Lectures vs Discussion - A Response to "The Banking System of Education"

A typical lecture hall at large, public universities

       After reading Sage Witham’s article on how the gap between teachers and students is stripping students of a meaningful education, I began to consider my college experience thus far. I chose High Point University for a multitude of reasons, but a huge deciding factor for me was the class sizes. I loved knowing that I would be more than a number to my professors, and I have already found lifelong mentors in some of my instructors. 

       Similar to Witham, I had an amazing experience during my high school years. Although I attended a public high school, my class sizes were small, since I was in almost all AP classes. In comparison to the regular classes I took early on in high school, my AP classes were more discussion based. I left the class at the end of the year feeling like I had grown as a student and as a person. My teachers utilized the “problem-posing method” that Witham discusses in his article. I never felt like I was a computer struggling to store all of the information my teacher deposited into me. 

       Contrary to Witham, I would claim that the ability for the authority gap between student and teacher to shrink depends on the subject. In my math and history classes, although we did group work at times, the teacher mostly lectured at us, and I did not feel as though the teacher was failing in any way. History is not opinion based. Math is not opinion based. Although we would debate cases and the validity of a theorem, my role was to soak up the information. My AP English classes were the ones that reshaped my thinking and caused me to leave the class feeling changed. Tests were opinion based; If you could back up your answer, it could not be wrong. I loved how after reading a chapter in The Poisonwood Bible, my classmates would point out things that I never caught. The teacher would give us a basis of information about the book, but we would formulate our own opinions throughout. 

       Now that I am in college, I have had similar experiences. As a math and actuarial science major, the way math classes are taught is important to me. My class sizes in college have been small, and I always feel like the teacher is willing to help me. Although my math class was taught using the “banking” method, I would not have wanted it to be taught any other way. In sharp contrast, my honors religion course was completely discussion based with no formal tests or homework assignments. The religion class affected who I was as a person more than my math class, but that does not decrease the value of the math abilities I gained. 

        I have noticed a common theme between honors classes and the “problem-posing method”. The upper level students, both in high school and college, seem to be taught using a different method. The teachers of these high-achieving students seem to be more willing to see what the student’s take is on the material. I remember asking the director of the honors college why he trusts us to do the readings and watch the films without any form of testing afterwards. His response was that he knows that the students who want to be in the honors program are students who want to learn. 

      I don’t know if I can honestly say that all classes should be taught in a discussion based way. Sometimes the subject requires the teacher to unpack information in a more traditional way. Instructors also have to consider that some students will not do the assignments or take away anything from the class without the pressure to regurgitate facts in the form of tests and quizzes.