Grammar Police arrest this man. He talks in maths. He buzzes like a fridge. He's like a de-tuned radio.
For those who do not know, that is my parody of Radiohead's Karma Police. And I know, I know, it should say Usage Police - but that just does not have the same ring to it!
I appreciate Williams effort to distinguish usage from grammar. Unfortunately, if it has become culturally acceptable to use grammar to indicate both, then why not dispense with the distinction all together?
Who found it shocking that studying grammar does not lead to better writing? I know I did. Grammar (and usage) was, after all, constantly drilled into our heads at a young age. Even at home, while trying to enjoy Saturday morning cartoons, we could not escape from the occasional grammar (and usage) lesson:
School House Rock was sure to inundate our young minds with the parts of speech...
Also of interest, especially for those of us aspiring writing instructors, was the bit at the end of page 177 where Williams quotes T.R. Johnson:
"Although we rarely detect the errors that dot the texts of professionals, we actively seek them out in student texts, and when we find them, we figuratively slash them, often with 'bloody' red ink: that is, we expose the texts as unclean, impure, and thus unfit for full membership in the academic community..."
Mightn't we take that argument one step further by suggesting that not only can the bloody red ink have the above affect (or is it effect?) on the student, it can also be the result of an unconscious psychological grab for power or need to dominate on the part of the instructor? If so, that could act as a potential barrier in a student's ability to learn. They already have power structures they must deal with at home. Why not do away with the teacher-student power model and instead do our best to create an inclusive partnership with our students?
So, if studying grammar (and usage) do not improve students ability to write, why bother with it at all? Williams has an answer (and what I personally believe to be the most important insight of the chapter):
"Students need to expand their repertoire of language skills and conventions, not reduce them, which surely would be the outcome of any serious effort at abolishing academic conventions. The reason is straightforward: Standard English is deemed appropriate and acceptable in the widest range of situations" (182).
This is important because our classrooms will undoubtedly be very diverse. And so, as instructors we need to be conscious of modes of communication that may have cultural relevance to a student - even though they may not be the academically accepted forms of communication - so as not to marginalize the student or their culture while at the same time doing our best to show that student the benefits of academic conventions.
Lastly, let me just say that I have personally witnessed the benefits of direct instruction complemented by indirect instruction during six semesters study of the French Language. As we would listen to native speakers (direct instruction), we were better suited to understand and recognize our own mistakes through supplemental (or indirect) instruction and thereby improve our acquisition.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Bottom-up to Top-down: Can we switch?
This chapter reminded me of Psychology class during my senior year of high school because I have to approach the content the same way. I am going to face difficulty trying to explain this, but here goes:
Take Piaget's theory of cognitive development for example. While learning about this principle, I had to rely heavily on others' research, and while their findings were interesting, I would have liked some sort of example so that I could wrap my head around the concepts. I wish I could have remembered my own cognitive development.
Anyway, Williams's lesson about how we learn to read and write made me feel the same way. I have to believe what researchers find because I cannot really remember what the experience was like for myself. And now what? Now that science has found the best way to teach reading and writing, is the elementary school curriculum going to change to a top-down method?
Even at my tender age of 21, it is amazing to see how things change just during one lifetime. In ten years, I wonder if kids will still take spelling tests. I wonder if college kids will read over one another's essays and poke fun at the spelling errors with their snide remarks like they do today. It has been so long since I have been in grade school that I wonder if things have already changed. Perhaps my daughter will be able to jilt the spelling test!
Speaking of my daughter, this chapter has inspired me to pay closer attention to the way she makes up stories for her books and "reads" her own writing. She can read and write both of our names (Mommy is my name, though she can write "Katie," too if I remind her how), and other short words. Perhaps Makenzie is the insight I need to grasp this chapter and all the research findings within it. I just need to pay closer attention to her behaviors.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Phonics, Acronyms, and Miscues
The reading on page 157 was somewhat interesting, especially the spelling-to-sound correspondences of phonics. This may be related to the auditory learning type, but I can almost "hear" the syllables as I write and read. For the house example, the third sentence is sort of spoken differently, more "like" a verb, maybe the word progress explains this. As a noun, I think and hear it differently then say, "to progress." Even the words house and House have slight variation in sound, yet this may only be since I've learned the difference of the words, whereas an elementary student may not know. Maybe phonics is on to something here.
D.W. Sipes raises important questions about the invented spelling. Speaking is done without regard to spelling. Also, some of my classes have words translated from other languages and two or more spellings may be acceptable. However, spelling in writing is practically necessary because a misspelling can change the point of word, the meaning of a phrase, and the context of a sentence. In reference to acronyms and internet lingo they have some significance, mainly when time or space is short (g2g--got to go, cya--see you later, etc.). The problem that arises is acronyms often fit more then one combination of words. Take LOL, meaning Lots Of Laughs, which I coincidently was discussing with different peer review classmates quite recently. The point is someone, who is usually familiar with these acronyms, thought LOL meant Lots Of Love, and justifiably so. There is a big difference in meaning between love and laughs, and context may not be there with these acronyms.
I also found the ideas about different error types, miscues (page 160), intriguing--errors of substitution, omission, insertion, and scramble. Substitution almost sound reasonable as the meaning and understanding is still preserved. Omission gives the impression of resulting from trying to process too much at once. Insertion and scrambling also probably result from not being able to process, but seem different, almost a lack of capability or perhaps serious distractions. Knowing these errors and having a plan for correcting them is a valuable asset to any learning experience. I actually know a teacher that almost seems to change pace when omission seems to happen because students cannot keep up. Most teachers will usually move on if the general idea is grasped, etc.
D.W. Sipes raises important questions about the invented spelling. Speaking is done without regard to spelling. Also, some of my classes have words translated from other languages and two or more spellings may be acceptable. However, spelling in writing is practically necessary because a misspelling can change the point of word, the meaning of a phrase, and the context of a sentence. In reference to acronyms and internet lingo they have some significance, mainly when time or space is short (g2g--got to go, cya--see you later, etc.). The problem that arises is acronyms often fit more then one combination of words. Take LOL, meaning Lots Of Laughs, which I coincidently was discussing with different peer review classmates quite recently. The point is someone, who is usually familiar with these acronyms, thought LOL meant Lots Of Love, and justifiably so. There is a big difference in meaning between love and laughs, and context may not be there with these acronyms.
I also found the ideas about different error types, miscues (page 160), intriguing--errors of substitution, omission, insertion, and scramble. Substitution almost sound reasonable as the meaning and understanding is still preserved. Omission gives the impression of resulting from trying to process too much at once. Insertion and scrambling also probably result from not being able to process, but seem different, almost a lack of capability or perhaps serious distractions. Knowing these errors and having a plan for correcting them is a valuable asset to any learning experience. I actually know a teacher that almost seems to change pace when omission seems to happen because students cannot keep up. Most teachers will usually move on if the general idea is grasped, etc.
Blog 6
I thought this chapter was very interesting. I especially enjoyed the parts about the acquisition of language in very young children. I never really stopped to think about that before. I have no children of my own, and I was much too young at the time to remember anything from experience. It seems so daunting, but we all learned at least one language growing up. The prospect of being placed in a non-English-speaking country without any prior knowledge of the language is frightening to me, and yet, at the very outset of our lives, that is what happened. When we learned to speak, we picked up words, phrases, usages, and sentence structure just by listening. I can no longer find the page, but somewhere in the chapter it mentions that we do not hear sentences and repeat them to get our point across to our audience. Instead, we autonomously put pieces of a language together to form our own ideas.
When we were in class a few weeks ago, the question arose about the difference between two of Noam Chomsky's passages that seemed contradictory. In class, I felt as if I could understand the differences between the two quotes and I did not think they conflicted, but I could not successfully put my reasoning into words. There is a quote on page 166, however, that I think sums up the difference nicely. Williams writes, "Linguists have long noted that "acquiring" language is different from "learning" it. Acquisition involves the unconscious assimilation of language, whereas learning involves the conscious mastery of knowledge about language." I like the way this passage is phrased, and I like the point that it makes. We acquire language at a young age through our surroundings, but it takes conscious effort to hone our abilities.
-edit to add-
I recently began reading a work by Noam Chomsky called Powers and Prospects, and in it, Chomsky continues the idea of acquiring language at a young age and using it autonomously to form new thoughts and new sentences. He writes, "This 'notion of structure' in the mind of the speaker finds its way there without instruction. There would be no way to teach it to anyone, even if we knew what it is; parents certainly don't, and linguists have only limited understanding of what is a very hard problem, only recently studied beyond the surface of phenomena. The 'notion of structure' somehow grows in the mind, providing the means for infinite use, for the ability to form and comprehend free expressions" (7-8). I think this quote also goes along with the seeming contradiction discussed in class about Chomsky's views on both acquiring language and teaching/learning language. To reiterate the point I mentioned in the paragraph above, we learn through submersion, but we refine through instruction.
Blog 6: Reading and Writing
"It appears that the ability to read and the ability to write manifest themselves at about the same time, but usually not at the same pace; language production always seems to lag behind language comprehension, even in adults," (Williams 152). If language production lags behind language comprehension, then does that mean a bunch of people are wandering around not really knowing what they are saying? Of course we have heard kids say, "Boobies!" or "Shit!", not knowing what they are really saying, but what about in adults? For children, we expect this behavior because it is associated with their age and place in society. It's even "cute" for a child to utter something funny or out of place. For adults, however, society is not so forgiving. If an adult were to use a racial slur or say something offensive, producing language, but not comprehending it, the result would be much different.
Totally switching gears, another quote that I sat and pondered was regarding reading motivation in children. "Even very bright children who lacks motivation may not begin to show significant gains in reading until late in the second grade. Writing normally will not begin to develop until sometime in the third grade," (Williams 153). Going into secondary English education, I will not be dealing with "beginner" readers to the same degree that an elementary education teacher would. However, I will still come in contact with students who lack motivation, and as a result will not achieve to their full potential, possibly even putting them below the proficiency target. The older a child gets, if they are not receiving the kind of help they need to be a successful reader, how greatly is their writing also being effected? If writing is developed after reading, then an 8th grader, reading on a 5th grade level will be writing on a 4th grade level, hypothetically? When it comes to motivation, any teacher worth his salt should employ any and all strategies possible to encourage and engage students in their learning. Nothing should hold a student back, not even a learning disability, from being a proficient and hopefully an excellent reader and writer.
Totally switching gears, another quote that I sat and pondered was regarding reading motivation in children. "Even very bright children who lacks motivation may not begin to show significant gains in reading until late in the second grade. Writing normally will not begin to develop until sometime in the third grade," (Williams 153). Going into secondary English education, I will not be dealing with "beginner" readers to the same degree that an elementary education teacher would. However, I will still come in contact with students who lack motivation, and as a result will not achieve to their full potential, possibly even putting them below the proficiency target. The older a child gets, if they are not receiving the kind of help they need to be a successful reader, how greatly is their writing also being effected? If writing is developed after reading, then an 8th grader, reading on a 5th grade level will be writing on a 4th grade level, hypothetically? When it comes to motivation, any teacher worth his salt should employ any and all strategies possible to encourage and engage students in their learning. Nothing should hold a student back, not even a learning disability, from being a proficient and hopefully an excellent reader and writer.
I'll talk to you the next time I see you, or TTYL
Interesting chapter. I’ve always questioned the validity of reading out loud in the classroom setting. For some reason, I’ve always found it difficult to retain focus on what I was reading. My focus was so concentrated on properly pronouncing the words, and paying attention to pauses, that understanding the text itself was immediately jettisoned. I often felt that I was the only one who wasn’t “getting it.” But as Williams points out in this chapter, this is nothing rare at all. All up-and-coming educators should pay attention to this.
It is also interesting that Williams elaborates on the political issues that have sculpted our models of teaching: phonics vs. whole language. I found one passage extremely philosophically engaging, or at the least, interesting: “students were invited to use “invented spelling,” which was understood to make writing and reading more fun, creative, and interesting for students” (156-157). I’m not exactly certain how I feel about this. As I sat at work yesterday reading this chapter, I began to debate (in my mind) when and where is the proper time to, essentially, be proper? It drives me mad decoding emails and Facebook comments from my younger relatives that appear to be written in a foreign language. It always seemed lazy. I didn’t admit defeat and begin to write “c-ya” at the close of an email until the mid-2000s, but internet lingo appeared heartless and rushed, and I refused to do it. But the problem is not laziness; it is my own desire not to adjust to it. A ;), or a TTYL, leaves nothing ambiguous at all. I can understand (if I take the time to look it up) exactly what they say. Perhaps the idea of “invented spelling” is not too far from this concept. At what point SHOULD we become concerned with technicalities rather than content? Children say the funniest things, but younger children are rarely funny when they write. Sure, some will debate me on this idea, but I am not counting adolescent “charm” within the parameter. Perhaps, it is their concern with being right grammatically that prohibits them from fluid writing (much like reading out loud can prohibit comprehension).
It is also interesting that Williams elaborates on the political issues that have sculpted our models of teaching: phonics vs. whole language. I found one passage extremely philosophically engaging, or at the least, interesting: “students were invited to use “invented spelling,” which was understood to make writing and reading more fun, creative, and interesting for students” (156-157). I’m not exactly certain how I feel about this. As I sat at work yesterday reading this chapter, I began to debate (in my mind) when and where is the proper time to, essentially, be proper? It drives me mad decoding emails and Facebook comments from my younger relatives that appear to be written in a foreign language. It always seemed lazy. I didn’t admit defeat and begin to write “c-ya” at the close of an email until the mid-2000s, but internet lingo appeared heartless and rushed, and I refused to do it. But the problem is not laziness; it is my own desire not to adjust to it. A ;), or a TTYL, leaves nothing ambiguous at all. I can understand (if I take the time to look it up) exactly what they say. Perhaps the idea of “invented spelling” is not too far from this concept. At what point SHOULD we become concerned with technicalities rather than content? Children say the funniest things, but younger children are rarely funny when they write. Sure, some will debate me on this idea, but I am not counting adolescent “charm” within the parameter. Perhaps, it is their concern with being right grammatically that prohibits them from fluid writing (much like reading out loud can prohibit comprehension).
blog 6
I wondered as I was reading this chapter how I could apply the differing theories of "phonics" versus "the whole language approach" into my secondary classroom. Student-led read alouds is one strategy that many teachers apply in their classroom. This provides the teacher with two concrete goals for effective reading: (1) the students actually read the material; and (2) the material can be explicated as it is read. As Williams points out good readers pause to ponder meaning while they are reading. However, with all student read alouds, I often find myself struggling to pay attention. Read alouds can be very motivating and effective if spoken by someone who is familiar with the material and takes it upon themself to establish their own concept of the story's tone. Students reading material aloud for the first time cannot be expected to meet this criteria. On a first reading, they are struggling to make sense of the words and the content and in their tone, often, it shows. So, with limited time, how do we make read alouds more exciting? One strategy could be asking students to read the material beforehand and then, read it aloud. Unfortunately, I fear this strategy may be too idealistic. Students are likely to not read the material at all. The teacher could read every other section. This way, the students could, perhaps, catch onto the tone.
Williams raises a great million dollar question in this section: "How do we get our students to want to read?"
Many students express how much "they hate reading". So, I think a more pragmatic question in this case is, "how do we get them not to hate it quite so much?" Most of the books in the school's curriculum are quite boring and worse, reading skills that they already proclaim to hate are continually tested and tested and retested. Falling "below basic" in reading skills may be a dent in a teacher's reputation, but certainly, not of any importance to a student who proclaims that such a skill is boring and useless anyways. In order to make them better readers, we must find a way to insert books our students might actually enjoy alongside Thomas Paine and Shakespeare.
Williams raises a great million dollar question in this section: "How do we get our students to want to read?"
Many students express how much "they hate reading". So, I think a more pragmatic question in this case is, "how do we get them not to hate it quite so much?" Most of the books in the school's curriculum are quite boring and worse, reading skills that they already proclaim to hate are continually tested and tested and retested. Falling "below basic" in reading skills may be a dent in a teacher's reputation, but certainly, not of any importance to a student who proclaims that such a skill is boring and useless anyways. In order to make them better readers, we must find a way to insert books our students might actually enjoy alongside Thomas Paine and Shakespeare.
blog 6
I've got to say, this was a helpful chapter. And explained why I didn't learn a whole lot when we read out loud in school. It makes total sense that if you continue to interrupt a reading and constantly focus on pronunciation that you're going to distract that reader from the actual content. I agreed with Kelly's comment in her post about the same thing happening to a writer so caught up in word choice and editing.
I also related to the section where Williams' talks about comprehension. I've read plenty of texts where I know every single word, but the meaning? Forget it... If a kid can pronounce a word but doesn't know what the sentence means, what good is this doing him? But, as always, a happy medium is key: pronunciation and error-free spelling are equally important if one is going to master reading and writing. A healthy dose of phonics and whole language are probably anyone's best bet for becoming a better reader and writer.
I also related to the section where Williams' talks about comprehension. I've read plenty of texts where I know every single word, but the meaning? Forget it... If a kid can pronounce a word but doesn't know what the sentence means, what good is this doing him? But, as always, a happy medium is key: pronunciation and error-free spelling are equally important if one is going to master reading and writing. A healthy dose of phonics and whole language are probably anyone's best bet for becoming a better reader and writer.
Williams 151-170
Williams raises the question of how correcting a child while they are reading aloud is detrimental to their comprehension of the reading. This is perhaps the first place that students learn to edit while writing therefore hindering their writing process. While it is important for students to be able to correctly read and identify words, it falls on the teacher to know how to correct a student without sacrificing their ability to comprehend the words that they are reading. "If reading proceeds too slowly, comprehension becomes extremely difficult, and error correction, by its very nature, slows reading down." (pg. 159) The same can be said for a writer who stops and ponders word choice or spelling therefore sacrificing a train of thought that could have turned their writing into a thoughtful and fully developed piece of work instead of a paper free from errors but also free from any useful meaning or content.
"...Once [children] reach the toddler stage parents expect them to begin communicating through speech, and gestures are no longer as readily acceptable as communicative acts." (pg 151) In my experience as a parent, the stage in which a child is able to verbalize a limited amount of communication leads to frustration for the child. The child knows what he wants to communicate and failed attempts to effectively communicate their needs to the parents cause the child to throw a tantrum, for example. This reminds me of a writer in their early stages. The writer knows what she wants to communicate, the thoughts are in her head and she can even verbalize her thought process, but when it comes to writing these thoughts down on paper, oftentimes, the written words do not do justice to what the writer was attempting to communicate.
On a completely different note, I took note to an error in Williams' reasoning on page 166, where he was discrediting Krashen's "reading hypothesis proposal", in which Krashen asserts that "all good writing will have done large amounts of pleasure reading." Williams asserts that "Some of the worst writers comes from university professors, all of whom are well read." Williams fails to take into account that Krashen's proposal states "pleasure reading" and there is no evidence to suggest that all university professors read for pleasure. I don't necessarily disagree with Krashen but I feel that Williams' argument is a bit weak on this particular stance.
"...Once [children] reach the toddler stage parents expect them to begin communicating through speech, and gestures are no longer as readily acceptable as communicative acts." (pg 151) In my experience as a parent, the stage in which a child is able to verbalize a limited amount of communication leads to frustration for the child. The child knows what he wants to communicate and failed attempts to effectively communicate their needs to the parents cause the child to throw a tantrum, for example. This reminds me of a writer in their early stages. The writer knows what she wants to communicate, the thoughts are in her head and she can even verbalize her thought process, but when it comes to writing these thoughts down on paper, oftentimes, the written words do not do justice to what the writer was attempting to communicate.
On a completely different note, I took note to an error in Williams' reasoning on page 166, where he was discrediting Krashen's "reading hypothesis proposal", in which Krashen asserts that "all good writing will have done large amounts of pleasure reading." Williams asserts that "Some of the worst writers comes from university professors, all of whom are well read." Williams fails to take into account that Krashen's proposal states "pleasure reading" and there is no evidence to suggest that all university professors read for pleasure. I don't necessarily disagree with Krashen but I feel that Williams' argument is a bit weak on this particular stance.
Pages 151-170, WIlliams
This chapter gave me a bit more insight into how children learn to read and write, and how that can affect adolescence. I learned that (which makes sense to me now) children have little motivation to read and write. "Friends and play usually- and rightly- are their first priorities. The brightest child will choose playing with a friend to reading an exciting book({Kindle ed. p 3490-95})". And then, as a child grows older, their pleasure in reading will decrease. The argument of whether children should be taught by phonics or the whole language continues to be a question that needs answered. Because every child is different, thus learns a little differently, I do not think that the parties will ever come to a conclusion. The chapter does a very good job of deciphering the separate spheres of phonics(bottom up) and whole language(top down). It highlights the positives and negatives of each. It would be mildly interesting for the class to have a debate on this topic. I think there are pros and cons to these theories that could be argued.
WIlliams also discussed the connection between reading skill and writing ability. The idea that "composition skill is similar to second-language : Mastery requires comprehensible input over an extended time({Kindle ed. p 3758-64})" makes sense. For each of these, composition skills and to learn a second language, you have to have the basic steps learned before you can add to your skill-set.
WIlliams also discussed the connection between reading skill and writing ability. The idea that "composition skill is similar to second-language : Mastery requires comprehensible input over an extended time({Kindle ed. p 3758-64})" makes sense. For each of these, composition skills and to learn a second language, you have to have the basic steps learned before you can add to your skill-set.
Post from Mark
This is a wonderful exploration into what constitutes the “right” reading pedagogy. Williams, again, provides a fairly well-rounded background of the genesis and evolution of different theories for literacy development. I really like the way Williams enlightens us to the notion of political forces playing such huge role in implemented pedagogies; the fact is very sad. Where the separation between whole language and phonics is concerned, I could not help but feel compelled to side with the way in which I was taught. Objectively though I guess I felt compelled to consider each side.
There seem to be a strong logic in the “decoding” aspect of phonics (155). We can imagine a child developing skills which allow for the uncovering of meaning in a sentence, or, even deeper, the sounds of letters within words and meaning derived from such approach. Given this, Flesh’s psycholinguistic theory works for my understanding of literacy development.
Whole-language possesses an appeal of almost accepting that the phonics people missed something –the extent of meaning in a word. The examples of the way the word, “house” operates in different ways in sentences shows clearly what seems to be a shortcoming of the phonics side (157). I however like to give credence to the whole-language people as far as the extended meanings of words. But such a paradigm for reading pedagogy cannot capture the complexity of language alone—neither side can. Therein lays the trouble with these systems. Linguistics calls into play a myriad of cognitive operations which co-work together in intricate ways.
I can think back to reading on Wittgenstein and his criticism of St Augustine’s views on the ways in which a child comes to know language. St Augustine likens the process to a strange coming into a new country language and trying to learn the language with no background of it (A.D. 39-38). Wittgenstein argues that the child in ST. Augustine’s model does not already possess a language as Augustine implied. The notion applies itself to a common language and does not account for variables in the constructs of different languages. In this respect, one can see how the whole language people may adopt or point to segment of Wittgenstein’s linguistics in order to support their stance. After all Wittgenstein’s philosophy may show what the whole language people are re-demonstrating. But nevertheless, considering the limits of a bottom-up method of phonics approach, we can see how meaning or the extent of possible meanings of words can go far beyond that allowed for in such approach.
Still, whole language opens Pandora’s Box in the sense that it may jeopardize the very framework of the language by allowing for local interpretations of meanings and even pronunciation of words (155). We are confronted, then, with the dangers of such a liberal ideology. The question remains whether or not the rigidity of phonics’ conservatism will accommodate the vastness of meaning in words .As well, can whole-language completely dilute the very framework of our language? I think, as a pedagogy, we cannot settle on one over the other, completely.
There seem to be a strong logic in the “decoding” aspect of phonics (155). We can imagine a child developing skills which allow for the uncovering of meaning in a sentence, or, even deeper, the sounds of letters within words and meaning derived from such approach. Given this, Flesh’s psycholinguistic theory works for my understanding of literacy development.
Whole-language possesses an appeal of almost accepting that the phonics people missed something –the extent of meaning in a word. The examples of the way the word, “house” operates in different ways in sentences shows clearly what seems to be a shortcoming of the phonics side (157). I however like to give credence to the whole-language people as far as the extended meanings of words. But such a paradigm for reading pedagogy cannot capture the complexity of language alone—neither side can. Therein lays the trouble with these systems. Linguistics calls into play a myriad of cognitive operations which co-work together in intricate ways.
I can think back to reading on Wittgenstein and his criticism of St Augustine’s views on the ways in which a child comes to know language. St Augustine likens the process to a strange coming into a new country language and trying to learn the language with no background of it (A.D. 39-38). Wittgenstein argues that the child in ST. Augustine’s model does not already possess a language as Augustine implied. The notion applies itself to a common language and does not account for variables in the constructs of different languages. In this respect, one can see how the whole language people may adopt or point to segment of Wittgenstein’s linguistics in order to support their stance. After all Wittgenstein’s philosophy may show what the whole language people are re-demonstrating. But nevertheless, considering the limits of a bottom-up method of phonics approach, we can see how meaning or the extent of possible meanings of words can go far beyond that allowed for in such approach.
Still, whole language opens Pandora’s Box in the sense that it may jeopardize the very framework of the language by allowing for local interpretations of meanings and even pronunciation of words (155). We are confronted, then, with the dangers of such a liberal ideology. The question remains whether or not the rigidity of phonics’ conservatism will accommodate the vastness of meaning in words .As well, can whole-language completely dilute the very framework of our language? I think, as a pedagogy, we cannot settle on one over the other, completely.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Reading, Writing and the Senses
Sense. It is a common term and yet, after this week’s reading assignment, it appears to take on a vital role in the reading and writing development of students. I was amazed to discover the relationship between the utilization of senses and it effect on reading and writing. Yet, it makes perfect sense that the senses should play a central role in reading and writing since both activities seek to evoke a response. In this blog, I will elaborate on this relationship.
Last week, we discussed how writing should really be dubbed the composing process so that students, parents, teachers and school systems can better appreciate writing. In my blog from last week, I discussed how the term composing correlates with art and music, which seek to evoke an emotional response from a given audience. I was struck with how writing, music and art all utilize the composing process which seeks to stimulate within an audience member a particular sense which evokes an emotional response. Basically, the writer and artist’s work attract the visual components of a viewer (solidary reader), while music and writing (via reading out loud, theatrical productions, poetry slams, speeches) seek to draw in the audience through their olfactory sense. Hence, audience members who first use their ears are dubbed listeners. Writers seek to utilize both the hearing and visual senses so that their readers can either directly (from reading) or indirectly (from listening to a reader) visualize the situation in order to form a response. Thus, this chapter highlights that reading and writing is based on the progression of one’s development of his or her senses.
Williams writes that “Abstract ‘pictures’ can represent words and convey meaning. With this discovery, they have taken the first step toward reading, and it isn’t long before they are able to match individual written words with the things these words designate” (Williams 151). The reader learns that the child first develops his or her visual sense to describe a word or message. This development of the visual senses starts early. For example, “Infants in the pretoddler stage are very good at conveying their wants and needs through gestures, but once they reach the toddler stage parents expect them to begin communicating through speech, and gestures are no longer as readily accepted as communicative acts” (151). In this statement, Williams is highlighting that older infants are picking up visual cues and communicating back with visual gestures that both they and their audience know and can appropriately respond. Once they become toddlers, they start to develop their olfactory sense. However, the toddler still heavily relies on the visual sense to communicate his or her desire. Williams agrees stating “a child may utter the word ball and reach toward it, indicating that she wants the ball” (151). Though the toddler in this example verbally asks for ball (which shows how her olfactory sense has started to develop and both her and her parents try to adjust to her utterances [which at times will be incoherent]), she still relies on her already well developed sense of vision to evoke emotion from her parents. Thus, “they [children] take great pleasure in seeing their names in writing. They frequently will ask their parents to write their names for them. Soon… they become eager to take up the pen and paper themselves” (152).
Williams also discusses the idea of “mental models” and “mental representation” (157, 163). As children further develop their senses, they are soon able to produce vivid images while either reading or writing. During the first few weeks of class, Dr. Kearney asked us what we saw when she said a word. The one word (which escapes me at the moment) evoked a variety of descriptive reactions. Then she asked us what we visualized when we heard the term “nevertheless.” Most of us said we either visualized the word or nothing. Thus, this exercise highlighted the point Williams point that these mental images are vital to the reading and writing process since it aids in our comprehension of texts and aids the writer in producing enough pathetic proof (pathos) to evoke a reader’s emotion and understanding. Mental images reveal that since “the experiences of any two people rarely if ever match exactly” a writer must be willing to be descriptive so that the reader can somehow formulate a similar image in order to understand a particular situation (157). Thus, readers and writers must be willing to try out different “mental models” before a text is either accepted or rejected and dubbed “incomprehensible” (158).
While in high school, my sophomore English teacher tried to teach us this point. Every Monday was Pictionary Monday. We followed the game’s traditional rules and each team fought hard to win the prize. At the time, I found the game frustrating because I was a terrible drawer (still am) and I was worried that my team would lose because they would not be able to figure out the word from my picture. However, while reading this week’s chapter, I saw the beauty of this exercise. Our teacher was teaching us to try out different ways to draw an image which would be understood (and decoded) by a teammate(s). This game highlights William’s point that “additional encounters with the utterance (or in the case of Pictionary, drawing) of gull (house, etc.), furthermore, will modify the child’s existing phonetic (visual) representation, shifting it closer to the adult (general society) representation” (163). In other words, as the student’s development of olfactory and visual senses continues, students will be able through the use of different expressions or images to convey a particular meaning to their audience. Thus, “when children see the words gull and house without a context, they are able to assign a meaning to these words, although the meaning to these words, although the meaning will be linked to the associated mental representation… available” (163).
This chapter was very educational and I was excited to see how strong a role the development of senses play in the reading and writing process. I think that the portion on utilization of the internet was equally interesting! I was excited to see another example of simulation on the bottom of page 167! I will miss our class discussion this Thursday but I look forward to the next one! If anyone is interested in ever presenting at a conference, I strongly recommend the following two websites:
http://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/
http://www.h-net.org/announce/group.cgi?type=CFPs
Last week, we discussed how writing should really be dubbed the composing process so that students, parents, teachers and school systems can better appreciate writing. In my blog from last week, I discussed how the term composing correlates with art and music, which seek to evoke an emotional response from a given audience. I was struck with how writing, music and art all utilize the composing process which seeks to stimulate within an audience member a particular sense which evokes an emotional response. Basically, the writer and artist’s work attract the visual components of a viewer (solidary reader), while music and writing (via reading out loud, theatrical productions, poetry slams, speeches) seek to draw in the audience through their olfactory sense. Hence, audience members who first use their ears are dubbed listeners. Writers seek to utilize both the hearing and visual senses so that their readers can either directly (from reading) or indirectly (from listening to a reader) visualize the situation in order to form a response. Thus, this chapter highlights that reading and writing is based on the progression of one’s development of his or her senses.
Williams writes that “Abstract ‘pictures’ can represent words and convey meaning. With this discovery, they have taken the first step toward reading, and it isn’t long before they are able to match individual written words with the things these words designate” (Williams 151). The reader learns that the child first develops his or her visual sense to describe a word or message. This development of the visual senses starts early. For example, “Infants in the pretoddler stage are very good at conveying their wants and needs through gestures, but once they reach the toddler stage parents expect them to begin communicating through speech, and gestures are no longer as readily accepted as communicative acts” (151). In this statement, Williams is highlighting that older infants are picking up visual cues and communicating back with visual gestures that both they and their audience know and can appropriately respond. Once they become toddlers, they start to develop their olfactory sense. However, the toddler still heavily relies on the visual sense to communicate his or her desire. Williams agrees stating “a child may utter the word ball and reach toward it, indicating that she wants the ball” (151). Though the toddler in this example verbally asks for ball (which shows how her olfactory sense has started to develop and both her and her parents try to adjust to her utterances [which at times will be incoherent]), she still relies on her already well developed sense of vision to evoke emotion from her parents. Thus, “they [children] take great pleasure in seeing their names in writing. They frequently will ask their parents to write their names for them. Soon… they become eager to take up the pen and paper themselves” (152).
Williams also discusses the idea of “mental models” and “mental representation” (157, 163). As children further develop their senses, they are soon able to produce vivid images while either reading or writing. During the first few weeks of class, Dr. Kearney asked us what we saw when she said a word. The one word (which escapes me at the moment) evoked a variety of descriptive reactions. Then she asked us what we visualized when we heard the term “nevertheless.” Most of us said we either visualized the word or nothing. Thus, this exercise highlighted the point Williams point that these mental images are vital to the reading and writing process since it aids in our comprehension of texts and aids the writer in producing enough pathetic proof (pathos) to evoke a reader’s emotion and understanding. Mental images reveal that since “the experiences of any two people rarely if ever match exactly” a writer must be willing to be descriptive so that the reader can somehow formulate a similar image in order to understand a particular situation (157). Thus, readers and writers must be willing to try out different “mental models” before a text is either accepted or rejected and dubbed “incomprehensible” (158).
While in high school, my sophomore English teacher tried to teach us this point. Every Monday was Pictionary Monday. We followed the game’s traditional rules and each team fought hard to win the prize. At the time, I found the game frustrating because I was a terrible drawer (still am) and I was worried that my team would lose because they would not be able to figure out the word from my picture. However, while reading this week’s chapter, I saw the beauty of this exercise. Our teacher was teaching us to try out different ways to draw an image which would be understood (and decoded) by a teammate(s). This game highlights William’s point that “additional encounters with the utterance (or in the case of Pictionary, drawing) of gull (house, etc.), furthermore, will modify the child’s existing phonetic (visual) representation, shifting it closer to the adult (general society) representation” (163). In other words, as the student’s development of olfactory and visual senses continues, students will be able through the use of different expressions or images to convey a particular meaning to their audience. Thus, “when children see the words gull and house without a context, they are able to assign a meaning to these words, although the meaning to these words, although the meaning will be linked to the associated mental representation… available” (163).
This chapter was very educational and I was excited to see how strong a role the development of senses play in the reading and writing process. I think that the portion on utilization of the internet was equally interesting! I was excited to see another example of simulation on the bottom of page 167! I will miss our class discussion this Thursday but I look forward to the next one! If anyone is interested in ever presenting at a conference, I strongly recommend the following two websites:
http://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/
http://www.h-net.org/announce/group.cgi?type=CFPs
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)