In the article, A Pedagogy of Possibility by Peter McLaren explains critical pedagogy as “a way of thinking about and negotiating through praxis the relationship among classroom teaching, the production of knowledge, the larger institutional structures of the school, and the social and material relations of the wider community, society, and nation-state” (p. 22). He further goes on states that critical pedagogy is an approach adopted by progressive teachers who are attempting to eliminate inequalities on the basis of social class and that it has also sparked a wide array of anti-sexist, anti-racist, and anti-homophobic classroom-based curricula and policy initiatives. The progressive teacher is one who rejects the “banking” concept of education in which, “Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor” (Freire 1970, p.53). Freire used the concept “banking education” to explain the framework for curriculum delivery that he believed existed in schools. In banking education, the teacher is the subject while the students are patient listening objects (p.52). In addition, students are mainly asked to memorize and regurgitate often meaningless facts, which hinders their ability to solve problems and think critically. and observe problems that exist in the world. With these ideas in mind, I’ve reflected on my personal educational experience in Korea and realized that I was trained under the “banking” education system. The teacher is the authority figure in the class, and curriculum objectives limit the freedom of students in the learning process. The discussion that enabled me to think critically or analyze ponders on the issues rarely occurred. The students were trained to listen to the teacher who had authority and power over us. The demanding curriculum that was delivered solid that required