Freire, P. & Horton, M. We Make the Road by Walking, Chapter 3

1. What is Organic Knowledge? In the reading, organic knowledge is described as the knowledge of the people. This is the theory that knowledge starts with the people. We first to understand the way the people think and their syntax.That would create a way for the people to go beyond their state of thinking. The reading goes on to describe the importance of understanding the experience and the practice of people. Paulo states "without practice there is no knowledge."

2. I agree with this statement. In life, we often analyze and understand things based off our own experiences. Our experiences are what shape our being. That is why it is so imperative to understand the experiences of others. Once we open ourselves to knowledge acquired by people other than ourselves, it will create in us a deeper understanding of all knowledge. Practice can be defined as a noun and a verb. Practice as a noun is defined in the dictionary as the actual application of an idea or belief. It is the repeated exercise of an activity or skill to acquire or maintain proficiency. By practicing the people we apply their beliefs to acquire proficiency. For me, this is most evident through relationships. We learn the most about the ourselves and others when we connect to them on a personal level. When we have a relationship with an individual we learn about their past experiences in an attempt to understand who they are now. This practice is the same no matter what knowledge it is we are practicing. It is organic because it is created naturally. In order to understand knowledge of the world, we have to understand the people of the world, for without the people there is no world. We have to practice learning what people and things are composed of, just as we do in relationships. It teaches us, how we view ourselves in relation to the world. By learning other people, we learn ourselves; we learn what we love, what we are afraid of and what we hope to be, or not be. Organic is defined as related to or derived from living matter, and that is what we are. We are the living matter that shapes all knowledge. That is why it is important to study people and their understandings.

3.) How do we connect to people we feel no connection with? Is it possible to earn something form every person we encounter? How much of that shapes our reality? How much of others experiences do we carry with us in our day to day lives? Paulo says in chapter 3 that information can be got through a reading or a conversation. Myles answers this question best by saying "To me, it's essential that you start where people are. But if you're going to start where they are and they don't change, then there's no point in starting because you're not going anywhere. So while I insist on starting where people are, that's the only place they could start. I can start somewhere else." Basically, you attempt to get to know people. Once that occurs, you take what ever knowledge you can and use it to get to a new level.

Freire, P. & Horton, M. We Make the Road by Walking, Chapter 2

1. What is sensualism? Sensualism can be defined in two ways. The wiki definition is a philosophical doctrine of the theory of knowledge, according to which sensations and perceptions are the basic and more most important form of true cognition. Cognition is the process of acquiring knowledge, and understanding it thoroughly through thought, experiences and senses. Sensualism is also defined as excessive pursuit of physical pleasure. In the reading, Paulo explains how reading beyond the texts creates a certain sensualism that links reading, writing, teaching and knowing.

2.) I agree with this statement. Paulo and Myles began this thought by describing how knowledge is endless, or unfinished. There is always more to learn. However, in my experience, there is a difference between reading and understanding. I remember in high school being assigned a reading and having to reread it at least three times because I thought it was so boring that while my eyes were reading the words, my mind was wondering what was for lunch. So I could never quite grasp the information like I would if I was taking lecture notes. I've always been that student that loves to hear a lecture. I loved the way it was like story telling. For some reason I couldn't get that from reading. In the reading the authors explain how it is a teacher's job to direct their students through the knowledge. I also agree with this statement. It wasn't until I got to college that I had a professor teach me the correct way to read; how to acquire knowledge. Once I mastered this skill, reading was a like a new world, like an alternate reality I could escape to. I couldn't read something without wanting to know more, like what happened next or what happened first. Then the craziest thing happened, the things I was reading about began to pour into my regular life. That alternate reality became real. That is the sensualism of reading and understanding; it leaves you vulnerable and thirsty for more. An example would be when I read The Code of Hammurabi for the first time. I was assigned to read it in a history requirement course my sophomore year of college. What made it real for me is that is was real for people that came before me. It was the first known written law code. It was crazy to think that there were people here thousands of years ago way before the world came to be what we know it to be today. And these people dealt with alot of the same things we deal with today, bu their outlook on life was different. It made me question my life today, how much society has developed, and how much it has stayed the same. It fuels my love of history and society. It drives me to want to know more about people and where they come from. This sensualism and drive for knowledge derived from reading one reading.

3.) How important is it to develop a love of reading? Do you have to like to read in order to completely understand the reading? Paulo answers this in chapter 2 by saying "I discovered that reading has a loving event."

Freire, P. & Horton, M. We Make the Road by Walking, Intro and Chapter 1

1. What does it mean to localize something? To localize something, by definition means to constrict or confine something or someone to a certain area. In this text Paulo and Myles are discussing speaking words and questions aloud, and later transcribing them to a book. The idea behind this is to capture the reader with main ideas and questions without localizing them in individual sections and chapters.

2. I agree with Paulo and Myles that this is an effective way to write. In my own experience, I have had trouble describing the depth of my ideas thoroughly through my writing. Often times I write exactly what I am thinking first and then go back and make the necessary corrections. I find that after rereading my material I often think of supporting ideas to thicken the content of my writing. By not localizing factual ideas to chapters, Paulo and Myles create an opportunity for readers to explore their own ideas in relation to theirs without restriction or the notion they could be wrong. Everything is open. Dialogue before writing also is beneficial to this reading because readers get the chance to be open to two perspectives. Having a single author exposes the reader to a single perspective that is specifically influenced by that authors experience. This way, readers can bounce around ideas, as the authors do. Being open to more than one perspective is not only beneficial, but necessary as an educator and a student. While in college I've had experiences where curriculum overlapped, meaning I learned material in one class and that same material was used in a separate class to introduce new material. Every instructor taught what they took from that material, and though the facts where the same, the emphasis is always different. As a student, this variation of emphasis gives me a deeper and stronger understanding of the material because of the objectivity of the viewpoints. An example of this would be the American Revolution. As a history major, I've covered this too many times to count. One of my professors described the war as America's cry for freedom and the beginning of our triumphant country. Whereas, another one of my professors described the war as a necessity Americans (colonist) tried to avoid for as long as they could until it was no longer possible. Both of these are accurate concerning the history of the revolution, the only difference is the viewpoint. That is the beneficial aspect of author to author dialogue, you are not subjected to one way of thinking.

3.)What are the disadvantages of having multiple perspectives in a reading? Can this confuse or misguide the reader in any way? Is it better to localize central ideas in order to create organization? Is material easier to learn when it is organized? I think Paulo best answers these questions by saying " This should give us a duality in the conversation, a certain relaxation, a result of losing seriousness in thinking while talking. The purpose is to have a good conversation but in sort of style that makes it easier to read the words."

Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America,Chapter 1

1.) What is socioeconomics? Socioeconomics is defined as the social science that studies how economic activity affects and is shaped by social processes. In the reading, socioeconomics is used to describe the process of manipulating academic curriculum to include skills that are profitable for the business industry. The author uses socioeconomics to describe how education has not been used as a means to bring equality among the working class, but as a way to keep the flow of business profitable.

2.) I do agree that socioeconomics has manipulated the educational experience. Schooling is believed to, and should bring freedom to an individual by allowing them to explore. In reality, school curriculum is mostly mandatory, leaving little wiggle room for students and teachers. There is a board or committee that votes and decides what it is students should be taught. Because of this, one has to consider the fact that curriculum is biased towards the ones who control it. I have experienced this myself. In grade school there would be things we would hear about and ask our teachers about, and even though the would answer our questions, we couldn't learn about it because it was not a part of the curriculum. Students should be able to be involved in academics. Letting students have choice in what they want to learn would be beneficial because it would make students excited about the subject matter. Students might also feel like they have a voice and are not just getting ruled over by the big wigs. Instead, curriculum is built to compliment capitalism as opposed to the students. Students are evaluated by how well they follow directions, causing differences between the students. And these differences go through the college level as well. The author describes how college graduates often times end up on government assistance and unemployment for not going to the "right" college. Universities follow a hierarchy, with ivy league schools being the peak. So where education is supposed to promote freedom and opportunity, often times that only applies to the privileged. Workers and students eventually take on the role of machines and commodities because the goal for these individuals, whether they are aware or not, is to produce surplus product that is conducive to society.

3.) Is training students to have skills specifically related to demands of big business theoretically helping or harming our students? Does training students with vocational skills limit the individuality and imaginative spirit of the student? Are we as teachers contributing to the division of class that results from enforcing students to be well behaved? Are we sending the message to our students that being submissive is expected and rewarded? The author summed up the main idea of these questions by stating "Moreover, despite the important contribution of education to an individual's economic chances, the substantial equalization of educational attainments over the years has not led measurably to an equalization in income among individuals". If curriculum serves its purpose correctly why is there still major divisions between classes?

McLaren, P. Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts (pp.72-81)

1.) What is discourse? The dictionary describes discourse as a written or spoken debate. In the reading McLaren describes discourse as being practices embedded and institutionalized into society in an attempt to regulate systems. Discourse leads to discursive practices which cripple the thought process of the student.

2.) I do agree with Mclarens idea of discourse. He describes in the reading how discourse becomes dominant by allowing dominant people of a certain class to control what textbooks students learn from and what material they are to be tested on. McLaren makes a great point when he describes how standard curriculum includes tasks and accomplishments of wealthy and/or powerful Caucasian men. Too often curriculum overlooks contributions made by women, middle to lower class citizens and people of minority cultures. curriculum can also be manipulated to to encourage the current status quo of society. In the reading McLaren describes how discourses are created and governed by rules and power. It is important to realize the relation between knowledge and power, especially in a school setting. I believe the discourse that is created is another way to maintain order within the school. By not giving teachers and students the freedom to explore various avenues of education, you strip them of their thirst for knowledge. As a result, students believe learning is not fun, it is more so a tedious task.
I believe that if students had more input on the curriculum, then society would improve. Students should have the freedom to explore their options and decide what works best for them. Instead, we are drilled from a young age that there are certain things we have to master or we will not be successful. These critical educators create the dominant discourse that leads to domination in education as opposed to liberation which in many cases leads to rebellion within students.

3.) How much would society improve, if at all, by letting students become involved in the mandatory condition? Would a division of power within the classroom lead to a division of power within society? Is knowledge abused in its connection to power?

McLaren, P. Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts (pp.60-72)

1.) What is hegemony? The dictionary defines hegemony as leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over another. Peter McLaren describes hegemony in the reading as "a struggle in which the powerful win the consent of those who are oppressed, with the oppressed unknowingly participating on their oppression".

2.) In the reading, McLaren outlines traits of what he describes as a critical educator. A critical educator is one who is does not feel it is necessary to explore all realms of education. Critical educators do not consider the possibility of more than one solution to a problem. From the reading, we can infer that critical educators are hegemonic in their teachings. I agree with this idea. The mandatory curriculum for impressionable young students is closely correlated to the demands of society. For example, it is mandatory for students to learn how to use mathematical and scientific formulas. Students are taught that they will need this to apply to life in the real world if they want any chance of being successful. Students are taught that in order to be successful, you must follow the coursework that is created with the intent of being hegemonic. Once these students graduate they are sent off in the real world with no real concept of what it takes to truly be successful. I wish when I was a student money management was part of the curriculum, We spent so much time doing math I did not use and eventually forgot. As a broke, 18 year old college freshman, money management and accounting skills would have been more useful and more practical for my everyday life. These critical educators do not teach students how to think on a wider scale, it teaches students to follow orders. Critical educators are teaching the students they will be liberated by the knowledge they obtain, while controlling the knowledge that is distributed. As a result, students are confused with intertwined thoughts of domination and liberation.

3.) Is the curriculum as imperative to success as critical educators portray it to be? How may of the macro points do we utilize in our everyday lives in comparison to the micro points? How do we balance the curriculum to reflect liberation as opposed to domination?

hooks, b. “Confronting Class in the Classroom”

1.) What is class antagonism? A synonym of antagonist is is adversary or rival. It is defined as actively opposing or hostile to someone or something thing. In relation to the classroom, Hooks describes class antagonism as the notion that students and educators from working class backgrounds are "outsiders" and "interlopers".

2.) I agree with this position. I believe that for those of us who have several obstacles to overcome before we can even begin to work towards our dreams have all felt like outsiders at some point during our academic careers. I like the comparison Hooks made between working class families and African American students (page 5). Hooks describes how African Americans often feel like they are in a different world when placed academically with privileged Caucasian students. African Americans feel they need to find ways to adapt and live between two different worlds, often feeling victims to circumstance. I find this to be accurate based on personal experiences. Myself being African American and a woman from a working middle class family felt I had to prove myself worthy of the education I was receiving. I did not feel everyone else had to do that, just me. I think that is tied into the victim mentality Hooks says is likely to occur. Some of my peers that were not in college wanted to know what I did to deserve to better myself. I often felt like my peers in my classes who were from the upper class backgrounds thought the same thing, leaving me in the middle trying to please both ends of the two worlds I was living in while remaining true to myself. I think this is true of people academically involved who come from working class backgrounds. At some point or another we all feel like we have something to prove. We feel it is our job to show we belong without causing to much of a fuss, because we don't want to be viewed as "lower class". The association of bad manners with class is just one example of class antagonism. Hooks makes a valid point when he describes class as more than materialistically or economically mature. Class, or the idea of class affects values, attitudes and relationships (page 1). I also find this to be accurate in comparison to the African American experience to the working class experience. When you look different than the majority of people around you there are multiple  things that go through your mind. First is always the many stereotypes your wondering if you peers are thinking about you, followed by the obsession to prove them wrong by being the best you can be, all while trying to meet their standards. I have found in my experience with class it is a very real thing but it is up to you to create your own platform. Now instead of conforming or being militant in defense, I just do what works best for me. For some people, not all class is a very real thing. For others, its just a label. Whatever the case may be, you have to be true to yourself. You can not change your background only your future.

3.) What does Hooks mean when he says "Those of us in the academy from working-class backgrounds are empowered when we recognize our own agency.." ?  How do you balance being outspoken when censorship is being asked of you? I believe Hooks is referring to the courage and strength it takes to work in these academic conditions and still be successful. Its about constructively using the antagonism we receive (page 6). By doing that we begin to challenge the existing structure. I believe this is true. I believe in a way class antagonism gives the working class an advantage. We learn hope to operate between two worlds. Being able to adapt and overcome while challenging the current structure in place can bring the change needed to better the academic environment.