies and language arts classes should deconstruct texts and textbooks, with a text understood as “any entity open to analysis and interpretation” (as cited by Monchinski, 2008, p. 173). Things that are considered as text includes language, films, TV shows, commercials, accepted canons in English and other classes, and the layout and seating arrangement of a classroom. Students can also be encouraged to think about the words they use and the meanings behind those words (Monchinski, 2008).

Use of Dialogues

             A dialogue is the encounter between people, mediated by the world, done in order to ‘name the world’(Freire, 2005, p. 88). For the advocates of critical pedagogy, to ‘name the world’ means to exist in the world and to change it. A dialogue does not involve a person ‘depositing’ ideas in another person, nor a simple exchange of ideas to be ‘consumed’ by the discussants. It is not an instrument for the domination of one person by another. The love for the world and for people is the foundation of dialogue. To a critical pedagogue, love is an act of courage and a commitment to the cause of freedom of the oppressed. A dialogue, for them, necessitates love, humility and faith. It also necessitates a strong faith in people—that they are capable of transcending their situation. Mutual trust then becomes the result of dialogue if the words correspond with the actions of the participants (Freire, 2005).

            To a critical pedagogue, people need to employ critical thinking to engage in true dialogue. This involves the idea of being united with the world and people. It sees reality as a process, as transformation and connects itself with action (Freire, 2005). Critical pedagogues believe that teachers should not speak to the students about our own view of the world, nor try to impose that view on them. Instead, they  should dialogue with them (students) about their view since their view indicates their situation in the world. To communicate effectively, teachers should understand the context of the people they are addressing (Freire, 2005).

Critical pedagogy reminds us that it is not appropriate to give the students programs, which are not linked with their own preoccupations, doubts, hopes, and fears. One critical pedagogical method is hence to use generative themes. Generative themes are topics which are very relevant to the lives of the students, to elicit excitement from them. (Freire, 2005) These themes help the students obtain and question knowledge as well as learn about themselves, their opinions on issues and the influence of a dominant culture on these factors (Kincheloe, 2008). In our classrooms we also show respect to our students and we expect them to do likewise for each other and for us. We make it clear through our actions and discipline that we model democratic forms, that our classrooms are safe places of growth and transformation (Monchinski, 2008).

Critical Pedagogy in the Philippine Context

            Oppression is not a new concept to the Filipinos. We have a rich history of being oppressed, from the Battle of Mactan to the present territorial disputes with China, not to mention the kind of oppression that exists in schools themselves. There were many who kept silent about it, but there were also brave ones who spoke against the oppression and fought for the freedom of our country. It was mentioned in the earlier part of this paper that the oppressors cannot free us from oppression; the oppressed people are the only ones who can. Oppression is still prevalent in our country. It comes in many forms and so it is of utmost importance to recognize them because there is no one who could go against oppression but us, the oppressed. But who would guide us to recognize the instances of oppression? Will our educational system be a medium for oppression, or would it be a medium to fight against it? Does our educational system reflect the critical pedagogy’s vision of a just and humanizing society?

            In order to answer this question, a critical pedagogue would examine the vision and mission of the Department of Education, or simply, DepEd (Department of Education, n.d.) which states that:

“We dream of Filipinos [italics added], who passionately love their country and whose values and competencies enable them to realize their full potential [italics added] and contribute meaningfully to building the nation. As a learner-centered public institution, the Department of Education continuously improves itself to better serve its stakeholders.”

The phrase “We dream of Filipinos… whose values and competencies enable them to realize their full potential” implies that our educational system wants Filipinos to possess values to help them be at their best. At first glance, it seems that the DepEd vision is reflective of critical pedagogy. However, a critical pedagogue would carefully examine the DepEd vision further, looking and thinking beyond what is written. For instance, a critical pedagogue would ask: Who decides what values and competencies would enable a Filipino to realize his/her full potential? How can we say that a Filipino reaches his/her full potential? Who decides what a Filipino’s full potential is? Hence, a critical pedagogue is most likely to be suspicious of the motives of DepEd. In a traditional classroom, the DepEd vision will not be scrutinized, and sometimes, will even be asked to be memorized by the students. This practice is way different in a classroom employing critical pedagogy. To illustrate, in familiarizing the students with the political conditions surrounding them, the teacher will start a problem posing dialogue by choosing the theme of the discussion, for instance the word "values". This will be the first word to be learned in the lesson. The students will then try to name the problems about the values and its implications in the community using a series of questions. After naming the problems, they will generate different possible solutions. They will then weigh each solution based on its consequences. They may be required to implement the agreed solution, depending on the level of the students.

Second, a critical pedagogue would look into the DepEd mission (Department of Education, n.d.), which states that:

“To protect and to promote the right of every Filipino to quality, equitable, culture-based, and complete basic education where: students learn in a child-friendly, gender-sensitive, safe, and motivating environment; teachers facilitate learning and constantly nurture every learner; administrators and staff, as stewards of the institution, ensure an enabling and supporting environment for effective learning to happen; and the family, community, and other stakeholders are actively engaged and share responsibility for developing life-long learners.”

            For sure, a critical pedagogue would agree with the phrase “to protect and to promote the right of every Filipino to quality, equitable, culture-based… basic education.” This is basically a way to overcome oppression if properly implemented. A critical pedagogue would further agree on the second and third part of the mission. The culture of silence, which critical pedagogy is against, could be overcome by a child-friendly, safe, and motivating environment. Moreover, the “teacher acting as facilitator,” is something that would coincide with critical pedagogy’s notion of giving importance to the knowledge the students contribute to the classroom to lessen, if not completely eliminate, the teacher’s monopoly of knowledge. Despite the fact that a critical pedagogue would agree on a few points in the DepEd mission, there are still some points that he/she would dispute. A child-friendly environment is something that a critical pedagogue agrees with, but will also argue about at the same time. He/she will ask: “What is a child-friendly environment?”; “Who decides what a child-friendly environment is?” Another point is gender-sensitivity mentioned in the DepEd mission, which implies that the educational system discourages gender discrimination in the classroom. However, there are also other forms of discrimination which are not addressed, such as discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, and skin color. A critical pedagogue would think that the educational system is not very sincere in promoting equality among its students. Critical pedagogues would not agree with and be very wary about the part that states that the “administrators and staff, as stewards of the institution, ensure an enabling and supporting environment for effective learning to happen.” A critical pedagogue would ask questions such as:“Who decides what effective learning is?”; “Does effective learning mean that students memorize everything that the teachers tell them?”; and more importantly, “To what extent does the administrators and staff act as stewards of the institution and how do they influence what to learn in the classroom?”

            The critical pedagogues’ congruities and incongruities on certain points stated in the DepEd mission and vision alone indicate that while our present basic education system has efforts to ensure that the schools provide a “non-oppressive”, unbiased, and non-discriminating learning environment, it still does not have the ability to fully provide it. In the same way, critical pedagogy can be practiced in certain instances in teaching the students, but not all the time. Furthermore, education is inherently political, and therefore deals with a lot of dominant powers, which dictates what to teach, what to believe in, and what kind of graduates to produce. Note that critical pedagogy is against these types of power. For them, it is not enough to be just mere observers on how domination and oppression affects people. They believe that the oppressed should take action; however, taking action by challenging and questioning these powers can be dangerous and can be seen as a form of rebellion—making it difficult to discern whether to utilize critical pedagogy or not to the students. Also, if a teacher becomes a critical pedagogue, how sure is he/she that the content of the lesson is not generated from the knowledge controlled by a dominant power, when in fact, the competencies and the standards to be met are also imposed by a dominant power (e.g. officials from the government)? Doesn’t the critical pedagogue also need to dominate in order for the oppression to stop?  Moreover, the extent on which you want justice for the oppressed might not be the same as the extent they want justice for themselves. Thus, although the present educational system is not entirely in disagreement with the principles of critical pedagogy, the latter cannot be applied to the fullest extent because it can be a threat to the government, and also to democracy, a principle that critical pedagogy also fights for.

Final Thoughts on Critical Pedagogy

            Though we are in the modern times, oppression is still a reality and is still prevalent in different parts of the world. There is much to say about oppression and how it affects us. Many people are hungry for freedom and justice. Thus, it becomes a universal goal to live in a world that is just and humanizing, where everyone is given equal opportunities and no single dominant power control people’s freedom. Herein lies the beauty of critical pedagogy. It teaches people to be actively involved in their learning, and not to depend solely on what is taught in school. It helps them to be conscious about their world and encourages them to speak up and fight against injustice.  It helps them to understand that if they want to change the world, they need to do it themselves.  Critical pedagogy honors the need and the right of every individual to ask ‘why’.

Needless to say, critical pedagogy is a very crucial approach in educating students.   However, as this philosophy encourages a critical analysis of what is happening in the world, it also opens itself to it.

Oppression is still very rampant. Though the Philippines is already a free country in the sense that we are no longer under the Spanish, the American, or the Japanese governments, oppression still exists. In the classroom, oppression is commonly manifested by bullying because of one's gender preference, physical appearance, language, or status. One example is when a student calls his classmate a beggar because the latter's dark skin. This illustration shows that poverty is linked to the dark skin. 

The authors assert that critical pedagogy can definitely be applied in education. However, one of the authors does not suggest applying this to the extreme. There are several dangers of challenging the dominant powers. Once you applied critical pedagogy in the classroom, you cannot be just a mere observer of an oppression taking place; you should take action in order to liberate the oppressed. At the surface level, this objective (to liberate ourselves from oppression) is very appealing; but if we dig deeper, it can lead to bigger problems for us. Thus, the author suggests to ask yourself these questions before you decide to apply critical pedagogy in your work as an educator or in the classroom: (1) How sure am I that there is  oppression happening?; (2) Why do I have to fight against the oppression I observe?; (3) Who is the dominant power that I have to fight against?; (4) Will I be heard if I fight against a certain oppression?; (5) Why do I have to help the oppressed? What is in it for me?; (6) Do I have a good and possible solution to help liberate the oppressed?; (7) How will I fight against the dominant power?; and more importantly, (8) To what extent am I willing to fight against it? Though it seems like it is selfish to ask such questions, the author believes that people should also think about the implications of their actions to their own lives. What will you gain if you lose your life? How sure are you that your efforts will not be wasted? The worst thing that can happen to a critical pedagogue is to get killed and have his/her efforts become wasted. Therefore, the application of critical pedagogy to education does not depend on the purpose of freeing the dehumanized from oppression alone; many things should also be considered. In the end, no one can force you, as an educator, whether you want to fight every instance of oppression you see in your surroundings.

On the other hand, if we think that in our classrooms, we should facilitate the transformation of our students into people who analyze the status quo and to people who believe there can be a better world, then we should decide and make serious efforts to use critical pedagogy to a great extent. One of the authors suggest that we  all reflect on these: 1) What is the importance of education if it will not be a liberating tool but an instrument of the dominating power, whoever they may be? 2) Do we still need evidence that oppression exists when it has existed in history in different forms and still confronts us every day? 3) What is the value of being educators if we will just only transfer knowledge which might even be very far from the reality of our students? Do we really believe this to be the major task of teachers?  4) Are there not instances when we realized that we learned from our students? 5) What role do we want to play in a world where the oppressed call for justice and equality? Are we willing to be passive observers, and as such, become partners of the oppressors? 6) As teachers, we impact lives in our classrooms (as our students also impact ours), thus, our work has a multiplier effect. Do we want the current and the next generation to live in a culture of silence or be free to exercise their right to ask why? 7) Are we part of the oppressed or the oppressors? 8) Eventually, all of us will exit the world. What kind of world and legacy do we want to leave behind?

Points to Ponder

1.      Why do you think   the banking system of education still exists? How can we change it to the type of education advocated by critical pedagogy?

2.      Does critical pedagogy encourage students to disdain traditions, hierarchy, and authority? Why do you think so?

3.      How can you apply critical pedagogy in subjects like Mathematics and Science?

4.      How can you contribute to the development of a just and humanizing society in your everyday teaching?

5.      How will you take action against the dominant powers that control information?

References

Aliakbari, M. & Faraji, E.  (2011). Basic principles of critical pedagogy. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 11, 77-85. Retrieved from www.ipedr.com › vol17

Department of Education. (n.d.).The DepEd mission and vision. Retrieved from www.depedregion5.ph/vision-mission.html

Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.

Freire, P. (2008). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Knowledge and critical pedagogy. New York:  Springer.

Monchinski.T. (2008). Critical pedagogy and the everyday classroom. New York: Springer.

This essay is submitted to Prof. Abigail Thea Canuto as one of the requirements for EDFD 201. The authors got a grade of 1.0 for this essay. Yay!

Suggested citation (APA 6th ed):
Romanes, M. A. J. & Talens, M. P. (2016, March 19). Critical Pedagogy in the Philippine Context [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://jesusnevereverrfails.blogspot.com/