My teacher identity

“Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.” ― Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed


I agree with the statement that how we teach depends first on what we think teaching is. In my practice, I equate my role as a teacher to that of a facilitator. I present the subject matter to students then enable critical consciousness through relevant problem-posing approach (such as brainstorming, storytelling, pictures, codes, and trigger questions). This process allows both the teacher and the students to reflect on the subject matter and negotiate the meanings of the information together through a process of reflexive critique. This model of teaching, I believe, emphasises engagement and dialogue, working with rather than on students. It is also combines the strategic purposes of teaching and learning, parallel to the third level of thinking about teaching suggested by Brigg & Tang (2007).

My teaching theory is significantly influenced by the post-positivism philosophical traditions, as opposed to positivism. Positivism regards teaching as the creation of true, objective knowledge, following a set of prescribed (almost a scientific) method. The subject matter presented by the teachers is considered conclusive, whether it is examining objective reality or exploring subjective or intersubjective experiential world. Overall, the students’ knowledge and their perspectives are undervalued. The relationship between the teacher and the students could be best described as subject and object. The teacher is the expert and the students are the objects which are acted upon.

In his book the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paolo Freire termed this manner of teaching the banking model. The teacher is the narrator and the students are the narrated. The narrator assumes that the narrated are lifeless and petrified. The narrator’s role is therefore to fill the narrated with the contents of his or her narration. The narrated only memorize, record, and repeat phrases offered by the narrator without perceiving their true significances. Consequently, the narration’s contents are detached from reality and disconnected from the totality that engenders them.

The post-positivism philosophical tradition, which I subscribe to, recognises the value in enabling the perspectives and prior knowledge of students. Plurality of knowledge among teachers and students is emphasized. It challenges the assumption that knowledge can only be measured, and analysed by suitably qualified individuals. It also takes seriously the complex relationship between processes of knowledge production, the contexts of such processes, and the involvement of the knowledge producer.

Freire, whose views significantly influence my philosophy and teaching values, called this model of teaching libertarian. It consists of acts of recognition and not transferrals of information. As the teacher, I enable the students to unpack the subject matter by drawing on their prior knowledge, capabilities and assets to precipitate relevant reflection and action.

In my experience, a significant challenge to this model of teaching is that students (often the majority) who have been socialised in models of teaching based on positivism struggle with the change of power balance between the teacher and students, and to view themselves as co-participants in the production of knowledge.