It is interesting that Freire goes his whole essay without mentioning any actual examples within a classroom and barely seems to explain what the actual differences would be between the two types of teaching, only how it would go about being done. In an English class I feel that there would be active discussion and essays that do not have set topics/thesis but that are formed by the student. In a History class it would be tough. There might be analization of the time period moreso than just learning about what happened and why, such as determining its lasting effects. Psychology would involve active prodding and experiments to see how things are done, not so much how they work and why. I don’t think there is a way to do it for math. Math is a very concrete subject that has right and wrong answers. Students could create problems, I assume that would step outside of being told what to do.
An authentic form of thought and action would be a discussion that is started and lead mostly by students with the teacher adding in ideas occasionally and then incorporating them into an assignment or some sort of work that expands on the ideas that they all brought together.
Freire’s reflection is understanding your work and learning and relating it to the world, reflecting on what it has taught you. It involves being active with knowledge and building around with outside sources instead of taking and accepting something as what is told.
Teachers can be expected to learn about students and how they deal with things in life and the ways they learn. They will not learn knowledge necessarily, but they will gain insite into the life of a child in this time period. They will watch them interact with the material and each other. It will be a different kind of learning but one that could be considered just as important.
