Why am I just now reading Textual Power by Robert Scholes? Why is this not required before actually stepping foot in an English classroom? Now I’m back to feeling like I only play an English teacher on television, an imposter. I’m feeling a bit shortchanged at the moment. I mean, I know I had a lousy high school education, but now I’m wondering how I missed so much as I worked on my undergrad. What would Vygotsky say? You can’t teach an old dog new tricks? My brain was past the perfect point of maximum learning and retention and I missed the boat? I’ll admit I had to do some preliminary reading, as well as in-between reading for clarification, to fully understand Scholes and his arguments on literary theory and teaching literature. I never truly understood what real reading was until recently; I must have always subconsciously pseudo-performed it to some degree, but according to Scholes I was mostly merely comprehending, rather than reading as he defines it. His definition of reading mostly parallels my definition of interpretation, for if we can rewrite an ending or write a text from a different point of view (as he suggests with the particular works of Hemingway), we must be interpreting it somehow. As far as criticism goes, this has been a particularly rough road for me—must be the lack of concreteness that gets in my way. Anyway, I know this is a weakness for me, something I must always work to overcome. Come to think of it, a number of us English teachers had lamented this very problem during a discussion one day. We had never even heard of literary criticism when we were in high school, and we vowed we would not shortchange our students, especially those who are college-bound. Did we all miss the boat?
Again, I’m feeling like there’s so much to learn and too little time to learn it, to make it a part of me. Funny that Scholes mentions Dante, but then admonishes himself for allowing the English teacher in him to go that route. Dante has been on my “to-do” list for quite some time (no smartass comments from you, Ray); it seemed like every time I turned around, something I read had a reference to Dante. I decided about a year and a half-ago that I needed to read Dante so I could fully appreciate so many pieces of “great” literature. But after reading Scholes, do I? Is all that “great” literature really so great? Or have I been convinced it is? So now I’m thinking I still need to finish the Dante I started and add some Hemingway, just to make sure.
But I digress. When it comes to interpretation, it is true that many English teachers (or teachers of literature) are guilty of teaching “the right reading of a text.” When I finally made it into classes where I was encouraged to interpret for myself with no danger of a wrong answer, I felt scared, but liberated. It was so exciting to finally read and have my interpretations taken seriously! But then when I was student teaching, my co-op did that very thing to her students. SHE had the correct reading and all the students had to read the text HER WAY or their answers were wrong. I wanted so badly so speak up, not only to my co-op but to the students who frustratingly tried to interpret the texts through their own lenses, their own cultural codes. Many sort of gave up and just regurgitated what they knew or guessed she wanted to hear or read. Of course, I guess it can be easier this way because then we don’t have to try to understand our students’ thoughts, only control them. Text has so much power, more than I ever imagined before reading Scholes, but can we break from the old school of abuse or misuse? And, again, we face the problem of getting our students to not only think, but to think critically. Where did education go wrong?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I just sat through the most infuriating English Department meeting, where I was told that all English instructors teaching the same grade and curriculum level courses have to write and administer identical midterms and finals. Despite the fact that I teach the same grade and level as three other teachers, I do not teach the works dictated by district curriculum in the same order as the others. In fact, I go in the complete opposite order for carefully considered and practiced reasons.
Reading Scholes was like an academic dream in an education fantasy land, where teachers choose pedagogy based on theoretical merit according to the needs of students. It was an orgy of ideas centered on my favorite premise on the purpose of reading, that literature helps us to become critical thinkers of our world, and therefore less susceptible to our world’s attempts at making us victims. Not only am I facing a crisis where my classroom has to look the same as the rest, my materials have to be the same, now my tests have to be the same along with the order in which I teach the material. Where is the adaptation to the needs of the students, their pace, the gaps in their knowledge, and the use of their personal knowledge to enrich the learning process? Where is my orgy of critical thought and mental light bulbs exploding into luminescence, where there was not even a previous awareness of the existence of a light bulb?
As I mopped up the pool of my own saliva after reading of Scholes’ utopian English classroom, where the writer’s and teacher’s perspective were relevant, but secondary to that of the student’s, whose educational experience is designed to enrich their ability to read, interpret, and think critically, on both a literary and cultural scale, I realized that this world was not mine and most likely will never be, at least as long as I cling to the hope of public education. Here, in Scholes’ tiny book, is a potential solution to the seemingly infinite debate on the legitimacy of “the canon’s” academic dominance. It is not the text, but the reader that is the center of literary experience. Applause, Applause, Applause! Though post-secondary education may be ready for such revelations (which is questionable), primary and secondary education is not. As long as we have hegemony and dominant ideologies, culture will always preference the cultural production of the dominant ideology. Though it makes a great deal of sense to have a reader engaged in a text with similar cultural codes as the reader in order to teach the skills needed to further understand the codes of others, dominance was never about bringing the dominated up to the level of those who dominate. Sense has nothing to do with this type of behavior. How are academics and the ‘literate’ world at large to feel superior if everyone can yield power equally?
Therefore, in public education, every test, from now on, will be the same, as the classes will be taught the same, and the classrooms will look the same, the materials used will be the same, and every question must be posed in standard PSSA format. Scholes does not need to fear that individual thinking will become a standard with which students regard text. Educators are working hard to make sure that does not happen.
Reading Scholes was like an academic dream in an education fantasy land, where teachers choose pedagogy based on theoretical merit according to the needs of students. It was an orgy of ideas centered on my favorite premise on the purpose of reading, that literature helps us to become critical thinkers of our world, and therefore less susceptible to our world’s attempts at making us victims. Not only am I facing a crisis where my classroom has to look the same as the rest, my materials have to be the same, now my tests have to be the same along with the order in which I teach the material. Where is the adaptation to the needs of the students, their pace, the gaps in their knowledge, and the use of their personal knowledge to enrich the learning process? Where is my orgy of critical thought and mental light bulbs exploding into luminescence, where there was not even a previous awareness of the existence of a light bulb?
As I mopped up the pool of my own saliva after reading of Scholes’ utopian English classroom, where the writer’s and teacher’s perspective were relevant, but secondary to that of the student’s, whose educational experience is designed to enrich their ability to read, interpret, and think critically, on both a literary and cultural scale, I realized that this world was not mine and most likely will never be, at least as long as I cling to the hope of public education. Here, in Scholes’ tiny book, is a potential solution to the seemingly infinite debate on the legitimacy of “the canon’s” academic dominance. It is not the text, but the reader that is the center of literary experience. Applause, Applause, Applause! Though post-secondary education may be ready for such revelations (which is questionable), primary and secondary education is not. As long as we have hegemony and dominant ideologies, culture will always preference the cultural production of the dominant ideology. Though it makes a great deal of sense to have a reader engaged in a text with similar cultural codes as the reader in order to teach the skills needed to further understand the codes of others, dominance was never about bringing the dominated up to the level of those who dominate. Sense has nothing to do with this type of behavior. How are academics and the ‘literate’ world at large to feel superior if everyone can yield power equally?
Therefore, in public education, every test, from now on, will be the same, as the classes will be taught the same, and the classrooms will look the same, the materials used will be the same, and every question must be posed in standard PSSA format. Scholes does not need to fear that individual thinking will become a standard with which students regard text. Educators are working hard to make sure that does not happen.
Scholes: Intersting and Accessible!
I realized as I read this first chapter that my classroom is often filled with interpretation and far too seldom, criticism. I ask that my students draw meaning from a text, but rarely do I ask them to then stand outside the text and criticize it. Scholes says that, "The way out of our dilemma here is first to perceive reading not simply as consumption but as a productive activity, the making of meaning, in which one is guided by the text one reads, of course, but not simply manipulated by it; and, second, to perceive writing as an activity that is also guided and sustained by prior texts" (8). So, here he says that they can't just be manipulated by it...there can be more. I think this is where criticism comes in, and he gives some good examples of this in Chapter 4. I am constantly asking my students to define the author's purpose, but I rarely go beyond that QUESTION the author's purpose. This would take them one step further in finding their own power in a text.
I enjoyed the section where Scholes questions our roles as literature teachers. He writes, "And they [lit teachers] usually march happily, without questioning their situation as marchers. To step outside the line of march, to scrutinize the device and see it as strange for the fist time--defamiliarized, as the formalists put it--is to become, perforce, a theoretician. This scrutiny may lead to such questions as Where is the march heading? Why? For whose benefit? And what does that device mean, anyway? (11). I couldn't help but think back to Rose and I asked myself if we are just herding our students into that same collegiate hierarchy. Or by asking students not to just interpret, but to criticize, are we creating a kind of literacy that includes questioning another time, place, or moral code....or their own time, place, or moral code, or even this very literacy?
I think Scholes is right about language and manipulation. He says on page 16 that, "In an age of manipulation, when our students are in dire need of critical strength to resist the continuing assaults of all the media, the worst thing we can do is to foster in them an attitude of reverence before texts". I kept thinking about the barrage of newspaper and television ads centering on the presidential campaign. I want the people who inherit this world to understand the denotative and connotative nature of words and to be able to navigate a complicated world filled with words that can be, and sometimes are MEANT to manipulate. This means that texts have to be deconstructed as Scholes does in the six Hemingway stories.
On page 29 Scholes writes that, "A certain amount of interpretation may be necessary to provide the cultural codes implicated in any story". Doesn't this imply a type of literacy that must be shared before a story can be understood?
I liked what Scholes said about interpretation, "The first things to look for are repetitions and oppositions that emerge at the obvious or manifest levels of the text". These indeed can be "implied or repressed". Students often look for pieces of a text that fit together and this often leads to a generalization or oversimplified reading. What if we encourage students to look for what Scholes calls the "binary oppositions"?
For students, especially 17-18 year olds, who are, in my opinion, almost fully cooked, what Scholes says on page 70 is the most important idea in the first four chapters, "The critical project we are embarked upon here consists of finding a stance sufficiently antagonistic to Hemingway's to bring his "untold" presuppositions to light. The act of freeing ourselves from the power of the text depends upon our finding a position outside the assumptions upon which the text is based. Since the text is clearly based upon a pervasive aestheticizing of its world, our antagonistic position must challenge the position of literary art itself". This implies that the student make judgements coming from her own conscience. She must be able to define what lies inside her conscience, i.e. her stand on war, love, courage, or failure, not only to free herself from the text, but also to gain power over it.
I enjoyed the section where Scholes questions our roles as literature teachers. He writes, "And they [lit teachers] usually march happily, without questioning their situation as marchers. To step outside the line of march, to scrutinize the device and see it as strange for the fist time--defamiliarized, as the formalists put it--is to become, perforce, a theoretician. This scrutiny may lead to such questions as Where is the march heading? Why? For whose benefit? And what does that device mean, anyway? (11). I couldn't help but think back to Rose and I asked myself if we are just herding our students into that same collegiate hierarchy. Or by asking students not to just interpret, but to criticize, are we creating a kind of literacy that includes questioning another time, place, or moral code....or their own time, place, or moral code, or even this very literacy?
I think Scholes is right about language and manipulation. He says on page 16 that, "In an age of manipulation, when our students are in dire need of critical strength to resist the continuing assaults of all the media, the worst thing we can do is to foster in them an attitude of reverence before texts". I kept thinking about the barrage of newspaper and television ads centering on the presidential campaign. I want the people who inherit this world to understand the denotative and connotative nature of words and to be able to navigate a complicated world filled with words that can be, and sometimes are MEANT to manipulate. This means that texts have to be deconstructed as Scholes does in the six Hemingway stories.
On page 29 Scholes writes that, "A certain amount of interpretation may be necessary to provide the cultural codes implicated in any story". Doesn't this imply a type of literacy that must be shared before a story can be understood?
I liked what Scholes said about interpretation, "The first things to look for are repetitions and oppositions that emerge at the obvious or manifest levels of the text". These indeed can be "implied or repressed". Students often look for pieces of a text that fit together and this often leads to a generalization or oversimplified reading. What if we encourage students to look for what Scholes calls the "binary oppositions"?
For students, especially 17-18 year olds, who are, in my opinion, almost fully cooked, what Scholes says on page 70 is the most important idea in the first four chapters, "The critical project we are embarked upon here consists of finding a stance sufficiently antagonistic to Hemingway's to bring his "untold" presuppositions to light. The act of freeing ourselves from the power of the text depends upon our finding a position outside the assumptions upon which the text is based. Since the text is clearly based upon a pervasive aestheticizing of its world, our antagonistic position must challenge the position of literary art itself". This implies that the student make judgements coming from her own conscience. She must be able to define what lies inside her conscience, i.e. her stand on war, love, courage, or failure, not only to free herself from the text, but also to gain power over it.
Building on Brecht
First I would like to address Scholes's style as very modern and up-to-date, reader friendly after other academics we have read. His dedication to his aunts and mother addresses the differences in the needs of individuals as they place themselves in their world as they define it (literacy?). Reading Vygosky and Freire seem so difficult and almost alien that one could make the assumption of the importance of their work based solely on the writing style (the whole high culture, low culture issue). Yet, Scholes (and Rose another example) engages and invites peons like myself into the discussion. Next, it is important to understand that being placed in the discussion is important when addressing the literacy needs that allow every member of our society to function and contribute in society. The skills that we need to be included in the conversation as "we" not "them" seems to be at the heart of Scholes's work. He could have written differently, but the fluidity of words in time and place takes on an understandable meaning placed in our NOW. While many of the messages in all our readings repeat the hopes all educators have for education Scholes repeats the concepts in terms for our times. Finally, I agree with Scholes that it is vital to remember Fredric Jameson's battle cry, "Always historicize!"(16).
With everything we read, interpret, and criticize, we chose what to make part of "us". That is the excitement of the positive and the negative of reading critically. Even when we read for pleasure we are interpreting and criticizing. Will we read the book again? Would we recommend it to others? Would we watch a movie based on the book or vice versa, would we read a book based on a movie? What did others think about the book? I qualify the readings as books only because of the manipulation of other texts. Perhaps looking at concrete books will allow students to advance into the reading, interpretation, and criticism of other texts.
Education should be where we are taught, learn, experiment, and share.
Everything we read is about connections for our personal, private, public, and political lives.
Some personal examples of connections I made:
Writing, reading, interpreting, and criticism from Scholes's work rewords Bertolt Brecht essay, Writing the Truth: Five Difficulties. I will paraphrase, reader and writer must have the courage to write(and read) the truth no matter what anyone tries to pawn off on you (reading skill is vital). There must be personal keenness and thinking skills to recognize the truth below the superficial structure of the sentence and recognize the skill some people have with manipulation of the word (interpretation). Most importantly, there must be personal judgement(criticism) to realize who is writing and why and if the writing has value to you and your world.
Another connection that has me pondering is the green dead Christian Christ of Mantegna and the green dead Jewish Jesus of Chagall. Of course there is the choice of Hemingway himself-how do we include and separate the Man from the Writer for ourselves-do we have to every time we read Hemingway?
This returns me to the original concept of reading, interpretation, and criticism that allows us to accept or reject what we want. The textual power that Scholes addresses causes personal reflection for where I place myself in my world. This is where "every meaningful action-...is meaningful only to the extent that it is a sign in some interpretive code (1). Human beings {through interpretation and criticism]make choices to reject, resent, or embrace the action of the word in their world throughpersonal , private, or political influences in the world (I refer once again to Brecht). To paraphrase Scholes, I believe part of the responsibility of those who teach must help students transcend this most manipulative culture and provide historical knowledge that will enable students to interpret and criticize what they are exposed to, being aware that as educators we always make a decision about what is read. That reading can be manipulated itself with methods that encourage research, reflection, and sharing.
I liked his suggestion that a collection of works by the same author are examined rather than anthologies and the use of writers of different genres, genders, and time or place.
One thing I had done with Girl Scouts years ago was after reading The Diary of Anna Frank-They choose 5 quotes from the book and wrote a one paragraph response. Everyone took turns reading one quote to the rest. While we were reading the book we incorporated using disposable cameras to find images that connected or disconnected to what we had read when the story was placed in our present world. We did not have to agree with each other, just explain our "Why?'. Respecting the other view point was always enforced as the girls agreed and disagreed. I tried promoting listening to others as a skill that places value to other points of views.
In the end the decision is personal as the reader accepts or rejects through reading, interpretation, and criticism. After all, each of US and each of THEM have to live in a world where "explicit" and "implicit" words mark the codes of power in our codes of everyday life. As always, I believe education should promote the possibilities and the imagination of students of all ages. We never know who will come into our lives personally, publically, and politically. The least expected person might, through education and the reading, the interpretaion, and the citicism, inspire society to great heights. Ane I like, Jameson believe in order to know where we are and where we are going we must know where we have been!
With everything we read, interpret, and criticize, we chose what to make part of "us". That is the excitement of the positive and the negative of reading critically. Even when we read for pleasure we are interpreting and criticizing. Will we read the book again? Would we recommend it to others? Would we watch a movie based on the book or vice versa, would we read a book based on a movie? What did others think about the book? I qualify the readings as books only because of the manipulation of other texts. Perhaps looking at concrete books will allow students to advance into the reading, interpretation, and criticism of other texts.
Education should be where we are taught, learn, experiment, and share.
Everything we read is about connections for our personal, private, public, and political lives.
Some personal examples of connections I made:
Writing, reading, interpreting, and criticism from Scholes's work rewords Bertolt Brecht essay, Writing the Truth: Five Difficulties. I will paraphrase, reader and writer must have the courage to write(and read) the truth no matter what anyone tries to pawn off on you (reading skill is vital). There must be personal keenness and thinking skills to recognize the truth below the superficial structure of the sentence and recognize the skill some people have with manipulation of the word (interpretation). Most importantly, there must be personal judgement(criticism) to realize who is writing and why and if the writing has value to you and your world.
Another connection that has me pondering is the green dead Christian Christ of Mantegna and the green dead Jewish Jesus of Chagall. Of course there is the choice of Hemingway himself-how do we include and separate the Man from the Writer for ourselves-do we have to every time we read Hemingway?
This returns me to the original concept of reading, interpretation, and criticism that allows us to accept or reject what we want. The textual power that Scholes addresses causes personal reflection for where I place myself in my world. This is where "every meaningful action-...is meaningful only to the extent that it is a sign in some interpretive code (1). Human beings {through interpretation and criticism]make choices to reject, resent, or embrace the action of the word in their world throughpersonal , private, or political influences in the world (I refer once again to Brecht). To paraphrase Scholes, I believe part of the responsibility of those who teach must help students transcend this most manipulative culture and provide historical knowledge that will enable students to interpret and criticize what they are exposed to, being aware that as educators we always make a decision about what is read. That reading can be manipulated itself with methods that encourage research, reflection, and sharing.
I liked his suggestion that a collection of works by the same author are examined rather than anthologies and the use of writers of different genres, genders, and time or place.
One thing I had done with Girl Scouts years ago was after reading The Diary of Anna Frank-They choose 5 quotes from the book and wrote a one paragraph response. Everyone took turns reading one quote to the rest. While we were reading the book we incorporated using disposable cameras to find images that connected or disconnected to what we had read when the story was placed in our present world. We did not have to agree with each other, just explain our "Why?'. Respecting the other view point was always enforced as the girls agreed and disagreed. I tried promoting listening to others as a skill that places value to other points of views.
In the end the decision is personal as the reader accepts or rejects through reading, interpretation, and criticism. After all, each of US and each of THEM have to live in a world where "explicit" and "implicit" words mark the codes of power in our codes of everyday life. As always, I believe education should promote the possibilities and the imagination of students of all ages. We never know who will come into our lives personally, publically, and politically. The least expected person might, through education and the reading, the interpretaion, and the citicism, inspire society to great heights. Ane I like, Jameson believe in order to know where we are and where we are going we must know where we have been!
Textual Power in the Classroom
After toughing it out with Vygotsky for two weeks, I felt like Scholes was a breath of fresh air. I felt he did articulate his points very well and only went over my head a few times.
For some reason, this is the first time that I thought of English Composition in terms of binary oppositions, and in "The English Apparatus," Scholes deconstructs them (although I guess that was the whole point of the book... applying literary theory to English) I felt he was honest in his critique of why things in English departments shouldn't be so polarized and that "the literature/composition opposition must not only be deconstructed in critical writing, it must be broken down in our institutional practice as well" (7). Maybe its just the theme of unity running through my head today due to current events, but to me, this made sense. So often the English office is polarized between those that teach composition and rhetoric, and those that teach literature.
Scholes asks the question "What does it mean to teach literature?" from a historical point of view, and how revered the WORD literature has been in our culture and what that means: "When we say "teach literature," instead of saying that we teach reading, interpretation or criticism, we are saying that we expound the wisdom and truth of our texts, and we are in priests and priestesses in the service of a secular scripture: "the best that has been thought and said" (12). What Scholes wants to do is break down the "sermon like quality" of teaching English, bringing in notions of Freire's banking method, and instead make teaching literature a completely participatory activity. He does not want the teacher's sole function to "guide the student toward the correct interpretation of a text, so that the truth might stand revealed" (13). Instead, I think a big point that Scholes makes throughout these chapters is although literature speaks to certain human truths, the way people interpret them may be affected by their own background and culture. Therefore, a teacher teaching Hemingway only one way (with their prefixed backgrounds) is not going to speak to everyone in the class, as they might be viewing it a different way.
Scholes also makes the argument for the "text" movement, as our culture since the 60s, has had become a more mass media world. Therefore, "the students who come to us now exist in the most manipulative culture human beings have ever experienced. They are bombarded with signs, with rhetoric, from their daily awakenings until their troubled sleep, especially with signs transmitted by the audio-visual media" (15). So we can learn from a variety of different mediums, and teachers perhaps should fine tune their syllabi to address some of these new technologies.
The strongest part of Scholes book is the fact that he provided concrete applications of how to bring textual power to the classroom through reading, interpretation, and criticism. Using Hemingway as an example, although enjoyable, was that that--an example. I think you could probably use any text in a classroom, but I appreciated the nuances of his argument, showing passages and telling us how we can engage our students in the text, finding the "generic and cultural codes" without becoming too "preachy." (22). I do believe reading is important in composition, and it is certainly a huge part of English 101 classes, as we show students how to read and think critically and not only to encode through their writing, but how to get the most out of their decoding. Thats why I liked this simple yet powerful quote Scholes says "Reading and Writing are complementary acts that remain unfinished until completed by their reciprocals" (20).
For some reason, this is the first time that I thought of English Composition in terms of binary oppositions, and in "The English Apparatus," Scholes deconstructs them (although I guess that was the whole point of the book... applying literary theory to English) I felt he was honest in his critique of why things in English departments shouldn't be so polarized and that "the literature/composition opposition must not only be deconstructed in critical writing, it must be broken down in our institutional practice as well" (7). Maybe its just the theme of unity running through my head today due to current events, but to me, this made sense. So often the English office is polarized between those that teach composition and rhetoric, and those that teach literature.
Scholes asks the question "What does it mean to teach literature?" from a historical point of view, and how revered the WORD literature has been in our culture and what that means: "When we say "teach literature," instead of saying that we teach reading, interpretation or criticism, we are saying that we expound the wisdom and truth of our texts, and we are in priests and priestesses in the service of a secular scripture: "the best that has been thought and said" (12). What Scholes wants to do is break down the "sermon like quality" of teaching English, bringing in notions of Freire's banking method, and instead make teaching literature a completely participatory activity. He does not want the teacher's sole function to "guide the student toward the correct interpretation of a text, so that the truth might stand revealed" (13). Instead, I think a big point that Scholes makes throughout these chapters is although literature speaks to certain human truths, the way people interpret them may be affected by their own background and culture. Therefore, a teacher teaching Hemingway only one way (with their prefixed backgrounds) is not going to speak to everyone in the class, as they might be viewing it a different way.
Scholes also makes the argument for the "text" movement, as our culture since the 60s, has had become a more mass media world. Therefore, "the students who come to us now exist in the most manipulative culture human beings have ever experienced. They are bombarded with signs, with rhetoric, from their daily awakenings until their troubled sleep, especially with signs transmitted by the audio-visual media" (15). So we can learn from a variety of different mediums, and teachers perhaps should fine tune their syllabi to address some of these new technologies.
The strongest part of Scholes book is the fact that he provided concrete applications of how to bring textual power to the classroom through reading, interpretation, and criticism. Using Hemingway as an example, although enjoyable, was that that--an example. I think you could probably use any text in a classroom, but I appreciated the nuances of his argument, showing passages and telling us how we can engage our students in the text, finding the "generic and cultural codes" without becoming too "preachy." (22). I do believe reading is important in composition, and it is certainly a huge part of English 101 classes, as we show students how to read and think critically and not only to encode through their writing, but how to get the most out of their decoding. Thats why I liked this simple yet powerful quote Scholes says "Reading and Writing are complementary acts that remain unfinished until completed by their reciprocals" (20).
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
No Holy Crap
I like the breakdown of chapter 3...reading, interpreting, criticizing. I don't know that teaching Hemingway and the likes of Hemingway is necessary in order to teach students how to interpret and criticize. But the overall idea that teaching kids how to think, how to take literature apart in order to understand it (and find the intended humor in it) and try to make sense of what they don't know or words they don't know, and not just see the letters on the page that happen to form words...that's important. So is making that very connection through writing. I don't know that Hemingway needs to be part of a curriculum (elementary? p. 58) in order to accomplish this...like all good works, they become part of history--they become classics, but we should make way for the new and just as good. I wonder what the fixation on Hemingway is with Scholes, anyway.
P. 62...talks about how teachers must ask students not if they "got" it...but what do they think of it...do they accept it. I like that because it requires the student to respond with more than a yes or a no. It teaches them how to criticize and stand behind their thoughts and to analyze the text and their thoughts together. I know, like Vickie, that some students know how to think. They're born with the skill. Others need to be walked through the process of looking beyond the black and white text and taking it for what it is, or worse, not getting it at all.
This blog is short and sweet...I get it.
P. 62...talks about how teachers must ask students not if they "got" it...but what do they think of it...do they accept it. I like that because it requires the student to respond with more than a yes or a no. It teaches them how to criticize and stand behind their thoughts and to analyze the text and their thoughts together. I know, like Vickie, that some students know how to think. They're born with the skill. Others need to be walked through the process of looking beyond the black and white text and taking it for what it is, or worse, not getting it at all.
This blog is short and sweet...I get it.
I'm a fan
Somehow I got through my entire high school and college career without ever reading (let alone studying) Shakespeare. And look at me, I've managed to hold down jobs, raise kids, stay married, and be a productive member of society (well, in my mind anyway). In his book, Textual Power, Robert Scholes is completely accurate when he states "...the worst thing we can do is to foster in them an attitude of reverence before texts." Do I think Shakespeare was worth reading? Sure! Did I feel like I missed out by not reading him in high school or college? Well, I never lost sleep over it. Do I think Dickens, Hawthorne, and even Steinbeck are worth reading? Absolutely! It seems to me though, that since English is the closest thing to a reading course for many students, it's much more important to instruct students how to acquire the "judicious attitude" that Scholes discusses on page 16. He talks about an attitude that is "...scrupulous to understand, alert to probe for blind spots and hidden agendas, and, finally, critical, questioning, skeptical." Maybe if we taught in this way, we'd have less high school students believing that the man on http://www.malepregnancy.com/ is really pregnant. (Check it out!)
New topic...I found myself nodding in agreement while reading Scholes's (according to the source I used, adding an 's' to Scholes is the form that the United States Government Printing Office and Oxford University Press would use, so if it's good enough for them...) Let me start that again -I found myself nodding in agreement while reading Scholes's thoughts on the endless web and interconnectedness of reading and writing. Yep, it's true. To this end (and unbeknownst to the powers that be at my school) I informally studied this in my own classroom. I compared a year of no writing reflection after reading to a year with writing reflection after reading. I found that students became much more active readers once writing became part of the regiment. They now understand that, even though a reader may close the book, that doesn't mean that an active reader's brain stops working. I believe that reflective writing helped students make this very important connection.
It's also through this writing that students can learn to interpret, then criticize. I've mentioned before that this is not a natural skill for all readers. They need explicit instruction in how to interpret (which most English teachers are real good at when it pertains to literature). But, in the big picture, once students leave formal education, how often are they going to need to interpret literature? I realize that this process teaches many higher order thinking skills. I get it. I get it. Equally important (or, in my opinion, even more important) is the skill of interpreting non-fiction. Can students discriminate between the most important details and details of less importance? What strategies are they being taught to learn that critical skill? Good readers can often just pick that up. Poor readers need strategies! And Scholes alludes to that all over this book.
Next topic..."Wah, wah, wah, our students cannot think for themselves. They want everything spoon fed to them. They want us to tell them how to think and what to write." I cannot count how many times I've heard this ongoing rant about students from certain teachers. Duh! We set them up! I felt validated by Scholes's definition of the function of criticism on page 73. "It is a way of discovering how to choose, how to take some measure of responsibility for ourselves and for our world" (73), Perhaps this might be the key to stop that rant. We need to provide risk-free opportunities for our students so they can develop that skill. Sometimes there's much truth to the adage that there's nothing new in education. It just keeps circling back in some new form. To wit, Scholes wrote this in 1985 and we still argue this point today. Yeow, the wheels of educational progress turn slowly!
New topic...I found myself nodding in agreement while reading Scholes's (according to the source I used, adding an 's' to Scholes is the form that the United States Government Printing Office and Oxford University Press would use, so if it's good enough for them...) Let me start that again -I found myself nodding in agreement while reading Scholes's thoughts on the endless web and interconnectedness of reading and writing. Yep, it's true. To this end (and unbeknownst to the powers that be at my school) I informally studied this in my own classroom. I compared a year of no writing reflection after reading to a year with writing reflection after reading. I found that students became much more active readers once writing became part of the regiment. They now understand that, even though a reader may close the book, that doesn't mean that an active reader's brain stops working. I believe that reflective writing helped students make this very important connection.
It's also through this writing that students can learn to interpret, then criticize. I've mentioned before that this is not a natural skill for all readers. They need explicit instruction in how to interpret (which most English teachers are real good at when it pertains to literature). But, in the big picture, once students leave formal education, how often are they going to need to interpret literature? I realize that this process teaches many higher order thinking skills. I get it. I get it. Equally important (or, in my opinion, even more important) is the skill of interpreting non-fiction. Can students discriminate between the most important details and details of less importance? What strategies are they being taught to learn that critical skill? Good readers can often just pick that up. Poor readers need strategies! And Scholes alludes to that all over this book.
Next topic..."Wah, wah, wah, our students cannot think for themselves. They want everything spoon fed to them. They want us to tell them how to think and what to write." I cannot count how many times I've heard this ongoing rant about students from certain teachers. Duh! We set them up! I felt validated by Scholes's definition of the function of criticism on page 73. "It is a way of discovering how to choose, how to take some measure of responsibility for ourselves and for our world" (73), Perhaps this might be the key to stop that rant. We need to provide risk-free opportunities for our students so they can develop that skill. Sometimes there's much truth to the adage that there's nothing new in education. It just keeps circling back in some new form. To wit, Scholes wrote this in 1985 and we still argue this point today. Yeow, the wheels of educational progress turn slowly!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Textual Innuendoe, v1.0
Ooh, OOH, OOOH! Aside from making great sandals and related products, Dr. Scholes is really easy to read, even while his material is simply jam-packed with content. And for all you LFS fans out there (don't be shy, tell us how you really feel), there's even a handy Graphic Organizer on page 7 to show the hierarchical production and consumption of texts in the English Apparatus. I really got into it, perhaps more than the good doctor intended. Here's the point that jumped up and slapped me like a badly trained massage therapist: Consumption of texts is privileged over production of texts in our "academic subculture." This just takes me all the way back to Mike Rose's experience with his graduate schooling. Reading, interpretation, and the overly broad practice of literary scholarship are all manners in which texts are seen as being consumed. Yet teaching a composition course to non-majors or aiding a writing workshop is looked at as the sanitation engineering of the educational institution (it's called hyperbole, back off).
Interestingly, Scholes's (yes, that is proper use of the apostrophe. Look it up if you disagree) solution of three textual skills which can slip this cultural noose was something I was actually taught in 9th grade Civics. Of course, I remember very little content from Mr. Weeks's (it's still right, leave me be!) Civics course, at least consciously. It was the teaching/learning method of the course which has made an impressive impression upon my mental mind (put your rods and reels away; there'll be no more Engfish here).
LFS, take two:
3 areas of learning:
In Civics it was Knowledge, Understanding, and Wisdom.
For Scholes it's Reading, Interpreting, and Criticizing.
They are the same sets of activities, and they need to go in that order.
2 practices for those areas:
Reading and Writing.
1 (hoped for) result:
Students who are capable of critical thought instead of being passively, unrefectively subordinated by the texts they are presented with. (61)
Is this really any surprise? I, at least, in my phenomenal social insight, would expect the values of a society to be at least commonly, if not always, reflected in its ideological state apparatuses, of which the university definitely is one. Western First World society, exemplified by the U.S., is a consumer society. We seek gluttony and attempt to satiate our lack by acquiring, using, disposing. We recognize that production is a necessary thing--but only as a step towards consumption. We eat at McDonald's or Noma, drink Cristal and Thunderbird, audiovisually ingest a range of entertainment from Survivor to Broadway and only lack the Roman vomitoriums to complete our status as a cultural black hole of devouring wastefulness.
But I've apparently gone off on a rant, somewhere.
Interestingly, Scholes's (yes, that is proper use of the apostrophe. Look it up if you disagree) solution of three textual skills which can slip this cultural noose was something I was actually taught in 9th grade Civics. Of course, I remember very little content from Mr. Weeks's (it's still right, leave me be!) Civics course, at least consciously. It was the teaching/learning method of the course which has made an impressive impression upon my mental mind (put your rods and reels away; there'll be no more Engfish here).
LFS, take two:
3 areas of learning:
In Civics it was Knowledge, Understanding, and Wisdom.
For Scholes it's Reading, Interpreting, and Criticizing.
They are the same sets of activities, and they need to go in that order.
2 practices for those areas:
Reading and Writing.
1 (hoped for) result:
Students who are capable of critical thought instead of being passively, unrefectively subordinated by the texts they are presented with. (61)
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I think the band-aid can come off now. . . .
This assigned reading thankfully answered more questions than it generated, but I can’t get too excited just yet. I’ll probably find out during our discussions later that I misinterpreted some of Vygotsky, and I’ll be just as confused as ever. Anyway, I now know why last week’s selection came to be so confusing and why I had difficulty discerning Vygotsky’s work from that of Piaget’s: Vygotsky uses the word we when he discusses his theories and findings which somehow completely threw me off.
First, a few questions: On page 170 when Vygotsky refers to generalizations of inner forms of activity, what exactly is he talking about? I reread this part a couple of times and still no light bulb flickered. Then I attempted to comprehend the bottom of page 172 about the notion of scientific concept. Again, I reread but just couldn’t figure it out. Same thing with Gestalt psychology. I even tried looking it up only to find an extremely dense and incomprehensible definition. Any help in these areas would be greatly appreciated. The rest went rather smoothly, so perhaps these parts were not so crucial to understanding the whole.
Reading Koffka’s findings on page 177 made me think of an article in TIME Magazine I read about 2 or 3 years ago. Scientific data can now confirm that our brains do not fully develop until we reach the age of about 25. Most of the maturation in the later years comes to our reasoning skills, which explains why we may perhaps do more foolish things in our later teens and early twenties than when we get older. If I remember correctly, the article focused on the scientific data from three brothers, using medical history, interviews and brain images from scans. This scientific data could be used to argue that 18 is much too young to be considered an adult in any situation from voting to fighting in a war to drinking to committing crimes.
Interestingly, on page 189, Montessori theorizes that there are periods of time when instruction is most fruitful because that is when the child is most receptive to it. This would certainly lend itself to the theory that it’s easier to learn another or several languages when we are younger as our brains are more receptive to the instruction. Many schools, Cumberland Valley being one, are now or will soon be offering foreign languages in the lower grades and not waiting until middle school or even high school. This idea then connects to Montessori’s data on teaching kids to write early, finding that children are responding by “explosive writing.” This, in turn, made me think of Macrorie’s lamentations that younger students who have not yet been taught Engfish communicate better in writing than those in high school or college. Would it be possible to nurture this “abundant and imaginative use of written speech” so that it remains intact throughout life?
As I moved through the rest of the selection, I was fascinated by Vygotsky’s theories on inner speech, egocentric speech, and external speech and the translation from thought into words. It fully explains why students (and myself, at times as well!) have such difficulty putting their thoughts down on paper. Many of us voraciously search our brains (or our handy thesaurus) until we can find the words that can give birth to our thoughts, whether adequate or not. But if we lack the vocabulary, we lack some of our options and can become frustrated, just as the poor peasant who must address an official. This same concept can be seen in our students. They cannot always find the words to fully express themselves to the teacher (the official) and, therefore, become frustrated, even to the point of thinking themselves unable to write and give up.
One last thought before I close this blog. On page 241, Vyogtsky discusses a story from Dostoevsky after observing a conversation between drunks whereby they use only one word (I still am not sure what that word is), but it means so many different things within the conversation. This reminded me of a scene from Boondock Saints when Willem Dafoe uses the f-word in more ways and with more meanings than I could possibly imagine. It’s a bit on the disgusting side, but I would recommend seeing this one if you haven’t already.
Last Wednesday, while I was driving home from class, this song came on the radio and, call me weird, I thought of our discussion:
"What's Up" by Four Non Blondes
Twenty - five years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination
And I realized quickly when I knew I should
That the world was made up of this brotherhood of man
For whatever that means
And so I cry sometimes
When I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out
What's in my head
And I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning
And I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream at the top of my lungs (this part is especially for Chris)
What's going on?
And I say, hey hey hey hey
I said hey, what's going on?
Ooh, ooh ooh
And I try, oh my god do I try
I try all the time, in this institution
And I pray, oh my god do I pray
I pray every single day
For a revolution
And so I cry sometimes
When I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out
What's in my head
And I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning
And I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream at the top of my lungs
What's going on?
And I say, hey hey hey hey
I said hey, what's going on?
Twenty - five years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination.
There was also a psychic on the radio on another station discussing the very thing Julie brought up about altered states of consciousness. I can share that if anyone is interested.
First, a few questions: On page 170 when Vygotsky refers to generalizations of inner forms of activity, what exactly is he talking about? I reread this part a couple of times and still no light bulb flickered. Then I attempted to comprehend the bottom of page 172 about the notion of scientific concept. Again, I reread but just couldn’t figure it out. Same thing with Gestalt psychology. I even tried looking it up only to find an extremely dense and incomprehensible definition. Any help in these areas would be greatly appreciated. The rest went rather smoothly, so perhaps these parts were not so crucial to understanding the whole.
Reading Koffka’s findings on page 177 made me think of an article in TIME Magazine I read about 2 or 3 years ago. Scientific data can now confirm that our brains do not fully develop until we reach the age of about 25. Most of the maturation in the later years comes to our reasoning skills, which explains why we may perhaps do more foolish things in our later teens and early twenties than when we get older. If I remember correctly, the article focused on the scientific data from three brothers, using medical history, interviews and brain images from scans. This scientific data could be used to argue that 18 is much too young to be considered an adult in any situation from voting to fighting in a war to drinking to committing crimes.
Interestingly, on page 189, Montessori theorizes that there are periods of time when instruction is most fruitful because that is when the child is most receptive to it. This would certainly lend itself to the theory that it’s easier to learn another or several languages when we are younger as our brains are more receptive to the instruction. Many schools, Cumberland Valley being one, are now or will soon be offering foreign languages in the lower grades and not waiting until middle school or even high school. This idea then connects to Montessori’s data on teaching kids to write early, finding that children are responding by “explosive writing.” This, in turn, made me think of Macrorie’s lamentations that younger students who have not yet been taught Engfish communicate better in writing than those in high school or college. Would it be possible to nurture this “abundant and imaginative use of written speech” so that it remains intact throughout life?
As I moved through the rest of the selection, I was fascinated by Vygotsky’s theories on inner speech, egocentric speech, and external speech and the translation from thought into words. It fully explains why students (and myself, at times as well!) have such difficulty putting their thoughts down on paper. Many of us voraciously search our brains (or our handy thesaurus) until we can find the words that can give birth to our thoughts, whether adequate or not. But if we lack the vocabulary, we lack some of our options and can become frustrated, just as the poor peasant who must address an official. This same concept can be seen in our students. They cannot always find the words to fully express themselves to the teacher (the official) and, therefore, become frustrated, even to the point of thinking themselves unable to write and give up.
One last thought before I close this blog. On page 241, Vyogtsky discusses a story from Dostoevsky after observing a conversation between drunks whereby they use only one word (I still am not sure what that word is), but it means so many different things within the conversation. This reminded me of a scene from Boondock Saints when Willem Dafoe uses the f-word in more ways and with more meanings than I could possibly imagine. It’s a bit on the disgusting side, but I would recommend seeing this one if you haven’t already.
Last Wednesday, while I was driving home from class, this song came on the radio and, call me weird, I thought of our discussion:
"What's Up" by Four Non Blondes
Twenty - five years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination
And I realized quickly when I knew I should
That the world was made up of this brotherhood of man
For whatever that means
And so I cry sometimes
When I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out
What's in my head
And I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning
And I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream at the top of my lungs (this part is especially for Chris)
What's going on?
And I say, hey hey hey hey
I said hey, what's going on?
Ooh, ooh ooh
And I try, oh my god do I try
I try all the time, in this institution
And I pray, oh my god do I pray
I pray every single day
For a revolution
And so I cry sometimes
When I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out
What's in my head
And I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning
And I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream at the top of my lungs
What's going on?
And I say, hey hey hey hey
I said hey, what's going on?
Twenty - five years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination.
There was also a psychic on the radio on another station discussing the very thing Julie brought up about altered states of consciousness. I can share that if anyone is interested.
This blog is going to be short and disjointed. The former is how I sometimes wish Vygotsky could be, and the latter is how reading him makes me feel!
"Every sentence that we say in real life has some kind of subtext, a thought hidden behind it." (250)
The thread of thought running through this book, to which I seem to return and worry at as if it were hanging from my coat, is the subjectivity of thought and language, not just in themselves but in their development and structure as well. Vygotsky's discussion of where consciousness comes from, leading to the analysis of education's relationship with mental development, stirred the question I have asked a hundred times. What are the factors that keep my students from intellectually developing at the same rate, some advancing and others lagging far behind? Why is it that "sytematicity and consciousness do not come from outside"(172) and higher mental functions that contribute to mental development are seen as highly social, dependent on "cooperation with adults and and on instruction."?(189) The development of consciousness and of higher order mental skills seem both to be social and specific to individual experience, which would support the later discussion of word meaning and its constant change. It seems the subjectivity of the development of consciousness and mental acuity, caused by the social contributions that shape the meaning of that development, supports the perception of individual concepts of reality and therefore the fluid nature of word meanings. "It is not merely the content of a word that changes, but the way in which reality is generalized and reflected in a word." (213) The individual's concept of reality, their consciousness of being conscious must have an environmental factor in its development, and therefore a subjective element to their systemacity and semantics as well.
"Every sentence that we say in real life has some kind of subtext, a thought hidden behind it." (250)
The thread of thought running through this book, to which I seem to return and worry at as if it were hanging from my coat, is the subjectivity of thought and language, not just in themselves but in their development and structure as well. Vygotsky's discussion of where consciousness comes from, leading to the analysis of education's relationship with mental development, stirred the question I have asked a hundred times. What are the factors that keep my students from intellectually developing at the same rate, some advancing and others lagging far behind? Why is it that "sytematicity and consciousness do not come from outside"(172) and higher mental functions that contribute to mental development are seen as highly social, dependent on "cooperation with adults and and on instruction."?(189) The development of consciousness and of higher order mental skills seem both to be social and specific to individual experience, which would support the later discussion of word meaning and its constant change. It seems the subjectivity of the development of consciousness and mental acuity, caused by the social contributions that shape the meaning of that development, supports the perception of individual concepts of reality and therefore the fluid nature of word meanings. "It is not merely the content of a word that changes, but the way in which reality is generalized and reflected in a word." (213) The individual's concept of reality, their consciousness of being conscious must have an environmental factor in its development, and therefore a subjective element to their systemacity and semantics as well.
Vygotsky Part 2--Electric Bugaloo
So again, we tackle consciousness, or at least Vygotsky and Piaget's notion of it. I felt in this section at least Vygotsky was clear on clarifying the different definitions of consciousness, whereas other times he left things unexplained (that really could have used the clarification, but we did get that in class, so thank you!). I liked when Vygostsky connected what Piaget thought of consciousness with egocentrism, due to my ongoing interest from it last week: "According to Piaget's developmental model, the child's thought reflects the changing equilibrium between egocentrism, which is connected with a certain deficit of conscious control, and socialization. This model implies that the child's thought is not fully conscious; it contains conscious as well as unconscious elements" (Vygotsky 169).
I felt that what Piaget was getting at here was when a child engaged in egocentrism, their thoughts may not completely controlled. Again, I struggled because even though I know what egocentrism means v. "thinking out loud" I can see this happening when children blurt things out that they do not mean too, and for them, they do not realize if they are saying things consciously or unconsciously (whereas an adult can realize a "Freudian slip" after they've said it). I think this must be an interesting phrase to go through a) as a child and b) as an adult experiencing and seeing this in children.
Another part that I thought was interesting was the dynamic value of words rather than them being static. I guess this is another well, not duh, moment, but I have to remember to put it into context that this book was written back in the early 1900s and that this was new, but in a way it is still new today because I feel like we do take this for granted. The denotative and connotative meanings of words do constantly evolve. And of course taking semantics and other things (like external and phonetic as Vygotsky points out) into consideration, its no wonder the English language ( or any language) are so terribly hard to completely become literate in.
Vygotsky brings up that, "in mastering external speech, the child starts from one word.. then connects two or three words...and finally to coherent speech made of up series of such sentences...from a part to a whole...Semantically, the child starts from the whole, from a meaningful complex only later begins to master the separate semantic units" (219). I thought this was really insightful, because it shows how different the two aspects are, yet as Vygotsky points out, "reveal[ing' their inner relatedness as clearly as it does their distinction" (219) Therefore, even if they develop at different stages (part to whole v. whole to part) this proves the inherent connection between thought and words to meaning. It also gave me a greater appreciation for what a child has to go through in order to express something as, "a child's thought, precisely because it is born as dim, amorphous whole, must find expression in a single word" (219). It sounds so simplistic... okay, I must express something in a single word, but to a child, just learning to talk and express, its got to be a really interesting, complex process (that they may or may not even be completely conscious of.
I felt that what Piaget was getting at here was when a child engaged in egocentrism, their thoughts may not completely controlled. Again, I struggled because even though I know what egocentrism means v. "thinking out loud" I can see this happening when children blurt things out that they do not mean too, and for them, they do not realize if they are saying things consciously or unconsciously (whereas an adult can realize a "Freudian slip" after they've said it). I think this must be an interesting phrase to go through a) as a child and b) as an adult experiencing and seeing this in children.
Another part that I thought was interesting was the dynamic value of words rather than them being static. I guess this is another well, not duh, moment, but I have to remember to put it into context that this book was written back in the early 1900s and that this was new, but in a way it is still new today because I feel like we do take this for granted. The denotative and connotative meanings of words do constantly evolve. And of course taking semantics and other things (like external and phonetic as Vygotsky points out) into consideration, its no wonder the English language ( or any language) are so terribly hard to completely become literate in.
Vygotsky brings up that, "in mastering external speech, the child starts from one word.. then connects two or three words...and finally to coherent speech made of up series of such sentences...from a part to a whole...Semantically, the child starts from the whole, from a meaningful complex only later begins to master the separate semantic units" (219). I thought this was really insightful, because it shows how different the two aspects are, yet as Vygotsky points out, "reveal[ing' their inner relatedness as clearly as it does their distinction" (219) Therefore, even if they develop at different stages (part to whole v. whole to part) this proves the inherent connection between thought and words to meaning. It also gave me a greater appreciation for what a child has to go through in order to express something as, "a child's thought, precisely because it is born as dim, amorphous whole, must find expression in a single word" (219). It sounds so simplistic... okay, I must express something in a single word, but to a child, just learning to talk and express, its got to be a really interesting, complex process (that they may or may not even be completely conscious of.
I speak therefore I am...
I was fascinated by the ideas in this week's reading. It helped that I could understand them without the three PhDs and an unabridged dictionary.
In the development of writing, Vgotsky postulates , "Our studies show that it is the abstract quality of written language that is the main stumbling block, not the underdevelopment of small muscles or any other mechanical obstacles" (181). This was really magic to me, and it became even more clear in the last chapter. I kept thinking of my students and their differing writing abilities. Sometimes I'll ask a student to sit down and tell me what she meant by a particular sentence or paragraph that was confusing for me as the reader. Then she explains it, and I'll often say, "Why didn't you just write that? You just clarified it for me." So, if I understand this correctly, she is moving from internal speech where, "...we trust ourselves without proof" (243 attributed to Piaget). What may have seemed clear in her head suffers when she tries to get her thoughts on paper. Me asking her to tell me what she intends, means that she's adding a step, i.e. external speech where she will have to articulate her thoughts out loud, then go back and redraft the writing.
Why is it so hard to teach writing? I'm always asking myself this question. What words for one student may not work for another. Vgotsky writes, "The motives for writing [as opposed to conversation] are more abstract, more intellectualized, further removed from immediate needs. In written speech, we are obliged to create the situation, to represent it to ourselves. This demands detachment from actual situation" (181). Is this one of the reasons why it's so hard to teach writing? Here's an idea that makes the abstraction easier to deal with. I was given a class a few years ago in which the students were worse than below basic. I guess I knew in my gut that the abstract part of writing was going to be a problem, or maybe I tried with little success. I can't remember. In any case, I used an idea that enabled the kids to write without "creating the situation". I asked them to think of a product they had bought but were unhappy with. It didn't work, didn't taste good, fell apart, etc. They had to write actual letters to those companies with their complaints. This was a hit. It was concrete. And we got some fantastic responses! Kelly Gallagher, in Teaching Adolescent Writers suggests the same thing. Start with writing assignments that are concrete and slowly move to the abstract.
Chapter 7 made clear some of the ideas we talked about last week. Vgotsky writes on page 210 that "A connection originates, [between thought and word] changes, and grows in the course of the evolution of thinking and speech" and that "...word meanings develop" (212). This continues throughout life. A child learns the word black as a color. In grade school, he may learn about a black cat in the context of superstitions. Developmentally, he is not ready to understand the more advanced connotations of the word. Black may be associated with mystery, or if you want to go to more sophisticated level, black may become associated with evil, as in Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown. This connects to what Vgotsky says about writing. As we mature, we have huge suitcases full of words and their associated meanings. When we write, it takes more words for us to make sure our intended meaning is clear to our audience.
This was great stuff! I couldn't help thinking about the way we teach reading and writing. This gave me some ways to understand ideas I've stumbled on that worked, and ways to keep trying.
In the development of writing, Vgotsky postulates , "Our studies show that it is the abstract quality of written language that is the main stumbling block, not the underdevelopment of small muscles or any other mechanical obstacles" (181). This was really magic to me, and it became even more clear in the last chapter. I kept thinking of my students and their differing writing abilities. Sometimes I'll ask a student to sit down and tell me what she meant by a particular sentence or paragraph that was confusing for me as the reader. Then she explains it, and I'll often say, "Why didn't you just write that? You just clarified it for me." So, if I understand this correctly, she is moving from internal speech where, "...we trust ourselves without proof" (243 attributed to Piaget). What may have seemed clear in her head suffers when she tries to get her thoughts on paper. Me asking her to tell me what she intends, means that she's adding a step, i.e. external speech where she will have to articulate her thoughts out loud, then go back and redraft the writing.
Why is it so hard to teach writing? I'm always asking myself this question. What words for one student may not work for another. Vgotsky writes, "The motives for writing [as opposed to conversation] are more abstract, more intellectualized, further removed from immediate needs. In written speech, we are obliged to create the situation, to represent it to ourselves. This demands detachment from actual situation" (181). Is this one of the reasons why it's so hard to teach writing? Here's an idea that makes the abstraction easier to deal with. I was given a class a few years ago in which the students were worse than below basic. I guess I knew in my gut that the abstract part of writing was going to be a problem, or maybe I tried with little success. I can't remember. In any case, I used an idea that enabled the kids to write without "creating the situation". I asked them to think of a product they had bought but were unhappy with. It didn't work, didn't taste good, fell apart, etc. They had to write actual letters to those companies with their complaints. This was a hit. It was concrete. And we got some fantastic responses! Kelly Gallagher, in Teaching Adolescent Writers suggests the same thing. Start with writing assignments that are concrete and slowly move to the abstract.
Chapter 7 made clear some of the ideas we talked about last week. Vgotsky writes on page 210 that "A connection originates, [between thought and word] changes, and grows in the course of the evolution of thinking and speech" and that "...word meanings develop" (212). This continues throughout life. A child learns the word black as a color. In grade school, he may learn about a black cat in the context of superstitions. Developmentally, he is not ready to understand the more advanced connotations of the word. Black may be associated with mystery, or if you want to go to more sophisticated level, black may become associated with evil, as in Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown. This connects to what Vgotsky says about writing. As we mature, we have huge suitcases full of words and their associated meanings. When we write, it takes more words for us to make sure our intended meaning is clear to our audience.
This was great stuff! I couldn't help thinking about the way we teach reading and writing. This gave me some ways to understand ideas I've stumbled on that worked, and ways to keep trying.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Inner speech is to a large extent thinking in pure meaning
"Thought is not merely expresed in words; it comes into existence through them" (218). So it's when we can crystalize our thought and put words to it that it actually becomes real. It makes complete sense to me. This is exactly what writing and/or reflection does for me. It forces me to form words from my thinking. I have all these ideas (concepts? thoughts?) freely floating around in my head that don't or can't crystalize until I write or reflect about them. It's only when I try to make sense of my thinking by putting it into words that I really know what I know. That's Vygotsky' point when he says that "It [thought] does not merely find expression in speech; it finds its reality and form " (219). It happens to me all the time - sometimes in writing but also from reflection. When I reflect (usually while jogging), I can form meaningful thoughts out of all the gobbledeegook floating around in that brain of mine. When I talk to someone about "what's on my mind," my thoughts tend to be much deeper and richer if I've reflected or written about them first. Oh if only I could always 'think' that way - I'd put my foot in my mouth so much less!
I buy intoVygotsky's theory that egocentric speech is a stage of development that precedes inner speech in a downward kind of curve. It just makes sense. It also seems logical that "egocentric speech disappears when the feeling of being understood is absent" (233). If your audience doesn't get what you're saying, then why verbalize it? Keep it inside your own head where it does make sense.
It further computes that there is more predication in inner speech. I DO know what the subject of my thoughts are so I DON'T need to mention it to myself. And I've been in the position- more than once- where my thoughts are so clear in my own head, but they don't seem to be clear to my audience. I'll have to remember to ponder whether it's a predication issue. Do I need to flesh out the subject more in order to be understood? Is the subject so clear to me that I'm just oblivious to what I need to communicate to my audience? I do believe that there are those people who can be intimately connected, that they might indeed be able to communicate their thoughts with mere letters instead of words. Oh to be Kitty and Levin! I realize those are fictional characters but I think it can happen in real life. The next time I feel such a connection, I'm going to speak in letters. If anybody feels that connection to me, try to guess what I'm saying here..."T a f, s y i c o W."
I buy intoVygotsky's theory that egocentric speech is a stage of development that precedes inner speech in a downward kind of curve. It just makes sense. It also seems logical that "egocentric speech disappears when the feeling of being understood is absent" (233). If your audience doesn't get what you're saying, then why verbalize it? Keep it inside your own head where it does make sense.
It further computes that there is more predication in inner speech. I DO know what the subject of my thoughts are so I DON'T need to mention it to myself. And I've been in the position- more than once- where my thoughts are so clear in my own head, but they don't seem to be clear to my audience. I'll have to remember to ponder whether it's a predication issue. Do I need to flesh out the subject more in order to be understood? Is the subject so clear to me that I'm just oblivious to what I need to communicate to my audience? I do believe that there are those people who can be intimately connected, that they might indeed be able to communicate their thoughts with mere letters instead of words. Oh to be Kitty and Levin! I realize those are fictional characters but I think it can happen in real life. The next time I feel such a connection, I'm going to speak in letters. If anybody feels that connection to me, try to guess what I'm saying here..."T a f, s y i c o W."
Holy Crap
Holy crap.
Can that be the whole blog? Holy crap? That packs a lot of meaning if you dwell on it long enough.
So, this Vygotsky. Nothing can just happen because it happens. He has to have a reason and a theory and a psychological law and over-think. I am specifically referring to page 163, the second paragraph. I mean, I truly have no idea what all these words mean when they are put together in sentences like this. Is this just babble? Are these his own inner thoughts that are the gibberish that he was talking about in earlier chapters? It really aggravates me that I really want to understand what he's talking about, and it's like this language is purposely used...to what...make me figure it out on my own and possibly not get what he intended? Is that the purpose? Why can't a child just respond to a question in the manner that the child responded simply because they are not developmentally ready to reason through their response? And how about the fact that if the child is apparently unaware of their own response then a theorist cannot pick it apart when the child clearly cannot articulate *why* they responded that way? These "theories" are just opinions...unless some brain child was actually able to say..."well, I answered that way because I am unaware of what I am really talking about at my age, and here's why." It all sounds very thought-provoking when you have all those big words together. Makes it look like the person knows what they are talking about. Who would question someone who uses all those big words. If you question them, they'll use more big words and chew the questioner up with even bigger words. They'll even write books just to show you who's right. I'm so annoyed right now.
Even on page 165...the bottom...Piaget's "theory" (Vygotsky's argument for dispensing it, anyway) that higher levels of thinking recur in later stages with a higher developmental level of thinking. Really? You mean the older we get the more we think on a higher level? And Vygotsky has to argue that this is not enough, that we need to analyze the growth and awareness? And at the bottom of 166, he insists that there is a more important central issue (his own of course) that to me, sounds just like what Piaget refers to in his Law of Shift, only with bigger words.
Ooh. Here we go. I agree. Page 187. And it's not gibberish. "With assistance, every child can do more than he can by himself-though only within the limits set by the state of his development." He could have written a whole book about this without sounding pompous. I like this. I immediately thought of the various groupings of kids I have in remediation. Even within those groups, although they are within the same reading level, some are still more capable than others. It's their developmental level-some are further ahead and will move faster than others.
I'll end with that. Well, not before I point out that on page 213 there is a profound statement. "Linguistics did not realize that in the historical revolution of language the very structure of meaning and its psychological nature also change." No. You mean words change meaning as time moves forward? Or maybe disappear altogether? I guess he did not know that the word "necessary"...the way he uses it...used to mean "bathroom" in the 1700's and early 1800's.
Can that be the whole blog? Holy crap? That packs a lot of meaning if you dwell on it long enough.
So, this Vygotsky. Nothing can just happen because it happens. He has to have a reason and a theory and a psychological law and over-think. I am specifically referring to page 163, the second paragraph. I mean, I truly have no idea what all these words mean when they are put together in sentences like this. Is this just babble? Are these his own inner thoughts that are the gibberish that he was talking about in earlier chapters? It really aggravates me that I really want to understand what he's talking about, and it's like this language is purposely used...to what...make me figure it out on my own and possibly not get what he intended? Is that the purpose? Why can't a child just respond to a question in the manner that the child responded simply because they are not developmentally ready to reason through their response? And how about the fact that if the child is apparently unaware of their own response then a theorist cannot pick it apart when the child clearly cannot articulate *why* they responded that way? These "theories" are just opinions...unless some brain child was actually able to say..."well, I answered that way because I am unaware of what I am really talking about at my age, and here's why." It all sounds very thought-provoking when you have all those big words together. Makes it look like the person knows what they are talking about. Who would question someone who uses all those big words. If you question them, they'll use more big words and chew the questioner up with even bigger words. They'll even write books just to show you who's right. I'm so annoyed right now.
Even on page 165...the bottom...Piaget's "theory" (Vygotsky's argument for dispensing it, anyway) that higher levels of thinking recur in later stages with a higher developmental level of thinking. Really? You mean the older we get the more we think on a higher level? And Vygotsky has to argue that this is not enough, that we need to analyze the growth and awareness? And at the bottom of 166, he insists that there is a more important central issue (his own of course) that to me, sounds just like what Piaget refers to in his Law of Shift, only with bigger words.
Ooh. Here we go. I agree. Page 187. And it's not gibberish. "With assistance, every child can do more than he can by himself-though only within the limits set by the state of his development." He could have written a whole book about this without sounding pompous. I like this. I immediately thought of the various groupings of kids I have in remediation. Even within those groups, although they are within the same reading level, some are still more capable than others. It's their developmental level-some are further ahead and will move faster than others.
I'll end with that. Well, not before I point out that on page 213 there is a profound statement. "Linguistics did not realize that in the historical revolution of language the very structure of meaning and its psychological nature also change." No. You mean words change meaning as time moves forward? Or maybe disappear altogether? I guess he did not know that the word "necessary"...the way he uses it...used to mean "bathroom" in the 1700's and early 1800's.
What, are you thinking about, honey?
ok, so the man repeats himself occasionally. That's something we've all done, especially when we aren't sure if our audience is ready for what we have just said. So occasionally, we repeat ourselves; that's something we've all done. really, though, Vygotsky's reflective study and inferences centering on abstraction and the use of second order symbols bears repeating. So I'll repeat 3 of his points.
By focusing on the activity of abstraction, of generalization, we dig beneath the appearance level to the essential level. It is the hierarchical nature of the conceptual system that allows people to both live in the world and, to some degree, to understand each other. If we only had concepts which related directly to single objects, every experience would be unique and hence, unexplainable. While Vygotsky focuses on "science," any conceptual system makes use of hierarchy and generalization. Overgeneralization (stereotyping) can be dysfunctional, as can generalization based on false premises, but that does not, truthfully cannot, invalidate the need of generalizations to reflection and consciousness. "The scientific concept, thus, stands in a different relation to the object, in a relation achievable only in conceptual form, which, in its turn, is possible only through a system of concepts." (173)Holy dependent clauses, LevMan! Substitute "literate" for "scientific," and try that one out.
On page 181, he expounds that "Our studies show that it is the abstract quality of written language that is the main stumbling block." While prior to our transitional/digital age, this means it is the translation of inner speech into a new system that is the hard part. Prior practice with other methods of abstraction and non-indicative symbols would seem to me likely to ease this difficulty (i.e. Any activity that involves consciousness of consciousness, like tactical games or abstract art should have a beneficial effect on the process of writing).
And now, the explanation of my title. "Inner speech works with semantics, not phonetics." (244) Analogously, it doesn't work with inscribed symbols, either. Since it is so personal, so caught up in meaning, previously accepted sense, and assumptions, no wonder we can "say it in our heads" but have such difficulty getting it on paper. This is also why the titular question is so cruel. I cannot explain "what I'm thinking" in the short time it takes to ask the question, but no one that asks that questions wants a full explanation of why I was thinking about how a fight between a crocodile and a hippo would go, and all the interconnected emotions and memories that have their locus in that imaginary conflict, so my usual answer is, "Uh...nothing?"
256 "...all consciousness is connected with the development of the word." Wow. Heavy.
One last thought. Page 190 is centered on the "Awareness and Control" during the "sensitive periods." What isn't said is, of course, "What happens when there is a lack of stimulation and development during these 'sensitive periods?'" Is development that much slower and more arduous once the period has passed? And are there sensitive periods beyond school age? Can certain experiences generate a sensitive period? I'd love to hear what you all think about these questions.
By focusing on the activity of abstraction, of generalization, we dig beneath the appearance level to the essential level. It is the hierarchical nature of the conceptual system that allows people to both live in the world and, to some degree, to understand each other. If we only had concepts which related directly to single objects, every experience would be unique and hence, unexplainable. While Vygotsky focuses on "science," any conceptual system makes use of hierarchy and generalization. Overgeneralization (stereotyping) can be dysfunctional, as can generalization based on false premises, but that does not, truthfully cannot, invalidate the need of generalizations to reflection and consciousness. "The scientific concept, thus, stands in a different relation to the object, in a relation achievable only in conceptual form, which, in its turn, is possible only through a system of concepts." (173)Holy dependent clauses, LevMan! Substitute "literate" for "scientific," and try that one out.
On page 181, he expounds that "Our studies show that it is the abstract quality of written language that is the main stumbling block." While prior to our transitional/digital age, this means it is the translation of inner speech into a new system that is the hard part. Prior practice with other methods of abstraction and non-indicative symbols would seem to me likely to ease this difficulty (i.e. Any activity that involves consciousness of consciousness, like tactical games or abstract art should have a beneficial effect on the process of writing).
And now, the explanation of my title. "Inner speech works with semantics, not phonetics." (244) Analogously, it doesn't work with inscribed symbols, either. Since it is so personal, so caught up in meaning, previously accepted sense, and assumptions, no wonder we can "say it in our heads" but have such difficulty getting it on paper. This is also why the titular question is so cruel. I cannot explain "what I'm thinking" in the short time it takes to ask the question, but no one that asks that questions wants a full explanation of why I was thinking about how a fight between a crocodile and a hippo would go, and all the interconnected emotions and memories that have their locus in that imaginary conflict, so my usual answer is, "Uh...nothing?"
256 "...all consciousness is connected with the development of the word." Wow. Heavy.
One last thought. Page 190 is centered on the "Awareness and Control" during the "sensitive periods." What isn't said is, of course, "What happens when there is a lack of stimulation and development during these 'sensitive periods?'" Is development that much slower and more arduous once the period has passed? And are there sensitive periods beyond school age? Can certain experiences generate a sensitive period? I'd love to hear what you all think about these questions.
The End and Back to the Beginning
I found this book difficult because of the extensive explanations of Paiget's theories that Vygotsky would only disagree with throughout his theory. Then, his vocabulary continues to confuse. But, what did I get out Vygotsky's written rhetoric of his theory examining Thought and Language?
The development of children at young ages does not follow any easy formulas. Much of a child's development has peaks and curves where the inner speech, external speech, and abstract thought all overlap but sometimes one is more important than another.
I believe because of the overlapping of scientific and everyday experience and the differences of access to socialization environments as well as their personal environments (acknowledgement of the 's' on environment)"the multifunctional nature of language"can not be separated only examined (240).
Vital growth in one area, thought,oral language, written language, academic instruction, and reflection do not happen simultaneously. Where is the child to be placed when Vygotsky addresses the instructional results from schooling as a measure of what the child knows, thinks, and experiences? The fallacy of "No Child Left Behind" teaches to measurable skills NOT the development of inner thoughts and the concept behind the skill. The task becomes more important than the personal growth.
The classic linguistic theories of signs, symbols, and meanings intertwine reflection, speech, and words with the ability to think and communicate. According to Vygotsky, "Inner speech is not the interior of external speech-it is a function in itself. It still remains speech i.e. thought connected to worlds" (249). The fluidity of words and the sequencing of words might still be lacking giving meaning to Vygotsky's "sense and meaning" but "how to put thoughts into words" becomes where you place yourself in the world and where others place you(250). Depending on the person, the place, the audience, and the situation the word may be limited to or changed by the experiences of others.
The thought and inner speech soars and becomes grounded as concrete expression for sharing in a world with other humans. Sometimes the inner speech is reflection on how to proceed into the world with others. Sometimes it becomes imagination and fanciful thought important as the child takes in new experiences of sound, vision, instruction, interrelations, and even personal reprimands. And sometimes the inner speech helps place the child confidently into the world.
How do we promote that soaring of thought for children? We need to allow the experimentation of expression! We need to provide the hearing and reading of the child's words. We need to allow for the individual growth and development that makes a child unique as well as giving the child skills to function in the world.
The development of children at young ages does not follow any easy formulas. Much of a child's development has peaks and curves where the inner speech, external speech, and abstract thought all overlap but sometimes one is more important than another.
I believe because of the overlapping of scientific and everyday experience and the differences of access to socialization environments as well as their personal environments (acknowledgement of the 's' on environment)"the multifunctional nature of language"can not be separated only examined (240).
Vital growth in one area, thought,oral language, written language, academic instruction, and reflection do not happen simultaneously. Where is the child to be placed when Vygotsky addresses the instructional results from schooling as a measure of what the child knows, thinks, and experiences? The fallacy of "No Child Left Behind" teaches to measurable skills NOT the development of inner thoughts and the concept behind the skill. The task becomes more important than the personal growth.
The classic linguistic theories of signs, symbols, and meanings intertwine reflection, speech, and words with the ability to think and communicate. According to Vygotsky, "Inner speech is not the interior of external speech-it is a function in itself. It still remains speech i.e. thought connected to worlds" (249). The fluidity of words and the sequencing of words might still be lacking giving meaning to Vygotsky's "sense and meaning" but "how to put thoughts into words" becomes where you place yourself in the world and where others place you(250). Depending on the person, the place, the audience, and the situation the word may be limited to or changed by the experiences of others.
The thought and inner speech soars and becomes grounded as concrete expression for sharing in a world with other humans. Sometimes the inner speech is reflection on how to proceed into the world with others. Sometimes it becomes imagination and fanciful thought important as the child takes in new experiences of sound, vision, instruction, interrelations, and even personal reprimands. And sometimes the inner speech helps place the child confidently into the world.
How do we promote that soaring of thought for children? We need to allow the experimentation of expression! We need to provide the hearing and reading of the child's words. We need to allow for the individual growth and development that makes a child unique as well as giving the child skills to function in the world.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Vygotsky's Thought and Language
Well, I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I really struggled with Vygotsky. I'm not sure if it was just the really dense plethora of information, or just fighting off cold and migraines, but boy, did Vygotsky have a lot to say. Okay, end rant...
It was really interesting to read his critique of Piaget, who we very briefly covered in our linguistics class. In fact, I felt like I had to re familiarize myself with his theories besides the information Vygotsky provided. One of the parts that interested me the most was the section on egocentric speech. According to Vygotsky, "egocentric speech does not provide communication...Egocentric speech is, therefore, useless. It plays no essential role in child behavior" (29).
I felt many aspects of Vygotsky's criticism of the role of egocentric speech in child development was really insightful and just made a lot of sense. I thought the example with the child drawing the streetcar really highlighted it. Although the child did not communicate directly with the people he was upset that his pencil broke, he communicated it verbally "It's broken" but also physically through the representation of the broken streetcar in his picture. The connection between language and activity I thought was crucial, as the child was showing he understood the meaning of broken through the drawing of a streetcar. So while Piaget thought egocentric speech was something that happened when children are small (and that they would eventually grow out of) I feel this show it is an important step in development of not only verbal speech, but the consequences behind meanings of words. He may have heard the word "broken" but not had truly understood it until it happened to him. And then he showed his understanding of the word through the drawing. It reminded me a lot of our discussion from a few weeks ago and how children naturally change the verb tenses. With regards to the tenses, as a child naturally grows, the syntax he or she develops almost corrects itself. I feel the same type of idea could be seen with egocentric speech, whereas its a fuller understanding of the word because its happening to him, and he is experiencing it, even if the only communication he is having is between himself and that paper.
It would seem that egocentric speech is imperative to human being growth, as it never really leaves us, only manifests itself in a form of "inner speech" as Piaget refers to it. Vygotsky makes the argument that adults "thinking out loud" is no different than egocentric speech, and this seems like a really good observation (32). I'm pretty sure I can think of several dozens of situations where I have talked to myself out loud.
The other aspect of the egocentric speech I thought was interesting was when Vygotsky compared the schema of development, "first social, then egocentric, then inner speech--contrasts both with the traditional behaviorist schema--vocal, speech, whisper, inner speech--and with Piaget sequence--from nonverbal autistic thought through egocentric thought and speech to socialized speech and logical thinking" (35-36). Comparing all the developments of speech, thought, and language side by side when I think about all the developments we have made in discovering thought and language and the connection between, and yet how far we have to go. It almost seems to a degree, that each child may respond differently in growth, so I wonder how much of nature v. nurture plays in to the child's development..
It was really interesting to read his critique of Piaget, who we very briefly covered in our linguistics class. In fact, I felt like I had to re familiarize myself with his theories besides the information Vygotsky provided. One of the parts that interested me the most was the section on egocentric speech. According to Vygotsky, "egocentric speech does not provide communication...Egocentric speech is, therefore, useless. It plays no essential role in child behavior" (29).
I felt many aspects of Vygotsky's criticism of the role of egocentric speech in child development was really insightful and just made a lot of sense. I thought the example with the child drawing the streetcar really highlighted it. Although the child did not communicate directly with the people he was upset that his pencil broke, he communicated it verbally "It's broken" but also physically through the representation of the broken streetcar in his picture. The connection between language and activity I thought was crucial, as the child was showing he understood the meaning of broken through the drawing of a streetcar. So while Piaget thought egocentric speech was something that happened when children are small (and that they would eventually grow out of) I feel this show it is an important step in development of not only verbal speech, but the consequences behind meanings of words. He may have heard the word "broken" but not had truly understood it until it happened to him. And then he showed his understanding of the word through the drawing. It reminded me a lot of our discussion from a few weeks ago and how children naturally change the verb tenses. With regards to the tenses, as a child naturally grows, the syntax he or she develops almost corrects itself. I feel the same type of idea could be seen with egocentric speech, whereas its a fuller understanding of the word because its happening to him, and he is experiencing it, even if the only communication he is having is between himself and that paper.
It would seem that egocentric speech is imperative to human being growth, as it never really leaves us, only manifests itself in a form of "inner speech" as Piaget refers to it. Vygotsky makes the argument that adults "thinking out loud" is no different than egocentric speech, and this seems like a really good observation (32). I'm pretty sure I can think of several dozens of situations where I have talked to myself out loud.
The other aspect of the egocentric speech I thought was interesting was when Vygotsky compared the schema of development, "first social, then egocentric, then inner speech--contrasts both with the traditional behaviorist schema--vocal, speech, whisper, inner speech--and with Piaget sequence--from nonverbal autistic thought through egocentric thought and speech to socialized speech and logical thinking" (35-36). Comparing all the developments of speech, thought, and language side by side when I think about all the developments we have made in discovering thought and language and the connection between, and yet how far we have to go. It almost seems to a degree, that each child may respond differently in growth, so I wonder how much of nature v. nurture plays in to the child's development..
From the very beginning of this reading I became focused on a comment Vygotsky made about the importance of developmental changes in the interrelatedness of thought and language. Once he moved on to the discussion of ontogenetics, one question permeated my thoughts throughout the reading. How does the relationship and development of the relationship between thought and language differ between individuals? The first instance that hinted at an answer was Vygotsky's claim that "development of speech creates a favorable environment for autistic thinking." (23) This seemed at first contradictory, as Vygotsky had referred to Piaget's hypothesis that autistic thought was unconscious and uncommunicative, which seems elementally incongruous with language development. Also, the idea was postulated that imagination, a large function of autistic thinking, was based on memory. Both imagination and memory rely heavily on the senses, imagery and therefore, symbols. We think of words as symbols of what they represent, but not in the sense of symbols associated with non-linguistic units of memory. However, if true, this raises the question of children whose socio-economic position has forced them into reality at an earlier age than other children, and so further away from an existence dominated by imagination; whether or not the language development of these children suffers as a result?
Furthermore, Vygotsky's arguments seem to regularly return to the utilitarian nature of language. If there is not a purpose or stimulus for a certain type of language use, whether it be social/communicative or autistic, then, obviously, the language is not used or left at a stage of underdevelopment. If types of thought development are linked to types of language development, then the corresponding thought processes of neglecting speech development will also become underdeveloped. Correct? So, students who are not challenged or engaged communicatively are more likely to be underdeveloped in both speech and thought? If true, this directly affects literacy in that it is not a person's knowledge of canon or the legitimacy of a person's thoughts that are questionable, but the ability to think and express thought that becomes problematic.
Furthermore, Vygotsky's arguments seem to regularly return to the utilitarian nature of language. If there is not a purpose or stimulus for a certain type of language use, whether it be social/communicative or autistic, then, obviously, the language is not used or left at a stage of underdevelopment. If types of thought development are linked to types of language development, then the corresponding thought processes of neglecting speech development will also become underdeveloped. Correct? So, students who are not challenged or engaged communicatively are more likely to be underdeveloped in both speech and thought? If true, this directly affects literacy in that it is not a person's knowledge of canon or the legitimacy of a person's thoughts that are questionable, but the ability to think and express thought that becomes problematic.
No answers, just more questions...
I found the first section in Vgotsky very difficult. I'm reading this thinking, "I'm an English teacher damn it. Why can't I understand this?" Then I got out my unabridged dictionary and started hunting. I was surprised to see the word "autism" used the way he did. I had a difficult time divorcing myself from thinking of autistic children each time I read that word. What does that tell you about thought and language. The idea and the word were so closely associated in my brain, that I just couldn't subconsciously separate the two. It was only when I stopped and corrected my thinking, that I could move on to try to understand the point.
What is the age of crisis in psychology mentioned on page 15?
Vgosky writes on page 15 that "...facts are always examined in light of some theory..." Aren't facts also DISCOVERED in light of some theory?
On page 21 Vgostky writes that animal psychoogy knows only the reality function. How can this be tested?
I enjoyed Vgotsky's discussion of the two types of egocentric and socialized language. I wondered about socialized language...Without others, would a child never learn to think or speak anything other than egocentric speech?
On page 39 Vgotsky quotes Lenin, "For even in the simplist generalization, in the most general idea, there is a certain bit of fantasy". I just thought that was a cool way to look at ideas because they are just a fantasy in the brain until they are tested or discussed.
After reading this chapter, I kept thinking about how we perceive those who cannot or will not speak. If someone is physically incapable of speaking, we sometimes assume he is incapable of higher level thinking. If we did not know who Stephen Hawking was, would we assume he was incapable of thought?
Chapter 4 was fun to read. On page 75 Vgotsky states that there is no physiological reason why chimps cannot speak. Where does the thought process fail them? (I am already making a judgment here)
We've come a long way since Vgotsky. He writes on page 75 that there is no hope that antropoids can learn to speak and, "Not a hint of their using signs has ever been heard of". I remember Koko, (was he a chimp or a mountain gorilla?) and several articles in National Geographic and a woman working with him on sign language.
On page 78 Vgostky writes that some animals do have a speeh of their own and that Learner "compiled a dictionary of 32 speech elements, or 'words' ". In light of some of our recent discussions on literacy, isn't Vgotsky saying that animals have their own literacy? I know this is not the point of his research, but this made me think that there are probably thousands of literacies in thousands of cultures and cultures within cultures, so who's saying ours is best? What's so superior about Western civilization and its academia?
What is the age of crisis in psychology mentioned on page 15?
Vgosky writes on page 15 that "...facts are always examined in light of some theory..." Aren't facts also DISCOVERED in light of some theory?
On page 21 Vgostky writes that animal psychoogy knows only the reality function. How can this be tested?
I enjoyed Vgotsky's discussion of the two types of egocentric and socialized language. I wondered about socialized language...Without others, would a child never learn to think or speak anything other than egocentric speech?
On page 39 Vgotsky quotes Lenin, "For even in the simplist generalization, in the most general idea, there is a certain bit of fantasy". I just thought that was a cool way to look at ideas because they are just a fantasy in the brain until they are tested or discussed.
After reading this chapter, I kept thinking about how we perceive those who cannot or will not speak. If someone is physically incapable of speaking, we sometimes assume he is incapable of higher level thinking. If we did not know who Stephen Hawking was, would we assume he was incapable of thought?
Chapter 4 was fun to read. On page 75 Vgotsky states that there is no physiological reason why chimps cannot speak. Where does the thought process fail them? (I am already making a judgment here)
We've come a long way since Vgotsky. He writes on page 75 that there is no hope that antropoids can learn to speak and, "Not a hint of their using signs has ever been heard of". I remember Koko, (was he a chimp or a mountain gorilla?) and several articles in National Geographic and a woman working with him on sign language.
On page 78 Vgostky writes that some animals do have a speeh of their own and that Learner "compiled a dictionary of 32 speech elements, or 'words' ". In light of some of our recent discussions on literacy, isn't Vgotsky saying that animals have their own literacy? I know this is not the point of his research, but this made me think that there are probably thousands of literacies in thousands of cultures and cultures within cultures, so who's saying ours is best? What's so superior about Western civilization and its academia?
Symbols and structure (aka there is no escape)
Preface: Ray is ill. He had an awesome time in Florida, then his immune system gave out. 3 words: Jenna's Jello Shots.
Alrighty then. Diving in at the wrong end (and hoping I won't injure myself in the process), let's start with p. 92--"...for a long time to a child a word is a property, rather than a symbol of an object." Simple, right? As always seems to be the case, yes and no. Earlier on the same page, Vygotsky quotes Wallon regarding children making words into attributes of an object. The fact of Vygotsky delineating these details means he thought them notable, but why? Here's my take; it's probably not his. i like to follow an idea outwards till it is concrete, absurd, or both. Bonus points if you know the technical term for this type of argument. Not recognizing the symbolic function of words is an immature form of thinking. This is applied to children in the text, but how often do we naively operate the same way as supposed mature adult intellects? I feel as if I'm dancing around what I'm trying to get at, mainly because it's difficult to generate a nominal example, so I will instead give a few adjectives instead.
Corrupt.
Dirty.
Traditional.
Pure.
Alien.
Attractive.
Ok. Pick the object you want to use any of the above adjectives on. If you (or I) do not recognize that the words are linguistic tools, culturally created symbols, we may pair up "Corrupt" and "Senator," making the adjective an inseperable part of the object's structure. This limits our thinking, strengthens the artificial limitations of our world, and makes us unable to see the possibility of any potential change in that sphere of our world.
This is even more powerful when we recognize that children (speakers generally) are capable of using a symbolic tool before recognizing it as one. Getting used to a limited set of these linguistic tools is the way we all start the process of verbal thought, but the acquisition of new tools allows the expression of more thoughts.
I'm trying to stick with short and sweet, so just ask me about the chimps on the "Planet Earth" video in class.
Alrighty then. Diving in at the wrong end (and hoping I won't injure myself in the process), let's start with p. 92--"...for a long time to a child a word is a property, rather than a symbol of an object." Simple, right? As always seems to be the case, yes and no. Earlier on the same page, Vygotsky quotes Wallon regarding children making words into attributes of an object. The fact of Vygotsky delineating these details means he thought them notable, but why? Here's my take; it's probably not his. i like to follow an idea outwards till it is concrete, absurd, or both. Bonus points if you know the technical term for this type of argument. Not recognizing the symbolic function of words is an immature form of thinking. This is applied to children in the text, but how often do we naively operate the same way as supposed mature adult intellects? I feel as if I'm dancing around what I'm trying to get at, mainly because it's difficult to generate a nominal example, so I will instead give a few adjectives instead.
Corrupt.
Dirty.
Traditional.
Pure.
Alien.
Attractive.
Ok. Pick the object you want to use any of the above adjectives on. If you (or I) do not recognize that the words are linguistic tools, culturally created symbols, we may pair up "Corrupt" and "Senator," making the adjective an inseperable part of the object's structure. This limits our thinking, strengthens the artificial limitations of our world, and makes us unable to see the possibility of any potential change in that sphere of our world.
This is even more powerful when we recognize that children (speakers generally) are capable of using a symbolic tool before recognizing it as one. Getting used to a limited set of these linguistic tools is the way we all start the process of verbal thought, but the acquisition of new tools allows the expression of more thoughts.
I'm trying to stick with short and sweet, so just ask me about the chimps on the "Planet Earth" video in class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
