I don't watch a lot of television, so I was unfamiliar with a lot of the tv shows Steven Johnson mentions, but I agree with his argument that tv shows are more complex than the credit they receive and they require a lot of thinking on the part of the audience. I have watched most of the Sopranos episodes and part of the reason I enjoy this show so much is because of the complexity and multiple threading. I hadn't thought of this before, but it's a good point.
One thing that Johnson does not mention, but I think is worth noting, is that all of the shows he mentions have also done an outstanding job of character development. No story (on tv, in a movie or in a book) is going to be compelling or effective without its characters. Also, the characters are what drive the plot. When fans of Dallas (a show I have never seen) wrote to express the pleasure they take in the show, wasn't it the characters who they followed and possible identified with? Isn't our emotional attachement to such stories because of our love/dislike of the characters?
I think the same Sleeper Curve which Johnson referes to in reference to tv shows is also happening with movies. Look at some of the best movies to come out recently like "Crash" and "Babel." Of course then again, thank goodness for tv shows and movies which don't require a lot of thinking. There are times when I want to "plug-in" without having to use any mental energy. This is when shows like American Idol or chic flics (like "Bridget Jones's Diary") come in handy. There's a place for each kind of viewing.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Marxism & Reading Education
In response to "A Marxist Reading of Reading Education," a lot of what Patrick Shannon says really hits home with my experiences as a reading teacher. This is especially relevant for those of us who teach at a Reading First school. The entire time I was reading I kept thinking about the infamous Scott Foresman. I don't think Reading First has been an entirely bad experience. I think having a script and all the materials available is really helpful for some, especially first year teachers and alternative certification teachers. I cringe, however, at the thought that experienced teachers who know what they are doing are being asked to follow the script verbatim. Our school district has changed over the last few years in their expectations and strictness for the use of the Scott Foresman reading program. I remember a time two years ago when I taught 3rd grade--at that time we were expected to be using the TE for the same 90 minutes everyday. Basically, the expectation was that if certain people came into your classroom, you would be expected to have the TE open to the page you were supposed to be on based on the Scope and Sequence for that day of the week. If "they" came in during your 90 minutes, you were supposed to be reading from the script. If "they" came in at a different time the TE should still be open but on your desk where it was easily accessible and apparent that you were using it. I remember one day when we had a learning walk (a designated time for "them" to come in) and I had to read from the script while "they" came in. This of course felt so unnatural for me and really wrecked the classroom dialogue.
It seems that if reading instruction is going to be reduced to a commercial reading program, then we don't need to teach teachers how to teach reading. Universities no longer need to offer courses on reading because all that's expected is for teachers to follow a script. (This is of course RIDICULOUS!!!). In addition, why have any reading instruction from real books when kids are going to have to pass a test? Why not just teach kids to read from test-like materials all day long? Afterall, they just have to pass a test, right? (Again, totally RIDICULOUS!!!). I like what Shannon says, "The definition of learning as test scores separates students from the totality of their learning. Reducing teachers and students officially, emotional, cultural, and social attachments to the process of teaching and learning and to each other." Don't we know this already??? And deal with it everyday in the classroom!
It seems that if reading instruction is going to be reduced to a commercial reading program, then we don't need to teach teachers how to teach reading. Universities no longer need to offer courses on reading because all that's expected is for teachers to follow a script. (This is of course RIDICULOUS!!!). In addition, why have any reading instruction from real books when kids are going to have to pass a test? Why not just teach kids to read from test-like materials all day long? Afterall, they just have to pass a test, right? (Again, totally RIDICULOUS!!!). I like what Shannon says, "The definition of learning as test scores separates students from the totality of their learning. Reducing teachers and students officially, emotional, cultural, and social attachments to the process of teaching and learning and to each other." Don't we know this already??? And deal with it everyday in the classroom!
One of my biggest frustrations as a teacher is that I agree with Shannon that teachers should be more political (and not take so much crap) but at the same time when do we have time to do our job AND be politically active? I know we have unions which help us with some of these things, but it is definitely apparent that we need to be doing much more. The question is HOW???
Monday, February 26, 2007
Technology and Writing
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.
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 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.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Conversation Assignment
Conversation Assignment
This is a conversation which took place between five 4th grade students and myself during lunch one day. We were sitting around a large table together and were the only ones in the room. Four of the students are bilingual and speak both Spanish and English and one student is a monolingual English speaker.
01/26/07
[Note: This was not the beginning of the conversation.]
Daniel R.: My uncle is in Mexico. All of his family, well his sons and daughters, they help him kill [goats]. Like his older sons kill them and the heart is the best part of the goat.
Danielle: You mean when you eat the heart?
Daniel R.: Yeah, they make good tacos. They take out the stomach and guts and all that and clean it off. They have to make sure to get all the worms out.
Danielle: If you were here last summer for 4-H, umm, this man named…did you see a truck near the goat’s pen? With glasses, he had white hair. He’s not tall but he was out there wrestling with the goats putting some medicine in them. He looked like he was wrestling. And they told us that the last, a couple of years ago, you how there was not really any medicine? Well, umm, to get the worms out of their stomach we had to umm put sugar on the back of them so the worms would crawl up to get it. And we would get them out.
Daniel R.: Uggh.
Danielle: But that was the only way we could do it.
Daniel R.: Yeah. Your bun looks like a muffin.
Danielle: I know. Ms. Zoch, it looks like a muffin.
Mrs. Zoch: [laughs]
Daniel R.: Ms. Zoch, how come, umm, Por qué te gusta la mantequilla? I’ve never liked it, how come you like it?
Danielle: Because it tastes saltier. How come you don’t like it with butter?
Daniel R.: No. I don’t know.
Danielle: Never say never Daniel.
Daniel R.: You got that from Miss Frizzle.
Danielle: What?
Daniel R.: Miss Frizzle.
Danielle: No, I got it off this little commercial of a movie about these mouses and the grandpa says, “Never say never.” ‘Cause he says, “I thought I’d never see you again, Grandpa.” And then he says, “Never say never.” I don’t like milk just like you don’t like butter.
Daniel R.: How can you like milk? How can you not like milk if butter is made from milk?
Danielle: There’s a difference between their tastes.
Mrs. Zoch: I don’t like milk either but I like butter and cheese and ice cream.
Danielle: And yogurt and cake.
Daniel R.: I like cake. No más me gusta el tipo de three…three milks.
Mrs. Zoch: Tres leches.
Danielle: I don’t really like icing. But I only like, you know the hard type of icing, it feels like it has a lot of sugar in it?
Mrs. Zoch: Mhmm, like the cookies?
Danielle: It tastes too sweet, that’s why I don’t like it. I like the icing that’s soft.
Zabdi: Me too.
Daniel R.: Yeah, I like the cakes that are made from ice cream.
Zabdi: Me too.
Daniel R.: I’m not into Cinderella, but, gosh, I read that there’s going to be number three.
Danielle: I know.
Mrs. Zoch: There’s going to be what?
Danielle: A Cinderella three.
Mrs. Zoch: A movie?
Daniel R.: Yeah, I’m not into it.
Mrs. Zoch: Like a Disney movie?
Daniel R.: Yeah, Disney.
Danielle: You heard it from Disney channel?
Daniel R.: Uhh, no, I saw, I heard it from..,I think so but I don’t remember. It said go to Disneychannel.com and see half of the movie.
Danielle: I already got number two. I had it.
Daniel R.: You’re supposed to go to www.cinderlla3…something…something…something. And then you can see part of it.
Daniel R.: Are you into Cinderella Ms. Mares, I mean Ms. Zoch?
Mrs. Zoch: Umm, I guess Cinderella is okay.
Danielle: Who needs butter? Whoever? Okay. Can you pass this to him? Pass it Aaron.
Daniel R.: I passed it. [waves it in front of Daniel J., the student who is to receive the butter]. [laughs] It’s give it to Aaron. That’s the trick my mom always says to me ‘cause I’ll say pass me the salt or guacamole, or stuff like that. She always passes it.
Mrs. Zoch: Passes it right by you?
Danielle: Yesterday was my mom’s birthday.
Mrs. Zoch: What’d ya’ll do?
Danielle: Nothing.
Mrs. Zoch: Did you make her a card?
Danielle: I didn’t but I…you know those flowers, they have leaves shaped like a heart?
Mrs. Zoch: Mhmm.
Danielle: Well, I got one and I got some dirt into a cup and then put it in.
Mrs. Zoch: Cool.
Danielle: And she said, “Ahh, too much gifts.”
Mrs. Zoch: [laughs]
Danielle: I think she forgot it outside.
Daniel: Me and Jorge already finished and then the others are the only ones who aren’t finished.[is referring to a math test]
Danielle: Well, it’s hard. She doesn’t teach us. She barely…she teaches us most of it but I don’t get the ones she doesn’t.
Daniel: Ahh, for me it’s super easy. Although yesterday my mind was getting confused. Remember my brain was tired. When I was like this, since I had finished my writing test I went like this and then when I was doing a math packet I only got…[can’t hear the rest of the sentence]
Danielle: How come you don’t even talk Spanish over there with Ms. Flores and you talk over here Spanish with Ms. Zoch?
Daniel R.: ‘Cause Ms. Flores doesn’t let me.
Danielle; No fair!
Daniel J.: Yes she does.
Mrs. Zoch: She doesn’t let you?
Daniel R.: She wants for me to learn English. She won’t let me do anything in Spanish.
Danielle: She won’t even let me do anything in Spanish.
Mrs. Zoch: Do you speak Spanish Danielle?
Danielle: Yes.
Daniel R.: A little bit.
Danielle: No!
Mrs. Zoch: At home or?
Danielle: Más o menos.
Daniel R.: Yeah, like a little. [says to Aaron who does not speak any Spanish]
Mrs. Zoch: Who speaks Spanish at your home?
Danielle: That’s so-so. My dad and my mom but mostly my dad because he’s from Durango, Mexico.
Mrs. Zoch: Oh.
Daniel R.: Oh, I thought Durango was in—
Mrs. Zoch: But you’ve always been in English classes right?
Danielle: Until now, well ‘cause there’s—
Daniel R.: The class is bilingual not just Spanish.
Danielle: I know.
Mrs. Zoch: Have you learned any Spanish, Aaron, since you’ve been in Mrs. Flores’s class?
Danielle: I’m going to be in a Spanish class when I’m a teenager because I’m gonna move.
Mrs. Zoch: Hmm?
Aaron: Uhhuh.
Mrs. Zoch: No? You haven’t learned even a single word? I’ll bet you’ve learned a little bit.
Daniel R.: Liliana says like say ‘bobo’ and stuff right? Liliana says to Aaron sometimes, “Say bobo.”
Danielle: What does it mean?
Daniel R.: Bobo, like how do you say bobo.
Zabdi: Tu eres bobo.
Daniel R. Like if you’re dumb or something.
Danielle: Doesn’t dumb mean tanto?
Daniel R.: Yeah, there’s too many different ways to say dumb. She says say bobo and he sometimes does it and she laughs.
Danielle: Does he say bobo? Bobo. When I’m a teenager my dad might make me move to Mexico.
Mrs. Zoch: Why?
Danielle: I don’t know. My grandma’s getting older. The house is really deserted.
Daniel R.: For once English is a good thing ‘cause I don’t have to take the writing test again since yesterday.
Danielle: Who knows what grade I got?
Daniel R.: Uhuh know. 4?
Zabdi: I do but only pues in the composition I don’t know.
Danielle: We both got, umm, a 93. We only missed two. Ya’ll only missed one [talks to Daniel R. and Daniel J.].
Daniel R.: The both Daniel’s only missed one. Whoohoo!
[Note: This was not the end of the conversation.]
There were two students who dominated the conversation (Daniel R. and Danielle). They talked most of the time and were the ones who introduced new topics. One student (Zabdi) spoke only a few times and the other two students (Aaron and Daniel J.) did not speak, they just listened. At first I tried not to be a part of the conversation because I just wanted to listen. This became impossible as I was pulled into the conversation as Daniel R. asked me a question about butter.
Most of the conversation took place in English but some Spanish was used. Daniel R., who dominated most of the conversation, speaks mainly Spanish at home, yet is comfortable using English in social situations with other students. Daniel R. does not use Spanish for long phrases. He demonstrates a sort of ease with switching between the two languages and is sensitive to Aaron (who only speaks English). When Danielle uses the term “más o menos,” Daniel R. translates for him.
The pace of the conversation was pretty steady. Daniel R. and Danielle kept the conversation moving along. Daniel R. introduced several new topics (goats, bun looking like a muffin, Cinderella, the math test, saying bobo and the writing test). He didn’t provide an introduction to his topics and didn’t seem to wait for the best moment to introduce them, he would just switch from topic to topic. When Daniel R. began the topic of the math test, I wouldn’t have known what he was talking about if I hadn’t know that his class was taking a math test. He didn’t offer any explanation for what he was referring to, he just said, “Me and Jorge already finished and then the others are the only ones who aren’t finished.” (deixis)
Even though he initiated most of the switching, Danielle kept up with him and would respond to his comments. The conversation was a mix of statements and questions/answers. Although Zabdi didn’t initiated any conversation and spoke very little, she was an active listener in the conversation and would interject when able. Daniel J. and Aaron were not a part of the conversation, but didn’t have their own conversation on the side either. They listened to the others speak, but didn’t try to take part.
I didn’t include the beginning or end of the conversation. The beginning is not included because it didn’t occur to me to begin tape recording until the point at which I started. Before I started recording, Daniel R. had already been talking about goats. A part of me wanted to remind him that we were trying to eat and maybe some parts of the conversation weren’t appropriate for eating, but then I decided to not say anything and record what he was saying. I don’t remember how the conversation began. We came into the room together and everyone sat down. I assume the conversation began shortly after or maybe even in the hallway on the way to the classroom. I didn’t include the end of the conversation because parts of it were difficult to make out and for the most part it ended with me telling the children that it was time to leave.
Transcribing the conversation was more difficult than I thought it would have been. It was difficult to make out some of the conversation and so I am certain that this transcription is not 100% accurate. Also, as I was transcribing, I was picturing the children as they were talking, where they were sitting and how they talked (pragmatics)—all of which is difficult to express from a transcription.
I think this activity has caused me to be more aware of how conversations take place. Since then, I have thought about such things as speaker turns, introducing new topics and adjacency pairs as I carry on conversations with friends, my husband and my parents. As I thought about how Daniel R. just jumped from one topic to another I realized I also do the same. There aren’t always more opportune times to introduce a new topic—especially when you are in the company of close friends or family and the conversation is more informal so that it doesn’t seem as important if the conversation moves quickly from one topic to another.
This is a conversation which took place between five 4th grade students and myself during lunch one day. We were sitting around a large table together and were the only ones in the room. Four of the students are bilingual and speak both Spanish and English and one student is a monolingual English speaker.
01/26/07
[Note: This was not the beginning of the conversation.]
Daniel R.: My uncle is in Mexico. All of his family, well his sons and daughters, they help him kill [goats]. Like his older sons kill them and the heart is the best part of the goat.
Danielle: You mean when you eat the heart?
Daniel R.: Yeah, they make good tacos. They take out the stomach and guts and all that and clean it off. They have to make sure to get all the worms out.
Danielle: If you were here last summer for 4-H, umm, this man named…did you see a truck near the goat’s pen? With glasses, he had white hair. He’s not tall but he was out there wrestling with the goats putting some medicine in them. He looked like he was wrestling. And they told us that the last, a couple of years ago, you how there was not really any medicine? Well, umm, to get the worms out of their stomach we had to umm put sugar on the back of them so the worms would crawl up to get it. And we would get them out.
Daniel R.: Uggh.
Danielle: But that was the only way we could do it.
Daniel R.: Yeah. Your bun looks like a muffin.
Danielle: I know. Ms. Zoch, it looks like a muffin.
Mrs. Zoch: [laughs]
Daniel R.: Ms. Zoch, how come, umm, Por qué te gusta la mantequilla? I’ve never liked it, how come you like it?
Danielle: Because it tastes saltier. How come you don’t like it with butter?
Daniel R.: No. I don’t know.
Danielle: Never say never Daniel.
Daniel R.: You got that from Miss Frizzle.
Danielle: What?
Daniel R.: Miss Frizzle.
Danielle: No, I got it off this little commercial of a movie about these mouses and the grandpa says, “Never say never.” ‘Cause he says, “I thought I’d never see you again, Grandpa.” And then he says, “Never say never.” I don’t like milk just like you don’t like butter.
Daniel R.: How can you like milk? How can you not like milk if butter is made from milk?
Danielle: There’s a difference between their tastes.
Mrs. Zoch: I don’t like milk either but I like butter and cheese and ice cream.
Danielle: And yogurt and cake.
Daniel R.: I like cake. No más me gusta el tipo de three…three milks.
Mrs. Zoch: Tres leches.
Danielle: I don’t really like icing. But I only like, you know the hard type of icing, it feels like it has a lot of sugar in it?
Mrs. Zoch: Mhmm, like the cookies?
Danielle: It tastes too sweet, that’s why I don’t like it. I like the icing that’s soft.
Zabdi: Me too.
Daniel R.: Yeah, I like the cakes that are made from ice cream.
Zabdi: Me too.
Daniel R.: I’m not into Cinderella, but, gosh, I read that there’s going to be number three.
Danielle: I know.
Mrs. Zoch: There’s going to be what?
Danielle: A Cinderella three.
Mrs. Zoch: A movie?
Daniel R.: Yeah, I’m not into it.
Mrs. Zoch: Like a Disney movie?
Daniel R.: Yeah, Disney.
Danielle: You heard it from Disney channel?
Daniel R.: Uhh, no, I saw, I heard it from..,I think so but I don’t remember. It said go to Disneychannel.com and see half of the movie.
Danielle: I already got number two. I had it.
Daniel R.: You’re supposed to go to www.cinderlla3…something…something…something. And then you can see part of it.
Daniel R.: Are you into Cinderella Ms. Mares, I mean Ms. Zoch?
Mrs. Zoch: Umm, I guess Cinderella is okay.
Danielle: Who needs butter? Whoever? Okay. Can you pass this to him? Pass it Aaron.
Daniel R.: I passed it. [waves it in front of Daniel J., the student who is to receive the butter]. [laughs] It’s give it to Aaron. That’s the trick my mom always says to me ‘cause I’ll say pass me the salt or guacamole, or stuff like that. She always passes it.
Mrs. Zoch: Passes it right by you?
Danielle: Yesterday was my mom’s birthday.
Mrs. Zoch: What’d ya’ll do?
Danielle: Nothing.
Mrs. Zoch: Did you make her a card?
Danielle: I didn’t but I…you know those flowers, they have leaves shaped like a heart?
Mrs. Zoch: Mhmm.
Danielle: Well, I got one and I got some dirt into a cup and then put it in.
Mrs. Zoch: Cool.
Danielle: And she said, “Ahh, too much gifts.”
Mrs. Zoch: [laughs]
Danielle: I think she forgot it outside.
Daniel: Me and Jorge already finished and then the others are the only ones who aren’t finished.[is referring to a math test]
Danielle: Well, it’s hard. She doesn’t teach us. She barely…she teaches us most of it but I don’t get the ones she doesn’t.
Daniel: Ahh, for me it’s super easy. Although yesterday my mind was getting confused. Remember my brain was tired. When I was like this, since I had finished my writing test I went like this and then when I was doing a math packet I only got…[can’t hear the rest of the sentence]
Danielle: How come you don’t even talk Spanish over there with Ms. Flores and you talk over here Spanish with Ms. Zoch?
Daniel R.: ‘Cause Ms. Flores doesn’t let me.
Danielle; No fair!
Daniel J.: Yes she does.
Mrs. Zoch: She doesn’t let you?
Daniel R.: She wants for me to learn English. She won’t let me do anything in Spanish.
Danielle: She won’t even let me do anything in Spanish.
Mrs. Zoch: Do you speak Spanish Danielle?
Danielle: Yes.
Daniel R.: A little bit.
Danielle: No!
Mrs. Zoch: At home or?
Danielle: Más o menos.
Daniel R.: Yeah, like a little. [says to Aaron who does not speak any Spanish]
Mrs. Zoch: Who speaks Spanish at your home?
Danielle: That’s so-so. My dad and my mom but mostly my dad because he’s from Durango, Mexico.
Mrs. Zoch: Oh.
Daniel R.: Oh, I thought Durango was in—
Mrs. Zoch: But you’ve always been in English classes right?
Danielle: Until now, well ‘cause there’s—
Daniel R.: The class is bilingual not just Spanish.
Danielle: I know.
Mrs. Zoch: Have you learned any Spanish, Aaron, since you’ve been in Mrs. Flores’s class?
Danielle: I’m going to be in a Spanish class when I’m a teenager because I’m gonna move.
Mrs. Zoch: Hmm?
Aaron: Uhhuh.
Mrs. Zoch: No? You haven’t learned even a single word? I’ll bet you’ve learned a little bit.
Daniel R.: Liliana says like say ‘bobo’ and stuff right? Liliana says to Aaron sometimes, “Say bobo.”
Danielle: What does it mean?
Daniel R.: Bobo, like how do you say bobo.
Zabdi: Tu eres bobo.
Daniel R. Like if you’re dumb or something.
Danielle: Doesn’t dumb mean tanto?
Daniel R.: Yeah, there’s too many different ways to say dumb. She says say bobo and he sometimes does it and she laughs.
Danielle: Does he say bobo? Bobo. When I’m a teenager my dad might make me move to Mexico.
Mrs. Zoch: Why?
Danielle: I don’t know. My grandma’s getting older. The house is really deserted.
Daniel R.: For once English is a good thing ‘cause I don’t have to take the writing test again since yesterday.
Danielle: Who knows what grade I got?
Daniel R.: Uhuh know. 4?
Zabdi: I do but only pues in the composition I don’t know.
Danielle: We both got, umm, a 93. We only missed two. Ya’ll only missed one [talks to Daniel R. and Daniel J.].
Daniel R.: The both Daniel’s only missed one. Whoohoo!
[Note: This was not the end of the conversation.]
There were two students who dominated the conversation (Daniel R. and Danielle). They talked most of the time and were the ones who introduced new topics. One student (Zabdi) spoke only a few times and the other two students (Aaron and Daniel J.) did not speak, they just listened. At first I tried not to be a part of the conversation because I just wanted to listen. This became impossible as I was pulled into the conversation as Daniel R. asked me a question about butter.
Most of the conversation took place in English but some Spanish was used. Daniel R., who dominated most of the conversation, speaks mainly Spanish at home, yet is comfortable using English in social situations with other students. Daniel R. does not use Spanish for long phrases. He demonstrates a sort of ease with switching between the two languages and is sensitive to Aaron (who only speaks English). When Danielle uses the term “más o menos,” Daniel R. translates for him.
The pace of the conversation was pretty steady. Daniel R. and Danielle kept the conversation moving along. Daniel R. introduced several new topics (goats, bun looking like a muffin, Cinderella, the math test, saying bobo and the writing test). He didn’t provide an introduction to his topics and didn’t seem to wait for the best moment to introduce them, he would just switch from topic to topic. When Daniel R. began the topic of the math test, I wouldn’t have known what he was talking about if I hadn’t know that his class was taking a math test. He didn’t offer any explanation for what he was referring to, he just said, “Me and Jorge already finished and then the others are the only ones who aren’t finished.” (deixis)
Even though he initiated most of the switching, Danielle kept up with him and would respond to his comments. The conversation was a mix of statements and questions/answers. Although Zabdi didn’t initiated any conversation and spoke very little, she was an active listener in the conversation and would interject when able. Daniel J. and Aaron were not a part of the conversation, but didn’t have their own conversation on the side either. They listened to the others speak, but didn’t try to take part.
I didn’t include the beginning or end of the conversation. The beginning is not included because it didn’t occur to me to begin tape recording until the point at which I started. Before I started recording, Daniel R. had already been talking about goats. A part of me wanted to remind him that we were trying to eat and maybe some parts of the conversation weren’t appropriate for eating, but then I decided to not say anything and record what he was saying. I don’t remember how the conversation began. We came into the room together and everyone sat down. I assume the conversation began shortly after or maybe even in the hallway on the way to the classroom. I didn’t include the end of the conversation because parts of it were difficult to make out and for the most part it ended with me telling the children that it was time to leave.
Transcribing the conversation was more difficult than I thought it would have been. It was difficult to make out some of the conversation and so I am certain that this transcription is not 100% accurate. Also, as I was transcribing, I was picturing the children as they were talking, where they were sitting and how they talked (pragmatics)—all of which is difficult to express from a transcription.
I think this activity has caused me to be more aware of how conversations take place. Since then, I have thought about such things as speaker turns, introducing new topics and adjacency pairs as I carry on conversations with friends, my husband and my parents. As I thought about how Daniel R. just jumped from one topic to another I realized I also do the same. There aren’t always more opportune times to introduce a new topic—especially when you are in the company of close friends or family and the conversation is more informal so that it doesn’t seem as important if the conversation moves quickly from one topic to another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
