Today is November 16 and according to President-elect Obama's transition Web site, www.change.gov. there are 65 days until the inauguration. I would have to applaud Dr. K. for having us read the Selfe and Hawisher book, Literate Lives in the Information Age. This is a historic continuation of the development of technology
There was a small newspaper blip in today's paper entitled "Obama's weekly address to be posted on YouTube". (I could get the printed copy, but not the video from my home computer because I have not updated parts of my computer). But, I believe the written address will be preserved and remembered and challenged politically by many in the days to come. That is the way of democracy in the United States.
Then, we will live the transitions Selfe and Hawisher discuss. The transitions of our society will become evident when radio, television, and Internet as well as newspapers and magazines offer something for all levels of access and literacy.
Our "culture [will]play a critical role in shaping values regarding the literacy's of technology and that, at the same time, the literacy values and practices of people and groups [will]also shape cultures"(126). Those changes will start at the Oval Office. It is my hope that the campaign commitment to access, education, and information will transcend the gender,socio-economic, and geography factors discussed on page 129. Furthermore, I hope that there will be a bi-partisan attempt to do away with the excluding divides with the money, educators, and equipment required to promote inclusion in this new wave of technology.
Having a voice also means knowing what is going on in your world. The choice remains personal how each of us will obtain, retain, interpret, and evaluate the information into our own lives.
I would like to make mention of the discussion on page 130 regarding Melissa and hooks as activism might go beyond the Black woman voice and into a new language. The authors give narratives of a new language and place for "a vital public voice for women" on the Internet and with other technologies gives evidence to Helene Cixous Feminist theory of voice and new language. I believe what will have to be developed is a way of teaching the criticism portion of the communication devices specifically that addresses the new technology and the recurrant problems of truth, lies, and consumerism. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of the Internet not only allows people to interact over distances-but, the illusion of face-to-face conversations on You Tube is exactly that-an illusion of the personal. Reading, interpretation, and criticism will be more important than ever to prevent the inequalities, oppression, and manipulation of the powerful.
Before I close, I would like to make an observation about Chapter One, Cultural Ecologies and the Literacies of Technology. I am concerned that in the class on Literacy, the make-up of the class is White, Middle-class woman and one White, Middle-class male (hooray, Ray! a pleasure as always!). I am curious if other schools with similar classes on literacy and programs with a concentration of literacy education classes see a similar make-up in their classes. If education is to be truly inclusive, where is the exclusion coming from? It is political or personal? Why is this class not seeing more of the diversity from our campus, community, and schools?
Reading reading and composition theory continues to have value. Teaching a diverse student population continues to offer challenges. How can we address diversity of educators within the public school system? Who owns the problems of illiteracy and the solutions to reach literacy?
Will we be repeating the unfulfilled promises of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush in the next administration. I have my hopes for a political resolve that goes beyond testing into real world application of the technology in this Age of Information. And yes... because of my place in my culture built on age, gender, and education, I still do not like explaining my limitations with technology to someone I can not understand the speech of, who took a job from a friend of mine that was employed in the USA, and who does not appear to have respect or patience for me. And no, I do not like the tax breaks many technology companies receive for outsourcing. Just some thoughts I have been pondering relating to the new Information Age.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
My apology for the mix up
Regarding my blog last week:
The image I mentioned of all the people on the cover with the over sized glasses looking on way should have been attributed to the cover of Guy Debord's book Society of the Spectacle NOT John Berger's Ways of Seeing. On page 85 of Berger's book he has a delightful oil painting of oil paintings, page 23 has a repetition image of Leonardo's Virgin and Child,and many Marilyn by Andy Warhol can be found onpage147. One book discusses the images through images while the other discusses the image as commodity through society's consumption with overlappings of theory throughout both.
Just a short correction.
The image I mentioned of all the people on the cover with the over sized glasses looking on way should have been attributed to the cover of Guy Debord's book Society of the Spectacle NOT John Berger's Ways of Seeing. On page 85 of Berger's book he has a delightful oil painting of oil paintings, page 23 has a repetition image of Leonardo's Virgin and Child,and many Marilyn by Andy Warhol can be found onpage147. One book discusses the images through images while the other discusses the image as commodity through society's consumption with overlappings of theory throughout both.
Just a short correction.
Stratification (not)
This is in no way my full post for the week, but I couldn't help thinking about how in 1999 I gave my old MAC SE to a drinking buddy. Trey was just this lady that my girlfriend and I met at dive bars occasionally. She was cool to the extreme, single with three kids, and definitely low income. One night she was talking about how badly she wanted a computer, any computer, for her kids to do their homework on but couldn't afford one. I mentioned my SE, and said I'd give it to her. I didn't have or need another computer at the time, and she did. When I offered it to her, she refused.
We got another pitcher, and a round of Hennessy. As tongues loosened, Trey admitted she'd love the computer, but didn't want charity. I let the matter drop. I did, however, make sure to find out where Trey would be next Friday night; when I got home, I put the MAC, cables, and printer in the trunk of my car. Next Friday came around, and Suzanne and I went to the Wayne to hang out. At the end of the night (we had deliberately made sure Trey was pretty tipsy), we all walked out together. When I popped the trunk and handed the bag to Trey she tried to refuse, but all I said was, "Fine. I'm just gonna leave it here on the curb. Someone gets a free computer tonight. C'mon Trey, you buy the shots next week."
I will never see the effects of my action to help with the access problem, but this just made me think how you don't need to be a Gates or a Buffet to contribute.
We got another pitcher, and a round of Hennessy. As tongues loosened, Trey admitted she'd love the computer, but didn't want charity. I let the matter drop. I did, however, make sure to find out where Trey would be next Friday night; when I got home, I put the MAC, cables, and printer in the trunk of my car. Next Friday came around, and Suzanne and I went to the Wayne to hang out. At the end of the night (we had deliberately made sure Trey was pretty tipsy), we all walked out together. When I popped the trunk and handed the bag to Trey she tried to refuse, but all I said was, "Fine. I'm just gonna leave it here on the curb. Someone gets a free computer tonight. C'mon Trey, you buy the shots next week."
I will never see the effects of my action to help with the access problem, but this just made me think how you don't need to be a Gates or a Buffet to contribute.
I'm a trailblazer!
The first computer I personally touched was an Apple IIE sometime during the late 1980's. I think I bought it from a classified ad in the newspaper and paid about $100. Like Sally and Jill in Literate Lives in the Information Age, we played some really primitive games (like Pong) and word processed on our Apple IIE. The green screen was an eyesore and DID make my eyes sore! The printer was a dot-matrix one. Primitive, primitive, primitive!
In 1990, I was a New Jersey mother trying to do the right thing by staying home with my two little girls. I found out about an internet-based class and hoped this course would offer me some much-craved intellectual stimulation. I went to one on-site class (held about 50 miles away from my home) and received instructions for how to attach a modem to my computer, plug the telephone cable into my existing telephone outlet, and log onto my computer to access the website for this class. I'm almost motivated to find those course materials which I am quite certain I still have as they would be really fun to revisit. It was nothing to wait 10 minutes for the computer to connect to another one via telephone lines. I remember logging on, leaving the computer to go do laundry or give my kids a bath, and then come back once it connected. It's a good perspective to remember when our students whine about their 30 second connectivity gaps.
Back in the day, everyone I knew who was using computers was in the "learn-by-doing" mode. I found it easier to troubleshoot my own hardware and software problems than to maneuver through the not-so-user-friendly layers of telephone support (which always were toll calls and took inordinate amounts of time). In the class I took, we (including the proctor) relied on each other to find solutions to problems we encountered. I suspected that this class would give me an advantage when I wanted to return to the classroom. And I was right!
One of the reasons I was hired as a school librarian for a wealthy private school was my "technology" background and one of my first tasks was to research and purchase a computerized card catalog. I remember Bill Clinton's technology initiative (Selfe and Hawisher, 56); and because of it, I was involved in the Technology Task Force where we developed plans for integrating computers into classroom learning. I learned as much about the physical demands of computing - hubs, networking, "blowing" video, and ethernet cables- as I did about the educational benefits that computers could bring to a classroom. My title even changed from librarian to media specialist. Then I moved to Pennsylvania andI got to repeat this process in another private school setting. But at that point, I really was an expert and had substantial background knowledge going into it.
When I moved on to alternative education in a public school setting, the socio-economic differences between schools hit me like a brick. This school was lightyears behind the two private schools where I'd worked. I could not assign homework that involved computers because so few families had them. There were small advances though. For example, all teachers were given laptops and encouraged (but not required) to use them to teach effectively by integrating websites into lessons. However,there seemed to be little initiative at the alternative level to move technology to the forefront for the students personally and there wasn't even a "computer class" for them to attend or a "lab" for us to use as a class.
Now I work in a school where all juniors and seniors have their own laptops. Sometimes though, because they have this technology at their disposal, teachers incorrectly assume that they have the pre-existing skill to use this technology effectively. This is often not the case due to the environments where these students lived and were taught prior to attending our school. They are much more adept at accessing games and "playing" than they are at manipulating data on a spreadsheet, using Word shortcuts effectively, or evaluating a website.
When Damon talked about computers not being central to his life and that many of the standards were "of limited relevance to his life" (54), I nodded in agreement. I see cell phones and i-pods as much more relevant in my students' lives. This is changing though as many students now do have daily access to computers and enjoy the social side of that technology in form of emails, "I-m's," My Space, and Facebook.
Our next challenge is to teach appropriate technology code-switching skills and funnel our student's knowledge of technology into appropriate uses in the school setting. I believe there is a use for the social side of technology within a school setting by using blogging, discussion groups, and other interactive formats that allow for instant communication. 'I-m' ing, My Space and Facebook are fabulous ways to stay in touch personally; and, although they may hold value in academic settings, at this point there are more effective, less distracting tools to do the job.
There's much more to say but, as usual, I've probably said too much already.
In 1990, I was a New Jersey mother trying to do the right thing by staying home with my two little girls. I found out about an internet-based class and hoped this course would offer me some much-craved intellectual stimulation. I went to one on-site class (held about 50 miles away from my home) and received instructions for how to attach a modem to my computer, plug the telephone cable into my existing telephone outlet, and log onto my computer to access the website for this class. I'm almost motivated to find those course materials which I am quite certain I still have as they would be really fun to revisit. It was nothing to wait 10 minutes for the computer to connect to another one via telephone lines. I remember logging on, leaving the computer to go do laundry or give my kids a bath, and then come back once it connected. It's a good perspective to remember when our students whine about their 30 second connectivity gaps.
Back in the day, everyone I knew who was using computers was in the "learn-by-doing" mode. I found it easier to troubleshoot my own hardware and software problems than to maneuver through the not-so-user-friendly layers of telephone support (which always were toll calls and took inordinate amounts of time). In the class I took, we (including the proctor) relied on each other to find solutions to problems we encountered. I suspected that this class would give me an advantage when I wanted to return to the classroom. And I was right!
One of the reasons I was hired as a school librarian for a wealthy private school was my "technology" background and one of my first tasks was to research and purchase a computerized card catalog. I remember Bill Clinton's technology initiative (Selfe and Hawisher, 56); and because of it, I was involved in the Technology Task Force where we developed plans for integrating computers into classroom learning. I learned as much about the physical demands of computing - hubs, networking, "blowing" video, and ethernet cables- as I did about the educational benefits that computers could bring to a classroom. My title even changed from librarian to media specialist. Then I moved to Pennsylvania andI got to repeat this process in another private school setting. But at that point, I really was an expert and had substantial background knowledge going into it.
When I moved on to alternative education in a public school setting, the socio-economic differences between schools hit me like a brick. This school was lightyears behind the two private schools where I'd worked. I could not assign homework that involved computers because so few families had them. There were small advances though. For example, all teachers were given laptops and encouraged (but not required) to use them to teach effectively by integrating websites into lessons. However,there seemed to be little initiative at the alternative level to move technology to the forefront for the students personally and there wasn't even a "computer class" for them to attend or a "lab" for us to use as a class.
Now I work in a school where all juniors and seniors have their own laptops. Sometimes though, because they have this technology at their disposal, teachers incorrectly assume that they have the pre-existing skill to use this technology effectively. This is often not the case due to the environments where these students lived and were taught prior to attending our school. They are much more adept at accessing games and "playing" than they are at manipulating data on a spreadsheet, using Word shortcuts effectively, or evaluating a website.
When Damon talked about computers not being central to his life and that many of the standards were "of limited relevance to his life" (54), I nodded in agreement. I see cell phones and i-pods as much more relevant in my students' lives. This is changing though as many students now do have daily access to computers and enjoy the social side of that technology in form of emails, "I-m's," My Space, and Facebook.
Our next challenge is to teach appropriate technology code-switching skills and funnel our student's knowledge of technology into appropriate uses in the school setting. I believe there is a use for the social side of technology within a school setting by using blogging, discussion groups, and other interactive formats that allow for instant communication. 'I-m' ing, My Space and Facebook are fabulous ways to stay in touch personally; and, although they may hold value in academic settings, at this point there are more effective, less distracting tools to do the job.
There's much more to say but, as usual, I've probably said too much already.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
This week I am going to over simplify to the point of causing illness in any reader. There is a palpable progression in the second half of Scholes in an attempt to do what? Find the reader’s position in correlation to text? language in correlation to reality? reality in correlation to text? to language? reality in correlation to author in correlation to text? theory’s correlation to education? educator’s interpretation of text in correlation to student’s? I’m leaving a few out. But, at the end I understood that that there is no certainty in theory, interpretation, language, or reality. Each deals with the other in a sort of overdetermined system where theory may question the foundation of language in reality or in perception of reality, or the basis of a text in historical reality, or the position of a reader within a text, based on his or her personal perception of reality. Where we go is full circle to the first half of the book, to the idea that power lies in the ability to interpret and analyze text. And interpretation is based on almost limitless perceptive angles: language and its codes, infinite ideologies based on history, economy, polity, society, the author’s and the interpreter’s position within these, the question of the text itself. It’s endless and brilliant and fun!
Catching the Fish...or did I?
I found the second half of Textual Power as interesting as the first. That doesn't mean I didn't struggle with many of the things Scholes talked about, but still fascinating. The chapter on rhetoric and textual power (or are they the same?) was especially insightful. Said's commentary on textuality as something "mystical and disinfected...in which the literary text is perceived as forever cut off from reality by its literariness" (Scholes 74). From the tone that Said wrote in, in addition to what Scholes said, I think they both think this is a bad thing. In fact, Scholes argues that so much can come from textuality, and that "textual power makes the opening for criticism" (75). This makes sense to me. Not only is criticism the third part of Scholes "teaching of reading" theory, but Theory--and literature are both meant to be criticized and questioned, not taken at the author--or the reader's interpretation as the only meaningful interpretation. Rather, textuality and theory are tools to unlock all different types of texts, and as Eagleton supposed, "literary theory can handle Bob Dylan just as well as John Milton" (76).
Side note: I have been immersed in a lot of theory this semester, from feminist to literacy to deconstruction--you get the picture. I am noticing that Milton seems to always be the prototypical example in literature. I find this really fascinating, since opinions on Milton seem to be very polar--people either love him or hate him, find him a misogynist, or supporter of women. Its just really, really interesting. Any ideas why?
Okay, but back to the Bob Dylan/John Milton thing for a minute here, I really like Eagleton's ideas on this and it seems supported in many of the ideas through Scholes book, especially in his views and awareness of the constantly changing world and how media has effected it. de Man's ideas on rhetoric also seemed supportive at first: "a text is rhetorical, and rhetoric itself is a text" (77) but then he goes on to say that "textual power is a function of the text's resistance to reading...what makes a text a text is the impossibility of connecting it to the world" (79). I think I understand what de Man is saying here on a comprehension point of view, but what does he really mean? How can a result of a text being just that--a text, the inability to connect it to the world. Don't we all, on some level, connect texts to the world. Maybe he meant text here in terms of literary text, but I'm not quite sure. Or perhaps it is some aspects of hermetics (also known as deconstruction---something else new I learned here!) that I am just not grasping.
I just wanted to add a few works on the Le Guin chapter. I found it really interesting, perhaps because I have read both this book and The Dispossed for a Gender and Utopia class at Millersville. ( I also highly recommend "The Ones that Walk From Omelas"-- its a great short story that also tackles some of the linguistic and philosophical elements of her larger novels). I thought the passage on pronouns and sexuality was really insightful, and rather dead on because, "in short, the categorical opposition male/female is built into our language, and therefore into our thought, at the very deepest level, the level of pronominal reference" (Scholes 114). Perhaps it is just the work that I have been doing for my thesis, but I cant help but to also see a Marxist influence here, as language is just another way that those in power (perhaps a patriarchal society) keep women down--even through what we may view as simplistic pronouns.
Side note: I have been immersed in a lot of theory this semester, from feminist to literacy to deconstruction--you get the picture. I am noticing that Milton seems to always be the prototypical example in literature. I find this really fascinating, since opinions on Milton seem to be very polar--people either love him or hate him, find him a misogynist, or supporter of women. Its just really, really interesting. Any ideas why?
Okay, but back to the Bob Dylan/John Milton thing for a minute here, I really like Eagleton's ideas on this and it seems supported in many of the ideas through Scholes book, especially in his views and awareness of the constantly changing world and how media has effected it. de Man's ideas on rhetoric also seemed supportive at first: "a text is rhetorical, and rhetoric itself is a text" (77) but then he goes on to say that "textual power is a function of the text's resistance to reading...what makes a text a text is the impossibility of connecting it to the world" (79). I think I understand what de Man is saying here on a comprehension point of view, but what does he really mean? How can a result of a text being just that--a text, the inability to connect it to the world. Don't we all, on some level, connect texts to the world. Maybe he meant text here in terms of literary text, but I'm not quite sure. Or perhaps it is some aspects of hermetics (also known as deconstruction---something else new I learned here!) that I am just not grasping.
I just wanted to add a few works on the Le Guin chapter. I found it really interesting, perhaps because I have read both this book and The Dispossed for a Gender and Utopia class at Millersville. ( I also highly recommend "The Ones that Walk From Omelas"-- its a great short story that also tackles some of the linguistic and philosophical elements of her larger novels). I thought the passage on pronouns and sexuality was really insightful, and rather dead on because, "in short, the categorical opposition male/female is built into our language, and therefore into our thought, at the very deepest level, the level of pronominal reference" (Scholes 114). Perhaps it is just the work that I have been doing for my thesis, but I cant help but to also see a Marxist influence here, as language is just another way that those in power (perhaps a patriarchal society) keep women down--even through what we may view as simplistic pronouns.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Scholes's Textual Prowess?
I learned a great deal from reading Textual Power these past two weeks, yet I must admit I often became a prisoner in Schole’s “Prison House of Language,” and likely not the model prisoner as was Fredric Jameson due to my English teacher imposter status. The frustration began when I started to read Chapter 5; I was feeling disoriented and figured I needed to go back and reread the previous chapters. Silly me, that was not the answer. So I dug in again and plowed through. Some of it I understood and some of it . . . well, let’s just say I am beginning to tire of having to keep my Oxford English Dictionary by my side when I read. Did anyone else feel this way? I suppose you could call me the world’s biggest griper, and at this moment, you would be correct. Ray, could I borrow your brain for just a little while. I’ll take real good care of it. . . . I promise.
So with my own brain ready to explode, I have my usual questions with a few comments sprinkled throughout just for fun. First, will someone please explain in language that even I can understand the notions of Terry Eagleton and Paul de Man with respect to rhetoric? And maybe a few words about Derrida and Saussure? I mean, I thought I understood deconstruction theory, but now I’m not so sure. Now for a bit of commentary. I thoroughly enjoyed (perhaps not completely understood, but let’s just not go there now) Scholes’s discussion on Ursula LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness. Some of the interpretation and critical strategies could be applied to Marge Piercy’s futuristic He, She and It, wherein a woman falls in love with—and yes, has sex with—a cyborg. Those dang preconceptions can be so hard to shake. Enlightening to say the least, but again I felt so out of touch, so ignorant of all that there is to understand.
I don’t know if I actually found a fish in the text, but I did spot some “Macrorieisms,” specifically on page 131 where Scholes discusses Agassizese’s technique for instruction as told by Ezra Pound: “He [the student] can, however, now speak and write Agassizese, for this is what he has really learned: to produce the sort of writing his teacher wants….The student seems to be learning about the subject, but what he is really learning is to give the teacher what he wants.” So, let’s see, is Scholes saying that we should not allow ourselves to be fettered by what others tell us about fish we encounter? That we need to examine the fish for ourselves using whatever means we have available to discover as much as we can about the fish? And that if someone hands us a cow and asks us to interpret it as a fish, we should be able to discern the difference? What if that same fish happens to be lying in the pasture next to the cows? Can we examine it as a fish, or must it be in its own context, in its own habitat?
If the Detext was to serve as a debriefing, I failed miserably.
So with my own brain ready to explode, I have my usual questions with a few comments sprinkled throughout just for fun. First, will someone please explain in language that even I can understand the notions of Terry Eagleton and Paul de Man with respect to rhetoric? And maybe a few words about Derrida and Saussure? I mean, I thought I understood deconstruction theory, but now I’m not so sure. Now for a bit of commentary. I thoroughly enjoyed (perhaps not completely understood, but let’s just not go there now) Scholes’s discussion on Ursula LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness. Some of the interpretation and critical strategies could be applied to Marge Piercy’s futuristic He, She and It, wherein a woman falls in love with—and yes, has sex with—a cyborg. Those dang preconceptions can be so hard to shake. Enlightening to say the least, but again I felt so out of touch, so ignorant of all that there is to understand.
I don’t know if I actually found a fish in the text, but I did spot some “Macrorieisms,” specifically on page 131 where Scholes discusses Agassizese’s technique for instruction as told by Ezra Pound: “He [the student] can, however, now speak and write Agassizese, for this is what he has really learned: to produce the sort of writing his teacher wants….The student seems to be learning about the subject, but what he is really learning is to give the teacher what he wants.” So, let’s see, is Scholes saying that we should not allow ourselves to be fettered by what others tell us about fish we encounter? That we need to examine the fish for ourselves using whatever means we have available to discover as much as we can about the fish? And that if someone hands us a cow and asks us to interpret it as a fish, we should be able to discern the difference? What if that same fish happens to be lying in the pasture next to the cows? Can we examine it as a fish, or must it be in its own context, in its own habitat?
If the Detext was to serve as a debriefing, I failed miserably.
the 3 Rs: Writing, reading, and interpreting
I knew it! I knew it! The free float bull dada dead author wide open interpretation was a set up. "open the window, ray" she says.
The chapter on LeGuinn was a beautiful example that doing the work and writing of criticism does not only get presented as dry theory. Straight shot, no frills, academic artillery style theory is not the most widely appealing genre. Many people prefer not to read it, opting for something more entertaining, or more illustrative, less "convoluted." Enter LeGuinn. Left Hand of Darkness is criticism on language and societal gender definition, etc. The Dispossessed does the same thing regarding so-called "freedom" and anarchism/communism.
Time to hook the Fish.
First, the fish in the text. On page 144, Scholes states, "To write the fish in many modes is finally to see that one will never catch the fish in any one discourse." Like the blind men and the elephant, the truth-fish does not appear fully to any one literacy, any one discursive practice. Leaving aside the metaphysical/epistemic volumes that could be gone into on what "truth" is or isn't like, I can at least say this one thing--"If you are only a single blind man examining the elephant, the chances are much higher it will simply walk over and crush you." Multiple discursive literacy give better chances at understanding, application, interpretation, and criticism. This is why the Nietszche reference from four pages earlier is worthwhile: a claim to absolute truth is dangerous and is more likely an indicator of blind faith than wisdom or enlightenment.
Now, the Text from Fish. "If you play cards with Stanley Fish, don't let him bring his own deck." (157) Yes, the Name-list-poem example is a stacked deck. Brilliant, innovative, persuasive--until you get critical. For another counter example of being able to interpret any text entirely from what your interpretive community has instilled within you, see my previous blog entry for this week. The middle ground solution proposed by Scholes on page 165 is exactly what I was trying to express last week, and grants power to all three participants in a text, though not simultaneously. "A written text is a record of a transaction between a writer and the language in which the text is composed." Corollary by Bergeron: "A read text is a transaction between the language of the text and the reader/interpreter." Neither writer nor reader is unconstrained, but the notion that either is entirely determined begs the question of why read or write?
And because of the intermediary of the text, there is no certainty in the meaning intended and the meaning gleaned, but a good writer and a good reader can get "roughly the same referent, roughly the same concept" (96) across the spacetime between two minds.
The chapter on LeGuinn was a beautiful example that doing the work and writing of criticism does not only get presented as dry theory. Straight shot, no frills, academic artillery style theory is not the most widely appealing genre. Many people prefer not to read it, opting for something more entertaining, or more illustrative, less "convoluted." Enter LeGuinn. Left Hand of Darkness is criticism on language and societal gender definition, etc. The Dispossessed does the same thing regarding so-called "freedom" and anarchism/communism.
Time to hook the Fish.
First, the fish in the text. On page 144, Scholes states, "To write the fish in many modes is finally to see that one will never catch the fish in any one discourse." Like the blind men and the elephant, the truth-fish does not appear fully to any one literacy, any one discursive practice. Leaving aside the metaphysical/epistemic volumes that could be gone into on what "truth" is or isn't like, I can at least say this one thing--"If you are only a single blind man examining the elephant, the chances are much higher it will simply walk over and crush you." Multiple discursive literacy give better chances at understanding, application, interpretation, and criticism. This is why the Nietszche reference from four pages earlier is worthwhile: a claim to absolute truth is dangerous and is more likely an indicator of blind faith than wisdom or enlightenment.
Now, the Text from Fish. "If you play cards with Stanley Fish, don't let him bring his own deck." (157) Yes, the Name-list-poem example is a stacked deck. Brilliant, innovative, persuasive--until you get critical. For another counter example of being able to interpret any text entirely from what your interpretive community has instilled within you, see my previous blog entry for this week. The middle ground solution proposed by Scholes on page 165 is exactly what I was trying to express last week, and grants power to all three participants in a text, though not simultaneously. "A written text is a record of a transaction between a writer and the language in which the text is composed." Corollary by Bergeron: "A read text is a transaction between the language of the text and the reader/interpreter." Neither writer nor reader is unconstrained, but the notion that either is entirely determined begs the question of why read or write?
And because of the intermediary of the text, there is no certainty in the meaning intended and the meaning gleaned, but a good writer and a good reader can get "roughly the same referent, roughly the same concept" (96) across the spacetime between two minds.
No getting around it-IT IS ABOUT US!
Bottom Line: Literacy is about being active. Illiteracy could be said to be passive. The basic theory going from illiteracy to literacy gives a voice to the silent and the verbal through knowledge, interpretation, and criticism. That should be the theory to place individuals in the place they want to be (not just the place they are forced to be for whatever reason).
Illiteracy may be what makes us The Other, literacy is about allowing us in and out of groups at our own discretion and desire.
Who better than to address "The Other" then Edward Said:
"Where there is knowledge, and discourse, there must criticism also be, to reveal the exact places-and displacements-of the text, thereby to see the text as a process signifying an effective historical will to be present, an effective desire to be a text to be a position taken" (75).
The purpose of theory is not the theory but the application of the theory. I think Scholes gets a too into the theory of too many theories.
Then there is his reference to John Berger's Ways of Seeing with the hilarious cover of many people all looking toward the same place with the glasses. The reading, the interpretation, and the criticism of this text could be grounded in many ideologies. "Once again, language is personified and allowed to have a free choice in selection signifier. But the selection is from a 'spectrum of conceptual possibilities,'...(105)I would have to agree with Saussure when he "tells us that words 'that have something in common are associated in the memory" (103)The role of education might be the exposure of the student to the stories in memories outside the student's present place and time by providing access to the information and the tools to evaluate. I think that words as language becomes needs for the individual to function in all the worlds of personal choice.
I did get tired of how the examples did not offer a consistent connected thread. Even attempting to follow his theories require an intimate knowledge of many theorists at the expense of finding Scholes's theory. The whole chapter on the Left Hand of Difference seemed irrelevant.
First, for the unheard to become heard they have to answer Foucault's question "First of all who is speaking" (132). Then they have to evaluate and interpret the rest of that quote on page 132. But in order to interpret and personalize the text, the student needs skills, techniques, and confidence. The student needs to evaluate and critic recurrent themes and techniques by the speaker that give truths the illusions of truthfulness that Nietzsche discusses on page 140 when talking about truth and lies. This goes back to my comment in another blog regarding Brecht's essay: The Five Truths. I would even go further to say that education is about showing what is important to know about the text and what is "the chatter" of the text and the purpose of that chatter. So the importance of the text and language and education seems to be grounded in the theory (UGH! theory) that "We [should] care about texts for many reasons, not the least of which is that they bring us news that alters our way of interpreting things" (165).
Illiteracy may be what makes us The Other, literacy is about allowing us in and out of groups at our own discretion and desire.
Who better than to address "The Other" then Edward Said:
"Where there is knowledge, and discourse, there must criticism also be, to reveal the exact places-and displacements-of the text, thereby to see the text as a process signifying an effective historical will to be present, an effective desire to be a text to be a position taken" (75).
The purpose of theory is not the theory but the application of the theory. I think Scholes gets a too into the theory of too many theories.
Then there is his reference to John Berger's Ways of Seeing with the hilarious cover of many people all looking toward the same place with the glasses. The reading, the interpretation, and the criticism of this text could be grounded in many ideologies. "Once again, language is personified and allowed to have a free choice in selection signifier. But the selection is from a 'spectrum of conceptual possibilities,'...(105)I would have to agree with Saussure when he "tells us that words 'that have something in common are associated in the memory" (103)The role of education might be the exposure of the student to the stories in memories outside the student's present place and time by providing access to the information and the tools to evaluate. I think that words as language becomes needs for the individual to function in all the worlds of personal choice.
I did get tired of how the examples did not offer a consistent connected thread. Even attempting to follow his theories require an intimate knowledge of many theorists at the expense of finding Scholes's theory. The whole chapter on the Left Hand of Difference seemed irrelevant.
First, for the unheard to become heard they have to answer Foucault's question "First of all who is speaking" (132). Then they have to evaluate and interpret the rest of that quote on page 132. But in order to interpret and personalize the text, the student needs skills, techniques, and confidence. The student needs to evaluate and critic recurrent themes and techniques by the speaker that give truths the illusions of truthfulness that Nietzsche discusses on page 140 when talking about truth and lies. This goes back to my comment in another blog regarding Brecht's essay: The Five Truths. I would even go further to say that education is about showing what is important to know about the text and what is "the chatter" of the text and the purpose of that chatter. So the importance of the text and language and education seems to be grounded in the theory (UGH! theory) that "We [should] care about texts for many reasons, not the least of which is that they bring us news that alters our way of interpreting things" (165).
Scholes
So really…anything we say can be philosophically picked apart. Don’t get me wrong—I have no desire to do that. But every expression, every article before a noun…it can all be picked apart and argued and made into a philosophical discussion. Page 78 talks a little about Archie Bunker and his “what’s the difference” comment. When I read the final sentence in that excerpt, “…the literal meaning asks for the concept whose existence is denied by the figurative meaning.” I stayed on that sentence for 10 minutes. So true. How often do my children ask me what something means…not the dictionary definition of a wor, but a phrase that is an idiom or more often a sarcastic remark made by me or that they hear on Seinfeld. I would simply answer…it’s meant to be sarcastic. But really it’s so much more. The very sarcasm that is meant to be the answer to a question or comment disguises or dismisses what was supposed to be the actual answer. The sarcasm IS the answer. That’s why it’s so hard for people to learn English…not that this is some profound revelation…but I usually take the reading perspective and the gh’s and ph’s ad f’s and how they all sound the same…but that’s how the English language was written and we just have to see it enough for it to register as that sound. Scholes is right…teaching is a theoretical activity. On so many levels. It is not just literary, but it also verbal and cultural…just like literacy.
One thing that bothers me about these books, and right now I am specifically referring to page 88, is that theorists write a lot of their opinions based on how wrong someone else’s thoughts or theoretical achievements are/were.
Moving on… I am picking up the habit of writing as I read…
I find it interesting how both Vygotsy and Scholes discuss the change of language and its
evolution. Vygotsky had a deep effect on the way linguistic theorists think and analyze, and the idea that thought s dependent upon language (101) This, for me, leads into this whole discussion he has about verbal and non-verbal signs and whether or not they are linguistic. More often than not, the non-verbal expresses more than the verbal. As I read, I am not sure that Scholes has an opinion about this as much as he seems to insert excerpts from various theoretical works, then proceeds to pick apart the semantics, wherein I can’t see that he agrees or disagrees with the actual passage, but he’s more passionate about how the passage was worded or that the theorist is stealing other’s ideas without giving credit. He spends the entire last chapter picking apart Stanley Fish…but reading it makes me wonder why he thinks he’s right and Fish is wrong on certain points. I was disappointed that in all his attacks, I’m having trouble deciphering what exactly Scholes’ theory is…it appears based on the attacks he’s made on others’ theories (maybe that’s the point of this book?), which is not, to me, a theory at all.
Anyone else notice that Scholes was awarded the Mina P. Shaughnessy Prize?
One thing that bothers me about these books, and right now I am specifically referring to page 88, is that theorists write a lot of their opinions based on how wrong someone else’s thoughts or theoretical achievements are/were.
Moving on… I am picking up the habit of writing as I read…
I find it interesting how both Vygotsy and Scholes discuss the change of language and its
evolution. Vygotsky had a deep effect on the way linguistic theorists think and analyze, and the idea that thought s dependent upon language (101) This, for me, leads into this whole discussion he has about verbal and non-verbal signs and whether or not they are linguistic. More often than not, the non-verbal expresses more than the verbal. As I read, I am not sure that Scholes has an opinion about this as much as he seems to insert excerpts from various theoretical works, then proceeds to pick apart the semantics, wherein I can’t see that he agrees or disagrees with the actual passage, but he’s more passionate about how the passage was worded or that the theorist is stealing other’s ideas without giving credit. He spends the entire last chapter picking apart Stanley Fish…but reading it makes me wonder why he thinks he’s right and Fish is wrong on certain points. I was disappointed that in all his attacks, I’m having trouble deciphering what exactly Scholes’ theory is…it appears based on the attacks he’s made on others’ theories (maybe that’s the point of this book?), which is not, to me, a theory at all.
Anyone else notice that Scholes was awarded the Mina P. Shaughnessy Prize?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Scholes might want to stick to sandals
Sometimes, I think, authors bite off a bit more than they can chew. This might have been the case for Robert Scholes in chapters 5-9. Although I could follow his chronological train of thought, he tried to cover too much territory. The leap from deMan and Eagleton [with the discussion of the world being text and the battle between structuralists and post-structuralists] to Stanley Fish and his presumption that the text only becomes important when interpreted by the reader was just too much of a stretch. My head seriously did spin by the time I finished this book.
The Agassiz anecdote got me thinking. It reminded me of an expensive online writing program (My Access) that some students use as preparation for standardized test writing (no joke). Students respond to a prompt, submit it for scoring by the computer and receive immediate feedback. What I've noticed, though, is that the computer can only give limited explanations of writing problems it finds. For example, feedback to an ELL student about "clause errors" was vaguely explained in a way that made any sense to this student. He'd take a stab at a revision, submit it, and cringe when his score became even lower than his first one. It occurred to me that this student was learning to guess what the computer wanted which is Scholes's precise point when he says "He can, however, now speak and write Agassizese, for this is what he has really learned: to produce the sort of writing his teacher wants" (131). Why not just play "Guess what I'm thinking" and make a game of it?
I was fascinated by the discussion of the words boeuf and ochs. This was my first exposure to Saussure and I definitely got his point. "Language exists in order for us to talk about such things, among things." Yep. We develop words for things that exist in our world. Both the French and the Germans needed a way to identify that critter in their world.
Scholes lost me in his discussion of the theory of time on page 93. How can we never be in the present? I get the arrow example but, frankly, that's when I think theorists need to get out of their cubbies and interact with some real people. It's a little too heady for me I suppose.
The naming function of language and the numb eel story intrigued me. It seems completely logical that Aphra Behn did, indeed, discover the electric eel -and what a cool attempt at a name! Although I've never been stung by an electric eel, I imagine it would be numbing. I wonder if Plato considered language when he coined the phrase, "Necessity is the mother of invention." Behn had the necessity to name that eel, she just didn't invent a term that appealed to the general population.
"Nowhere is language more absolute than in its treatment of sexuality" (114). Scholes's conversation of Aristotle's list of oppositions was seducing. The books that I've read of Ursula K. LeGuin's are children's books (the Wizard of Earthsea series) and didn't broach this subject (at least I don't think they did!) Through his detailed conversation of The Left Hand of Darkness, I feel like I really want to read it. I want to see firsthand how she intertwines so many of those opposing forces into that book in such a seemingly effortless way.
"...to a very real extent, one's beliefs will color what one reads" (151). Yep.
The Agassiz anecdote got me thinking. It reminded me of an expensive online writing program (My Access) that some students use as preparation for standardized test writing (no joke). Students respond to a prompt, submit it for scoring by the computer and receive immediate feedback. What I've noticed, though, is that the computer can only give limited explanations of writing problems it finds. For example, feedback to an ELL student about "clause errors" was vaguely explained in a way that made any sense to this student. He'd take a stab at a revision, submit it, and cringe when his score became even lower than his first one. It occurred to me that this student was learning to guess what the computer wanted which is Scholes's precise point when he says "He can, however, now speak and write Agassizese, for this is what he has really learned: to produce the sort of writing his teacher wants" (131). Why not just play "Guess what I'm thinking" and make a game of it?
I was fascinated by the discussion of the words boeuf and ochs. This was my first exposure to Saussure and I definitely got his point. "Language exists in order for us to talk about such things, among things." Yep. We develop words for things that exist in our world. Both the French and the Germans needed a way to identify that critter in their world.
Scholes lost me in his discussion of the theory of time on page 93. How can we never be in the present? I get the arrow example but, frankly, that's when I think theorists need to get out of their cubbies and interact with some real people. It's a little too heady for me I suppose.
The naming function of language and the numb eel story intrigued me. It seems completely logical that Aphra Behn did, indeed, discover the electric eel -and what a cool attempt at a name! Although I've never been stung by an electric eel, I imagine it would be numbing. I wonder if Plato considered language when he coined the phrase, "Necessity is the mother of invention." Behn had the necessity to name that eel, she just didn't invent a term that appealed to the general population.
"Nowhere is language more absolute than in its treatment of sexuality" (114). Scholes's conversation of Aristotle's list of oppositions was seducing. The books that I've read of Ursula K. LeGuin's are children's books (the Wizard of Earthsea series) and didn't broach this subject (at least I don't think they did!) Through his detailed conversation of The Left Hand of Darkness, I feel like I really want to read it. I want to see firsthand how she intertwines so many of those opposing forces into that book in such a seemingly effortless way.
"...to a very real extent, one's beliefs will color what one reads" (151). Yep.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Scholes' provocative "Textual Power"
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?
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?
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
