I took issue with the
idea in this article that whereas writing is considered to be a learned
behavior, talking is not, instead to be considered natural. How is the act of
speaking, language, not considering to be a learned behavior?
What I did find interesting
was the concept that writing is self-rhythmed. “One writes best as one learns
best, at one’s own pace (126). I thought this was something I should stress in
my own classroom. Students naturally want to compare their own abilities and
progress with other fellow peers, and I think the danger in doing that is to
then possibly feel inadequate when/if they realize that their own level is not
equal to someone else’s. The idea for them should be to focus on their own
process, their own learning, and attaining their own individualistic goals.
I was curious about the
article mentioned by Benjamin Bloom called “Time and Learning” and so I read a
little bit of it as well. In the article, he expresses the idea that “all
learning, whether done in school or elsewhere, requires time,” and that “time
is limited by the length of life, and this imposes a real limitation on what
can be learned. Time for school learning is even more limited by the resources
available for it, by the ways in which these resources are made available for
it, by the ways in which these resources are made available to particular
segments of the population, and by the ways in which schools and individuals
use the time available to them” (682). I think it’s important to think about
this in teaching our own classes. As teachers, we’re limited in what we can do,
and we’re limited in the time we’re given, so ultimately it’s okay if all the
goals we’re hoping for aren’t attained in one class. What’s important is that
students progress in their own way.
Tanya, your right. Her singling out verbal communication as natural and not learned is strange. I mean, like most mammals, we make vocal sounds naturally, but in order to actually COMMUNICATE using those sounds, we have to pick it up from other humans, i.e., learning. I can see why she identifies writing as artificial because tools are used in the writing process -- but should she discount the learning process required to speak and understand verbal language?
ReplyDeleteThe differentiation between language and writing is an interesting debate. This is not a theory that is unique to Emig whatsoever. Noam Chomsky bases his entire linguistic theory on generative grammar (if I remember correctly), which basically argues that there are structures of language that are innate within human beings. Of course, many people (including Steven Pinker, etc.) have critiqued Chomsky or think he is totally wrong, but the obvious example here is that we know writing was a relatively late development in human history whereas the formation verbal sounds was not. We also know that every people group has some form of oral communication or language system whereas they do not necessarily have a written language. I'm no expert on this, but it does seem to make some sense. Of course Walter J. Ong (who I referenced in my post last week), also bases his theories of orality and literacy on the assumption that every society is at least oral and might later develop the technology of writing (for better or worst). For me, this makes sense since I cannot remember learning to speak but I definitely remember learning to write. Anyway, this comment is useless.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if my goals would be less dashed if I have my students create their own class goals. That way, it's their goals which are shattered.
ReplyDelete