This course, overall, has changed the way I think about writing as a process and a product of language made material. I love how Christina Haas writes, “Through writing, the physical, time-and-space world of tools and artifacts is joined to the symbolic world of language,” (p. 3). I have never thought about using tools to write before. I guess things like pens and computers are so much a part of what I use every day that I no longer think of them as tools the same way I think of a hammer or a spatula as being tools. Of course, it is true that writing cannot exist without tools—both material tools and language (thinking). I guess I have always thought more of writing itself as being a tool as Haas mentions in reference to Vygotsky’s “psychological tools.”
I suppose I am guilty of having thought of technology as merely a tool—the computer as simply a way of recording information (mainly writing for classes or sending email). Now that I examine it as more than just a tool I understand that “technology is not transparent.” This should be quite evident to me since I have come to produce writing with more ease and at a much faster pace when I am typing versus handwriting.
I remember making the transition from composing by hand to composing through typing sometime around my first semester in college (which would have been my senior year in high school, but I graduate a year early). Up until that time, whenever I had to write a paper I would arm myself with a well-sharpened pencil and a nice padding of notebook paper. I had a computer so I could have initially composed on it, but I was better at thinking with pencil. Once I had finished my writing and made any changes necessary, I would produce my final copy on the computer. In this sense, the computer merely served as a tool for polishing my words and making it presentable. I can remember being in college and the computer became a sort of extension of my thinking, allowing me to out thoughts down quickly and move/delete/add just as quickly instead of all the messy erasing, arrows and scratch marks on notebook paper. Now when I use the computer to compose, there are so many tools available—Microsoft word (or other word processors), the Internet, spell check, auto-formatting, on-line translators, dictionaries, grammar check….
One tool which is one of my favorite is the Post-it © Note! I think these little pieces of paper with a sticky strip on the back have changed a lot about writing and thinking for people. Just think of all the countless ways they are used—from reminders to do something or buy something, to leave a note for someone, to add paragraphs to compositions, for students to record their thinking while reading, etc. (Not to mention, they can help level a wobbly table or keep your cell phone battery in place). Post-it © Notes have even made their way onto computers. You can now write yourself a note on your computer on a yellow square which resembles a Post-it © Note (I don’t use this feature, I prefer the actual piece of paper stuck to my monitor).
All of this talk about technology makes me reexamine the way technology is used in the classroom. In the past I haven’t incorporated technology as much as I would have liked to. Part of this has to do with the number of computers available and having the time to set everything up. I would like to think about ways that technology can be used in the classroom besides to publish or use the Internet.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Orality and Literacy: A Symposium in Honor of David Olson
This week’s reading has really opened my eyes to how much has to happen for kids to write. I have never spent this much time thinking about how speaking and writing are connected. It also makes me realize how many kids don’t realize the connection either. I have been working with 4th graders a lot lately and there are quite a few who you can’t just say to them, “What you can say, you can write.” This is all in addition to the complex set of rules writers must learn which include spelling, punctuation, paragraphing, etc.
In “Oral Discourse in a World of Literacy.” Olson writes that “ones ‘writing vocabulary’ vastly exceeds one’s ‘speaking vocabulary’,” (p. 140). I would have to question this in relation to kids. It seems to me that their speaking vocabulary would be larger if not for the sheer fact that they will get stuck on spelling (aside from getting stuck on all the ‘other’ things). Later Olson goes on to say, “Learning to write is learning to compensate for what is lost in the act of simple transcription of speech,” (p. 142). I understand what he is saying, especially after reading his book (in which he repeats and repeats and repeats); however, I don’t think that this is how kids view learning to write, at least not all the time.
Commenting on the rest of the “Research in the Teaching of English” articles, I think it’s interesting how James Paul Gee points out the grammatical features of the sentence “Lung cancer death rates are clearly associated with an increase in smoking.” It’s also interesting for me to consider that I would write this statement in a very different way from how I would say it. Either way, written or spoken, my choice of words and phrasing would depend on my audience. The way the sentence is written right now sounds academic. Academic writing is kind of like a genre in of itself which sets itself apart from other genres because of word choice and phrasing. It seems that we are always making choices on how to relay information (verbally or written). The content might not change but the delivery may change depending on the context. For example, writing in this blog takes on a different form than if I were to write a paper for class or talk about the same information in class. I am also reminded of how at work I constantly make decisions about how to tell or ask someone something. I may decide to send an email, to call the person or to speak to them in person. This decision depends largely on what I need to say or ask and/or how much time it will require.
In Martin Nystrand’s article, “Rendering Messages According to the Affordances of Language in Communities of Practice,” I would like to comment on when he says, “We now know, however, that writing emerged as a mode of language completely unrelated to the need to transport speech; writing developed not to ‘preserve language across space and through time’…but rather to enable language in remote contexts of use,” (p. 161). This makes me think of the Lascaux Cave Paitings which date back to somewhere between 13,000 and 15,000 B.C. Was this not writing? What was the purpose—to communicate, preserve life, create a record or to express?
In “Oral Discourse in a World of Literacy.” Olson writes that “ones ‘writing vocabulary’ vastly exceeds one’s ‘speaking vocabulary’,” (p. 140). I would have to question this in relation to kids. It seems to me that their speaking vocabulary would be larger if not for the sheer fact that they will get stuck on spelling (aside from getting stuck on all the ‘other’ things). Later Olson goes on to say, “Learning to write is learning to compensate for what is lost in the act of simple transcription of speech,” (p. 142). I understand what he is saying, especially after reading his book (in which he repeats and repeats and repeats); however, I don’t think that this is how kids view learning to write, at least not all the time.
Commenting on the rest of the “Research in the Teaching of English” articles, I think it’s interesting how James Paul Gee points out the grammatical features of the sentence “Lung cancer death rates are clearly associated with an increase in smoking.” It’s also interesting for me to consider that I would write this statement in a very different way from how I would say it. Either way, written or spoken, my choice of words and phrasing would depend on my audience. The way the sentence is written right now sounds academic. Academic writing is kind of like a genre in of itself which sets itself apart from other genres because of word choice and phrasing. It seems that we are always making choices on how to relay information (verbally or written). The content might not change but the delivery may change depending on the context. For example, writing in this blog takes on a different form than if I were to write a paper for class or talk about the same information in class. I am also reminded of how at work I constantly make decisions about how to tell or ask someone something. I may decide to send an email, to call the person or to speak to them in person. This decision depends largely on what I need to say or ask and/or how much time it will require.
In Martin Nystrand’s article, “Rendering Messages According to the Affordances of Language in Communities of Practice,” I would like to comment on when he says, “We now know, however, that writing emerged as a mode of language completely unrelated to the need to transport speech; writing developed not to ‘preserve language across space and through time’…but rather to enable language in remote contexts of use,” (p. 161). This makes me think of the Lascaux Cave Paitings which date back to somewhere between 13,000 and 15,000 B.C. Was this not writing? What was the purpose—to communicate, preserve life, create a record or to express?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The World On Paper
Chapters 1-5
I have really enjoyed reading David R. Olson’s The World on Paper (1994). I am very fascinated by the questions this book raises as well as the historical accounts he provides. Olson’s writing has caused me to shift my thinking about writing. Before reading, I had never really considered the relationship between speech and writing. If you would have asked me before which is superior, I would have answered “Writing, of course!” without giving it a second thought. Now, I cannot answer that question. Even though this book is about writing, it has definitely given me a new appreciation of orality and cultures that value it. It is easy for me to think of our American culture to be more civilized and advanced, and therefore superior to other cultures, especially those residing in Third World countries. Olson (1994) reminds me, however, that “All cultures are, by definition, successful; if they were not they would not have survived,” (p. xv). Wow! Right from the beginning I had to alter my thinking and consider different perspectives.
One notion I find very interesting is how Olson examines the influence of writing on how we think. I am currently taking Psycholinguistics with Diane Schallert. In that class we consider how language influences our thinking. It seems very appropriate to be taking these two classes together (as are 3 other classmates). I think Olson made an interesting point when he said, “Even if we grant that thinking indeed has a history and that literacy could have played a part in it we still have to assign a priority to social changes as opposed to psychological changes,” (p. 25). I hadn’t considered the influence of outside forces, such as urbanization, on thinking.
Olson states that “Learning to read and write is at best a mere introduction to the world of literacy,” (p. 41). As an elementary school teacher, I know that teaching young students to read and write is much more than a skill they will need in their lifetime. Even though I know they won’t all go on to college, I would like to think they will all continue to use literacy in ways in which they must “exploit the resources of a written tradition,” (p. 64). I like Olson’s description of literacy on page 43. He writes that “Literacy is not just a basic set of mental skills isolated from everything else. It is the competence to exploit a particular set of cultural resources. It is the evolution of those resources in conjunction with the knowledge and skill to exploit those resources for particular purposes that makes up literacy.” Sometimes it is hard to communicate these functions of literacy to young students, especially when so much time is spent on getting them ready to pass the TAKS test (a whole other issue which I will not go into right now).
The way Olson highlights the importance and value of speech makes me think about those students who can tell you a wonderful story with lots of great ideas but when it comes time to writing that story down, they can only manage a couple of sentences. I would like to find a way to value the oral discourse they are capable of, but also find a way to help them get those thoughts on paper while preserving their ideas. (Any thoughts or suggestions???)
Something else this book reminded me of was the conversation assignment from a couple of weeks ago. As I was transcribing the conversation, I was aware that what I was notating was nothing more than the actual words spoken. I knew there was a lot lost including the intonation, timing and prosody. Olson discussed these same things as being a problem with what text does not represent. After reading his chapter on ”What writing doesn’t represent,” I began to realize that perhaps I have placed too much value on writing. Olson has certainly caused me to think differently about this aspect of literacy.
I have really enjoyed reading David R. Olson’s The World on Paper (1994). I am very fascinated by the questions this book raises as well as the historical accounts he provides. Olson’s writing has caused me to shift my thinking about writing. Before reading, I had never really considered the relationship between speech and writing. If you would have asked me before which is superior, I would have answered “Writing, of course!” without giving it a second thought. Now, I cannot answer that question. Even though this book is about writing, it has definitely given me a new appreciation of orality and cultures that value it. It is easy for me to think of our American culture to be more civilized and advanced, and therefore superior to other cultures, especially those residing in Third World countries. Olson (1994) reminds me, however, that “All cultures are, by definition, successful; if they were not they would not have survived,” (p. xv). Wow! Right from the beginning I had to alter my thinking and consider different perspectives.
One notion I find very interesting is how Olson examines the influence of writing on how we think. I am currently taking Psycholinguistics with Diane Schallert. In that class we consider how language influences our thinking. It seems very appropriate to be taking these two classes together (as are 3 other classmates). I think Olson made an interesting point when he said, “Even if we grant that thinking indeed has a history and that literacy could have played a part in it we still have to assign a priority to social changes as opposed to psychological changes,” (p. 25). I hadn’t considered the influence of outside forces, such as urbanization, on thinking.
Olson states that “Learning to read and write is at best a mere introduction to the world of literacy,” (p. 41). As an elementary school teacher, I know that teaching young students to read and write is much more than a skill they will need in their lifetime. Even though I know they won’t all go on to college, I would like to think they will all continue to use literacy in ways in which they must “exploit the resources of a written tradition,” (p. 64). I like Olson’s description of literacy on page 43. He writes that “Literacy is not just a basic set of mental skills isolated from everything else. It is the competence to exploit a particular set of cultural resources. It is the evolution of those resources in conjunction with the knowledge and skill to exploit those resources for particular purposes that makes up literacy.” Sometimes it is hard to communicate these functions of literacy to young students, especially when so much time is spent on getting them ready to pass the TAKS test (a whole other issue which I will not go into right now).
The way Olson highlights the importance and value of speech makes me think about those students who can tell you a wonderful story with lots of great ideas but when it comes time to writing that story down, they can only manage a couple of sentences. I would like to find a way to value the oral discourse they are capable of, but also find a way to help them get those thoughts on paper while preserving their ideas. (Any thoughts or suggestions???)
Something else this book reminded me of was the conversation assignment from a couple of weeks ago. As I was transcribing the conversation, I was aware that what I was notating was nothing more than the actual words spoken. I knew there was a lot lost including the intonation, timing and prosody. Olson discussed these same things as being a problem with what text does not represent. After reading his chapter on ”What writing doesn’t represent,” I began to realize that perhaps I have placed too much value on writing. Olson has certainly caused me to think differently about this aspect of literacy.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Storytelling Assignment
I tape recorded a story told by my brother, Peyton, about working as a Border Patrol agent in Laredo, Texas. The story was about his first day on the job after he had completed all of his training hours. He and some other agents were tracking a large group of what they thought were people trying to get across the border from Mexico. After spending a couple of hours monitoring, they finally discovered that what they had been tracking was actually a herd of cattle.
We sat across from each other and were the only ones in the room. I noticed that as Peyton was telling the story, he and I made eye contact most of the time. I felt the need to nod my head periodically to let him know I was listening and interested in the story. There were a couple of times that I said “uh-huh” and laughed at the funny parts. I also noticed that I did not interrupt his story to seek clarification or to interject with my own story. I think this is due to the fact that his story was clear and so I did not need clarification. Also, I was careful not to interrupt his story due to the nature of the assignment.
As Peyton was talking I noticed that he used words which were conversational but would probably not have been used if I had asked him to write the story down. These were words like “okay…” and “so...” He kept the story flowing and did not use any filler words such as “umm.” He told the story in a sequential manner but first set up the story by providing background information about what it looks like to track people at night.
Peyton used his hands as he talked. He mostly made non-meaningful gestures but there were a couple of times when his hand movement mimicked the story. An example of this is when he was describing leg movement and he created the same movement with his hands. Peyton also used his eyebrows to show emphasis on parts of the story.
Because the final part of the story was comical, the way Peyton told it reminded me of how someone tells a joke—by spending time setting up the story and then coming out with the punch line. When Peyton revealed the ending of the story, he laughed about it and then showed that the story was over by turning of the tape recorder. This was a visual signal to me that the story was over. After he did this, I made a few comments about the story, but they did not get recorded.
We sat across from each other and were the only ones in the room. I noticed that as Peyton was telling the story, he and I made eye contact most of the time. I felt the need to nod my head periodically to let him know I was listening and interested in the story. There were a couple of times that I said “uh-huh” and laughed at the funny parts. I also noticed that I did not interrupt his story to seek clarification or to interject with my own story. I think this is due to the fact that his story was clear and so I did not need clarification. Also, I was careful not to interrupt his story due to the nature of the assignment.
As Peyton was talking I noticed that he used words which were conversational but would probably not have been used if I had asked him to write the story down. These were words like “okay…” and “so...” He kept the story flowing and did not use any filler words such as “umm.” He told the story in a sequential manner but first set up the story by providing background information about what it looks like to track people at night.
Peyton used his hands as he talked. He mostly made non-meaningful gestures but there were a couple of times when his hand movement mimicked the story. An example of this is when he was describing leg movement and he created the same movement with his hands. Peyton also used his eyebrows to show emphasis on parts of the story.
Because the final part of the story was comical, the way Peyton told it reminded me of how someone tells a joke—by spending time setting up the story and then coming out with the punch line. When Peyton revealed the ending of the story, he laughed about it and then showed that the story was over by turning of the tape recorder. This was a visual signal to me that the story was over. After he did this, I made a few comments about the story, but they did not get recorded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
