These three readings for this week were very interesting.
Haas' "The Technology Question" brought up some very good questions about literacy and technology. It is true that they are connected and that the use of technology can shape human culture and consciousness. I liked how the chapter was broken up into three different areas to focus the questions on. I found Plato's critique of writing to be most interesting. Certainly not a view I had ever thought to look at before. I was slightly confused by Haas' comparison of Plato's and Derrida's critiques. Hopefully that will be something we can discuss in class.
"Writing has been closely associated with death, as in the notion of a lifeless written text, but this lifeless object can also be perpetually 'resurrected into limitless living contexts'" (p. 9). Wow! Certainly not a thought I have had before. What an interesting perspective. I think that's a great image. It's true that writing can be lifeless and like death, but that a reader can resurrect it into life. I just love that! What power that gives me as a reader!
I found the three myths about technology also interesting. I realized that I held some of these myths as well. I think I've assumed that technology is transparent and that it's still writing. I've never stopped to think that maybe this use of technology has more impact that I first thought. I see now how that belief can cause complications.
Eisentein's article about the printing press was fascinating. I loved her perspective and outlook on the effect of the printers even before the printing press came to be. I liked her statement that the advent of printing moved Europeans from an image culture to a work culture, but at the same time from a word culture to an image culture. Again, I had never truly thought how the advent of printing allowed mathematicians and scientists to create images to convey meaning. Now obscure definitions and explanations were no longer the only option in explaining. Images were being used to explain as well.
Again, I was intrigued by the information about how printing changed the Christian world. It amazes me how much of an influence this had on the history of Protestantism and Luther's break from the Catholic church.
I felt Bomer's article help make me more aware of things as a teacher. It is true that these tools, including pillows, can have an effect on literacy.
"What I do with this tape dispenser right now says something about the social world I think I am in, and who I am in it" (p. 243). By observing how my students use different tools in the classroom I can learn so much about them and their identity. Yet, I have never even thought of this possibility. I do recall times when kids amazed me at other uses they could find for certain objects, but never really thought much of it.
Everything we have read so far is slowly starting to come together and sink in for me. I must say I'm relieved about that! I'm seeing how this all connects to what I know about teaching and how it can help me continue to grow professionally.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Thoughts for Feb 19
This second week in Olson's book was not as easy as the first. At times I found myself overwhelmed with names and theories and wasn't always sure of what was going on.
I feel like I could summarize a few chapters by saying that writing can never show the true intentions of what the author was meaning and that, as readers, we must be aware that true meanings and expression cannot be conveyed accurately.
I do need to say that the Peanuts comic on pg. 125 gave me a good laugh! I know some people who are so concerned with being understood correctly that they really speak like this.
Chapter 7 had some interesting points as Olson laid out the history of reading. I found the most connection with the history of reading the Bible. Being familiar with the history of reading instruction in America, I know the influence religious texts had on reading education.
"The history of reading is largely the history of attempting to cope with what writing does not represent" (p. 145). I found this statement to be one that made me stop and think for a moment. It reminds me of what some people brought up in class a few weeks ago about students who can decode words, but do not comprehend what they read. It is true that understanding and interpreting writing is a large part of reading. As readers, we do have to cope with the fact that writing does not give expression or full intentions of the author. Anyway, an interesting point.
I also found it interesting to read about the theories about reading. For example, the fact that in Medieval times, individuals felt the purpose of reading was to see the spirit of the text. As a protestant Christian, I also found the parts describing Luther's beliefs interesting. This feud of whether Biblical text should be taken literally or in context is still a debate today. Many theological arguments between denominations is based on this.
Moving into chapter 9: I am intrigued with this thought of written texts being used for memory purposes. I know many times, that is why I write things down: so I don't forget them! I feel I rely on written text more for memory than people in the early middle ages did.
I believe I understand the relationship Olson is showing between pictures, diagrams, maps, and formulas to texts. It was interesting to read about how early explorers created maps with their own mental concepts and images.
I still would like to discuss more about this concept of subjectivity. I was slightly confused by Olson introduction in chapter 11 and would like to talk with others about what they gathered from that chapter.
I feel like I could summarize a few chapters by saying that writing can never show the true intentions of what the author was meaning and that, as readers, we must be aware that true meanings and expression cannot be conveyed accurately.
I do need to say that the Peanuts comic on pg. 125 gave me a good laugh! I know some people who are so concerned with being understood correctly that they really speak like this.
Chapter 7 had some interesting points as Olson laid out the history of reading. I found the most connection with the history of reading the Bible. Being familiar with the history of reading instruction in America, I know the influence religious texts had on reading education.
"The history of reading is largely the history of attempting to cope with what writing does not represent" (p. 145). I found this statement to be one that made me stop and think for a moment. It reminds me of what some people brought up in class a few weeks ago about students who can decode words, but do not comprehend what they read. It is true that understanding and interpreting writing is a large part of reading. As readers, we do have to cope with the fact that writing does not give expression or full intentions of the author. Anyway, an interesting point.
I also found it interesting to read about the theories about reading. For example, the fact that in Medieval times, individuals felt the purpose of reading was to see the spirit of the text. As a protestant Christian, I also found the parts describing Luther's beliefs interesting. This feud of whether Biblical text should be taken literally or in context is still a debate today. Many theological arguments between denominations is based on this.
Moving into chapter 9: I am intrigued with this thought of written texts being used for memory purposes. I know many times, that is why I write things down: so I don't forget them! I feel I rely on written text more for memory than people in the early middle ages did.
I believe I understand the relationship Olson is showing between pictures, diagrams, maps, and formulas to texts. It was interesting to read about how early explorers created maps with their own mental concepts and images.
I still would like to discuss more about this concept of subjectivity. I was slightly confused by Olson introduction in chapter 11 and would like to talk with others about what they gathered from that chapter.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Thoughts for Feb. 12
I have to say that I was surprised by the fact that the reading was easier than I expected. Yet, even though I was able to read the words, I know I did not comprehend everything Olson was describing.
I think he brings up some interesting points in regard to literacy and I found myself thinking more about things that are so normal and everyday. I do believe that we place writing language and being literate above speech. It seems to be a way we grade countries on how advanced they are. If the people are illiterate, then something needs to be done! So reading Olson's viewpoint allowed me to think more about things I just accepted.
I would like more explanation and clarification on the theories of literacy and mind from Levy-Bruhl and Scribner and Cole. Like I said to a friend, "I can read the words on the page, but I'm not very sure on what they really mean." I think some more background information on these theories will help me understand more from that chapter especially.
"Nor is the simplicity of the alphabet the major cause of high levels of literacy; many other factors affect the degrees of literacy in a country or in an individual. Finally, our tardy recognition of the literacy levels of non-alphabetic cultures, especially the Japanese who routinely out-perform Western children in their literacy levels (Stevenson et al., 1982) has forced us to acknowledge that our view of the superiority of the alphabet is, at least in part, an aspect of our mythology" (p. 9). I have to say I was relieved to know that Olson is also looking at non-alphabetic languages. Having grown up surrounded by Chinese characters, I think we should take a close look at this type of writing system and see how it might change our own views on literacy. This was one of those, mmmmm moments for me. Interesting!
"For the first time, many scholars are thinking the unthinkable: is it possible that literacy is over-rated?" (p. 13). Certainly an interesting question to tackle. This reminds me of some of the critical theorists and the power struggle. Yet, what would our world be like without written language and literacy?
"Learning to read and write is at best a mere introduction to the world of literacy" (p. 41). This was a aha statement for me. It is true that as an elementary teacher this was the focus of what I did throughout the day. Yet, do we get so focused on these two elements that we forget everything else involved with being a literate person? Is this like the focus on decoding and forgetting that the word holds meaning? It certainly made me think.
"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 a particular purpose that makes up literacy" (p. 43). One thing graduate school has helped me see is an expanded view on the definition of literacy. It encompasses much more than I first thought.
". . . representation is never equivalent to the thing represented. If so, it is a serious mistake to think of written representations as transparent or neutral" (p. 63). I think this is true. Often times I read something and am ignorant of the fact that it is taking a side. It looks safe in print. It looks less intimidating, less in your face. Sometimes the only way I know that text is so much more than mere words is when that text is read to me with expression and emotion. I don't think text that ever replace or fully represent speech. That is why every book I read, I will have a different experience with it than someone else. I give meaning to words and read with certain expressions in my head.
Overall, I found myself more stimulated than I first thought with this book. Yet, there are still things I need clarification on. I know the discussion in class today will hopefully help clear up some of my confusion.
I think he brings up some interesting points in regard to literacy and I found myself thinking more about things that are so normal and everyday. I do believe that we place writing language and being literate above speech. It seems to be a way we grade countries on how advanced they are. If the people are illiterate, then something needs to be done! So reading Olson's viewpoint allowed me to think more about things I just accepted.
I would like more explanation and clarification on the theories of literacy and mind from Levy-Bruhl and Scribner and Cole. Like I said to a friend, "I can read the words on the page, but I'm not very sure on what they really mean." I think some more background information on these theories will help me understand more from that chapter especially.
"Nor is the simplicity of the alphabet the major cause of high levels of literacy; many other factors affect the degrees of literacy in a country or in an individual. Finally, our tardy recognition of the literacy levels of non-alphabetic cultures, especially the Japanese who routinely out-perform Western children in their literacy levels (Stevenson et al., 1982) has forced us to acknowledge that our view of the superiority of the alphabet is, at least in part, an aspect of our mythology" (p. 9). I have to say I was relieved to know that Olson is also looking at non-alphabetic languages. Having grown up surrounded by Chinese characters, I think we should take a close look at this type of writing system and see how it might change our own views on literacy. This was one of those, mmmmm moments for me. Interesting!
"For the first time, many scholars are thinking the unthinkable: is it possible that literacy is over-rated?" (p. 13). Certainly an interesting question to tackle. This reminds me of some of the critical theorists and the power struggle. Yet, what would our world be like without written language and literacy?
"Learning to read and write is at best a mere introduction to the world of literacy" (p. 41). This was a aha statement for me. It is true that as an elementary teacher this was the focus of what I did throughout the day. Yet, do we get so focused on these two elements that we forget everything else involved with being a literate person? Is this like the focus on decoding and forgetting that the word holds meaning? It certainly made me think.
"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 a particular purpose that makes up literacy" (p. 43). One thing graduate school has helped me see is an expanded view on the definition of literacy. It encompasses much more than I first thought.
". . . representation is never equivalent to the thing represented. If so, it is a serious mistake to think of written representations as transparent or neutral" (p. 63). I think this is true. Often times I read something and am ignorant of the fact that it is taking a side. It looks safe in print. It looks less intimidating, less in your face. Sometimes the only way I know that text is so much more than mere words is when that text is read to me with expression and emotion. I don't think text that ever replace or fully represent speech. That is why every book I read, I will have a different experience with it than someone else. I give meaning to words and read with certain expressions in my head.
Overall, I found myself more stimulated than I first thought with this book. Yet, there are still things I need clarification on. I know the discussion in class today will hopefully help clear up some of my confusion.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Thoughts for Feb. 5
I'll start off by addressing my thoughts on the storytelling assignment. As I listened to several recordings of people telling stories, I was struck with a few thoughts. First of all, much of the structure that one would expect to find in a story was there: there was a beginning, middle, and end. The first thing that jumped out at me was the use of pauses. Depending on the story, pauses were used in two different ways: to add something to the story, or they were not used at all. For example, one time when I was the storyteller, I rarely used pauses. My excitement over came me and my sentences ran into one another. You couldn't always tell where a thought ended and another thought started. Yet some of the stories were filled with many pauses adding anticipation and suspense. Another thing that stood out to me was the use of nonsense words. When telling a story orally, all the storytellers inserted nonsense words, such as like, so, ok, and um, frequently. Sometimes they appeared more than once in each sentence and sometimes just every few sentences or so. If these stories were being written down, these words would not have been used. The third thing that stood out to me was the use of voices. Each storyteller would alter his/her voice either to imitate someone or emphasis a point. That manipulation occurred more frequently in storytelling than in informal conversation.
Moving on to some readings.......
I found myself struggling through the Bauman and Briggs article. Since this is my first dip into the world of linguistics, I found some of the technical terms tricky. Yet in my struggle I didn't give up and tried to make sense of it the best I could. I found the introduction interesting as aspects of performance were being described and, in a sense, compared to more informal talk.
I felt at a disadvantage not being familiar with many of the authors who were cited throughout the article. My background knowledge, or should I say lack of background knowledge, hindered me from fulling grasping certain concepts.
"Participation structure, particularly the nature of turn-taking and performer-audience interaction, can have profound implications for shaping social relations" (p. 63). This statement caused me to stop and think for a moment. I took this to mean that culture has a profound impact on how the interaction will be interpreted. Since cultural structures can affect how a conversation might go about taking turns, or what is acceptable norms in conversation, these cultural structures will influence how the performance is understood. Performance will look different in different cultures due to different cultural norms.
I still feel as though I need more clarification about entextualization. I can read the simple definition provided on pg 73, but as I continue to read, I'm still not too sure what that looks like. Since I always benefit greatly from oral conversation, I'm hoping I will gain more understanding about this article in class.
I'm also looking forward to our guest speaker on Monday. After reading over the summary of the report, many questions and thoughts pop into my mind. With rapidly changing technology literacies, I find this study to be of great significance. I think we in the United States need to do a bit more thinking on how to truly incorporate these new literacies into our schools. The report made me think more about what I might do as a teacher to make sure my students can survive in a technologically literate world. I enjoyed looking at the concept maps the students drew showing their own understanding. I look forward to hearing more about this study and thinking more about this important area.
Moving on to some readings.......
I found myself struggling through the Bauman and Briggs article. Since this is my first dip into the world of linguistics, I found some of the technical terms tricky. Yet in my struggle I didn't give up and tried to make sense of it the best I could. I found the introduction interesting as aspects of performance were being described and, in a sense, compared to more informal talk.
I felt at a disadvantage not being familiar with many of the authors who were cited throughout the article. My background knowledge, or should I say lack of background knowledge, hindered me from fulling grasping certain concepts.
"Participation structure, particularly the nature of turn-taking and performer-audience interaction, can have profound implications for shaping social relations" (p. 63). This statement caused me to stop and think for a moment. I took this to mean that culture has a profound impact on how the interaction will be interpreted. Since cultural structures can affect how a conversation might go about taking turns, or what is acceptable norms in conversation, these cultural structures will influence how the performance is understood. Performance will look different in different cultures due to different cultural norms.
I still feel as though I need more clarification about entextualization. I can read the simple definition provided on pg 73, but as I continue to read, I'm still not too sure what that looks like. Since I always benefit greatly from oral conversation, I'm hoping I will gain more understanding about this article in class.
I'm also looking forward to our guest speaker on Monday. After reading over the summary of the report, many questions and thoughts pop into my mind. With rapidly changing technology literacies, I find this study to be of great significance. I think we in the United States need to do a bit more thinking on how to truly incorporate these new literacies into our schools. The report made me think more about what I might do as a teacher to make sure my students can survive in a technologically literate world. I enjoyed looking at the concept maps the students drew showing their own understanding. I look forward to hearing more about this study and thinking more about this important area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
