The relationship between a student and their teacher traditionally is one that involves much guidance and direction, but also quite a bit of lecturing and "telling." As Paulo Freire puts it, "A careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship at any level, inside or outside the school, reveals its fundamentally narrative character" (qtd. in Bartholomae 259). This relationship is sometimes ok – the teacher obviously more of an expert on the given topic they are teaching that the student, or else the student would be teaching the class. The students in some circumstances do need to be taught and lectured too about facts and methods and such, but there also comes a time when the students need to be free thinkers. They need to be able to apply what they are learning to their lives, or else what they are learning simply does not sink in. It is obvious that if the student is not interested in what they are studying, they are less likely to retain anything, making the class more or less a waste of time.
             Even at the collegiate level, teachers sometimes make the mistake of teaching into this trap. They teach the classes in a very objective manner, reading and explaining material as if it were the end-all–be-all to the course. Original thinking is not only restricted in a class like this, but it even becomes unnecessary. The material is presented in class, then the students are asked to simply regurgitate the material on a quiz and then eventually on a final exam. There is simply no "thinking outside the box" in a class such as this. You learn the material, which is fairly straight forward and can be memorized, and then retell it to let the teacher know you learned. But memorizing is not always the best way of learning. Application is essential for the students to actually understand and see how the material can be used in their everyday lives, and that makes the material more relevant.
             In a micr...