Feynman is almost outraged at the Brazilian education system and this is evident in several passages of his essay. Right from the beginning he exclaims, “I discovered a very strange phenomenon: I could as a question, which the students would answer immediately. But the next time I would ask the question—the same subject, and the same question, as far as I could tell—they couldn’t answer it at all!” (Austin). When first reading this, it can be quite puzzling, why couldn’t the students answer the question? But what he really meant was that he would ask the same question in a different manner and the students were absolutely puzzled. Students in Brazil were not “learning” per say, they were memorizing facts. Facts that absolutely meant nothing to them, therefore they didn’t understand them. Learning is not just memorization, and that’s what Feynman was getting at. He was astonished with the education system and the fact that professors were encouraging such learning. They were sending students out in the workforce in careers such as engineering without a proper education. He found it interesting that, “so many kids learning physics in Brazil, beginning much earlier than kids do in the United States, [yet] you don’t find many physicists in Brazil?” (Austin). These kids are working so hard and yet nothing comes out of it. This is why Feynman wanted to change the education system. He wanted to finally reward these kids with a well-deserved education. Feynaman and Freire are similar in the fact that they both want the students to argue with the results and to test facts. Freire and Feynman encourage their student to see the world as always in the process of becoming; and they as parts of that. Students become therefore active and empowered to criticize the world and change it. The only difference really, would be that Feynman would also have an emphasis on banking learning system and Freire would not. 2)
In this essay, Kisautq Leona Okakok analyzes differences...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document