Wednesday, April 21, 2010
"Learning as an Adult"
One of the reasons I chose to read this essay was one of a personal interest. Being an adult learner myself, I was intrigued by Susan L. Lytle title of her writing, “Living Literacy: Rethinking Development in Adulthood”. Lytle starts out her essay with some alarming facts about various degrees of illiteracy in adulthood, with many causes contributing to these factors. Many individuals refer to these adults as "incomplete adults" that are "incompetent" and lacking the needed skills to perform higher level thinking (Lytle 376-378). I feel this goes beyond the truth and is not the case for all adult learners. I like how she goes in depth later on in her paper in the section, Issues and Assumptions in Rethinking Development: Portraying Adults. She looks beyond just illiterate adults and looks at understanding literacy development in adulthood even with literate adults. Breaking down literacy into four dimensions, beliefs, practices, processes, and plan gave insight to and reality to what goes on in the mind of an adult learner. A lot of her findings hit home with me. It is not as simple as people think it is for adult learners, even for ones that are literate. As this article states, there are many factors that contribute to the continuing education of adults. Let’s not all assume because we are adults we know everything. We want to learn, at least most of us do. Understanding the complexity that Lyle inquires throughout her article, we as adults can open our minds, enjoying the literacy we all strive for.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
"Restructuring My Thoughts"
Given the preconceived notion that the text in the essay written by Walter J. Ong, titled” Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought” was going to restructure my reading, because of its difficulty, I decided to read the essay at least three times in order to understand its meaning. Ong obviously takes writing as a new technology to great heights. His use of complex words definitely takes away the emotion in writing that he strongly proclaims. I felt the composition disengage me as a reader, mainly because I spent more time looking up words I didn’t know rather than understanding the meaning of the text. I did painstakingly get through three readings of this composition and did come away with some meaning from the text. Ironically, Ong simplistic title for this essay explains exactly what this complex composition was try to say. Maybe that was his motivation behind this writing. It definitely restructured my thoughts in the way writing he states is portrayed as a non emotional way to communicate, or did it. It definitely got my thoughts and emotion going . Ong proclaims,"Writing is a consciousness-raising and humanizing technology". (31)
Saturday, April 3, 2010
"Sponsors of Literacy," by Deborah Brandt
After seeing the title of this essay and ready “Sponsors of Literacy” by Deborah Brandt, I never really thought of the connection between these two ideas and how one seems to motivate the other, motivation being the main factor in many aspects of literacy or life for that matter. Motivation comes in many different forms as Brandt points out in her essay. Sponsors usually “sponsor” because of some sort of underlying investment that they have put into something that they are passionate about our have interest in. In this case, in this essay, it was literacy. She touches on the positive and negative aspects of sponsorships in literacy. I felt her purpose in this essay was to give us a look at the positive side sponsorship in literacy gives us. Sponsorship is the motivational factor that pushes literacy on and on and keeps learning and teaching literacy, past and present towards a positive and enlightened outcome.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics:Introduction and What is Literacy?
James Paul Gee in “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy”proposes and deciphers his own way of analyzing the breakdown of literary studies. Through his intense studies and findings, Gee feels that our focus is in headed down the wrong road, misleading our direction in understanding academic discourse in our quest for a literate society. Literacy studies should not be be looked at by language, or literacy,but by the social importance these two academic normalcy's relate to in terms of reality.In order for discourse to be real and effective, we must look at it in a socialistic way.Isn't that why discourse is used in the first place. We don't use it to talk to ourselves. Language plays an important part and social role in its relationship with discourse.
Gee separates discourse into two separate distinctive categories. Gee looks at discourse as sort of a "identity kit".(526) Primary Discourse, primary socialization, is acquired early in life,usually in the home, with family, or a peer group. This discourse is acquired and not learned by instruction. It serves as a foundation for discourses acquired later on in life. Secondary Discourse interacts with many social institutions outside the home. Institutions like churches, schools, and community groups.In most of these institutions we must acquire many discourses to allow us to be part of each individual institution. This is where conflict and tension enters socially between both discourses. Several things can happen, at most, failure is the outcome. Gee solution to master literacy is strongly stated," I believe that any socially useful definition of "literacy" must be couched in terms of the notion of Discourse. Thus I define "literacy" as the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse".(529) This is where discourse becomes a more complicated and can distort our identities. Gee looks at the superficial features of language. These features are the best way to test us as to if we have mastered our discourse.Gee states,"the best test as to whether one was apprenticed in the"right" place, at the"right" time, with the "right" people. Such superficial features are exactly the parts of Discourse most impervious to overt instruction and are only mastered when everything else in Discourse is mastered".(531) The problem arises with in the social context of Discourse. It is hard to teach and master the superficiality's of language and break the barrier of our primary discourse that has been acquired through out our live. The very Discourse that has put us in the position we are in life, giving us our own identity. Relating active discourse at an earlier stage during earlier developmental stages, intertwining social factors,balancing primary and secondary Discourse give everyone choices on on which direction to go, with a strong base intact. Gee proclaims this by stating,"Mainstream children are actually using much of the classroom teaching-learning not to learn but to acquire, by practicing developing skills. We should honor this practice effect directly and build on it, rather than leave it as a surreptitious and indirect byproduct of teaching-learning".(543) A great suggestion we should take seriously in the classrooms of the future.
Gee separates discourse into two separate distinctive categories. Gee looks at discourse as sort of a "identity kit".(526) Primary Discourse, primary socialization, is acquired early in life,usually in the home, with family, or a peer group. This discourse is acquired and not learned by instruction. It serves as a foundation for discourses acquired later on in life. Secondary Discourse interacts with many social institutions outside the home. Institutions like churches, schools, and community groups.In most of these institutions we must acquire many discourses to allow us to be part of each individual institution. This is where conflict and tension enters socially between both discourses. Several things can happen, at most, failure is the outcome. Gee solution to master literacy is strongly stated," I believe that any socially useful definition of "literacy" must be couched in terms of the notion of Discourse. Thus I define "literacy" as the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse".(529) This is where discourse becomes a more complicated and can distort our identities. Gee looks at the superficial features of language. These features are the best way to test us as to if we have mastered our discourse.Gee states,"the best test as to whether one was apprenticed in the"right" place, at the"right" time, with the "right" people. Such superficial features are exactly the parts of Discourse most impervious to overt instruction and are only mastered when everything else in Discourse is mastered".(531) The problem arises with in the social context of Discourse. It is hard to teach and master the superficiality's of language and break the barrier of our primary discourse that has been acquired through out our live. The very Discourse that has put us in the position we are in life, giving us our own identity. Relating active discourse at an earlier stage during earlier developmental stages, intertwining social factors,balancing primary and secondary Discourse give everyone choices on on which direction to go, with a strong base intact. Gee proclaims this by stating,"Mainstream children are actually using much of the classroom teaching-learning not to learn but to acquire, by practicing developing skills. We should honor this practice effect directly and build on it, rather than leave it as a surreptitious and indirect byproduct of teaching-learning".(543) A great suggestion we should take seriously in the classrooms of the future.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
"Literacy" The Real Truth!
My definition of literacy was basic before reading "The Ethnography of Literacy" by John F. Szwed. My exposure to literacy meant understanding what is read, mainly in books, and communicating by writing, to a selected audience not chosen by me but by someone in the academic profession. This essay open my eyes to many more possibilities in literacy and I found myself agreeing with many of the suggestion Szwed has presented throughout his paper. His summary and response approach to the root causes of the world challenges every day in measuring literacy and defining what literacy really is.
All the factors that come into play when measuring and defining literacy are alarmingly way, to inconsistent. His suggestion was one of engagement into the social aspects of literacy by researching the who, what, where, and why, behind the words written on paper or any other type of material.
His suggestion to break the study patterns and discover the reality of literacy, we hopefully can measure accurately its progress and use it as a tool to enlighten or lives in many ways.
All the factors that come into play when measuring and defining literacy are alarmingly way, to inconsistent. His suggestion was one of engagement into the social aspects of literacy by researching the who, what, where, and why, behind the words written on paper or any other type of material.
His suggestion to break the study patterns and discover the reality of literacy, we hopefully can measure accurately its progress and use it as a tool to enlighten or lives in many ways.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Engaged in Education
When I read the assigned essay I felt it was necessary to define some keywords that I did not completely understand. I thought it would be best to start with the title, “Engaged Pedagogy” written by Bell Hooks. Engaged was a familiar word in my in my vocabulary but I decided to look in up anyway. Engaged was defined as; take part in or participate or to give attention to something. Pedagogy was a word I had never seen written before. It was defined as: the art, science, or profession of teaching; especially education (Webster).These definitions helped clarify Hooks purpose in here writing.
After reading “Engaged Pedagogy” by Bell Hooks the second time I felt more “engaged” in her writing. I felt drawn to her first opening paragraph which I feel meant a lot to me personally, mainly because it is a philosophy of teaching I always had felt strongly about. Bell proclaims her philosophy by stating, “to educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that anyone can learn. That learning process comes easiest to those of us who teach who also believe that there is an aspect of our vocation that is sacred; who believe that our work is not merely to share information but to share information in the intellectual and spiritual growth of our students”.(68)This statement strongly states that teachers should “engage” in every student and provide the necessary environment for engagement to happen. I feel she pushes the envelope throughout this chapter and challenges them to expand to their boundaries, boundaries that go beyond just knowledge, seeking the relationship between our well- being and empower us to grow by this process. She suggests teachers dispose the “assembly-line approach to learning”.(68) Hooks states, “Such teachers approach students with the will and desire to respond to our unique well beings, even if the situation does not allow the full emergence of a relationship based on mutual recognition. Yet the possibilities of such recognition is always present”.(68)
The possibilities are always present, but not always sought after. It takes more of a demand to recognize and react to the well being of the student. Hook strongly proclaims, “that teachers must be actively committed to the process of self-actualization that promotes their own well being if they are to teaching a manner that empowers students”.(68)
I feel” engaged pedagogy” is a practice that has gained a lot of positive response over the years and has seen some great results. With its positive results there still has been some negative resistance, resistance that still lies in the systemic politicized practices of teaching and learning. Halting what Hooks proclaims at the end of her essay,” Professors who embrace the challenge of self-actuation will be better able to create pedagogical practices that engage students, providing them with ways of knowing that enhance their capacity to live fully and deeply”.(73)It is up to the educational body to engage in this practice of freedom in a way of teaching that anyone can learn.
After reading “Engaged Pedagogy” by Bell Hooks the second time I felt more “engaged” in her writing. I felt drawn to her first opening paragraph which I feel meant a lot to me personally, mainly because it is a philosophy of teaching I always had felt strongly about. Bell proclaims her philosophy by stating, “to educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that anyone can learn. That learning process comes easiest to those of us who teach who also believe that there is an aspect of our vocation that is sacred; who believe that our work is not merely to share information but to share information in the intellectual and spiritual growth of our students”.(68)This statement strongly states that teachers should “engage” in every student and provide the necessary environment for engagement to happen. I feel she pushes the envelope throughout this chapter and challenges them to expand to their boundaries, boundaries that go beyond just knowledge, seeking the relationship between our well- being and empower us to grow by this process. She suggests teachers dispose the “assembly-line approach to learning”.(68) Hooks states, “Such teachers approach students with the will and desire to respond to our unique well beings, even if the situation does not allow the full emergence of a relationship based on mutual recognition. Yet the possibilities of such recognition is always present”.(68)
The possibilities are always present, but not always sought after. It takes more of a demand to recognize and react to the well being of the student. Hook strongly proclaims, “that teachers must be actively committed to the process of self-actualization that promotes their own well being if they are to teaching a manner that empowers students”.(68)
I feel” engaged pedagogy” is a practice that has gained a lot of positive response over the years and has seen some great results. With its positive results there still has been some negative resistance, resistance that still lies in the systemic politicized practices of teaching and learning. Halting what Hooks proclaims at the end of her essay,” Professors who embrace the challenge of self-actuation will be better able to create pedagogical practices that engage students, providing them with ways of knowing that enhance their capacity to live fully and deeply”.(73)It is up to the educational body to engage in this practice of freedom in a way of teaching that anyone can learn.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Re-Inventing the University
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
After reading, “Inventing the Universe” by David Bartholomae for the second time,I still focused in on his use of the term commonplace. I feel when you talk about academic writing, “commonplace” motivates us to activate academic discourse, with or without a purpose.I felt at first this concept brought on a positive twist in academic writing. After reading this essay again,Bartholomae points out that the twist we are feeling comes from a double edge sword.
When we start to think,” how shall I write this” we tend to go towards a safe mode or commonplace. We become translators by just repeating or quoting what we have read our other people have thought. This is where I feel it is safer for the writer to stay on common ground and follow the rules, rules that have been embedded in his or her writing since they picked up a pen. Bartholomae states,” that kind of writing is writing that comes through you, not from you”. Are we writing papers truly from us, or are these papers channeled through us from a stamped outline of previous writers without any creative substance or truth. He points out in his first epigram as I interpreted, education may as well be the only righteous or moralistic path to take and it is the only we can gain access to discourse in our society.Rules that we must follow.Does it permit or does it prevent us from writing from within.
Is "commonplace" the appropriate type of discourse that is all too common in writing? It is a comfortable place to go for most academic writers. It is not always the right place to go when it come to writing to anyone. It covers many aspects of writing and touch’s each conflict whether at home our school. It’s safe. Most people will take the safe route when it comes to anything and writing is no different. Only the few that analyze each situation and speak in a voice that relates to each and every situation in one that writes from within.
I felt Bartholomae portrayed this through out his writing. In order to have the best of both worlds and progressively point writing in a positive direction,we must move towards a more specialized discourse, perhaps not only satisfying the common codes of the university, but satisfying ones self by putting himself in a position of privilege,working towards a code of his own. Which is the reason why Bartholomae liked the last essay better because the writer showed his versatility by his complete awareness of the codes that operate within a discourse. By doing this the writer can be effective on getting a strong message across by satisfying the scholars without losing ones identity our creativity.
After reading, “Inventing the Universe” by David Bartholomae for the second time,I still focused in on his use of the term commonplace. I feel when you talk about academic writing, “commonplace” motivates us to activate academic discourse, with or without a purpose.I felt at first this concept brought on a positive twist in academic writing. After reading this essay again,Bartholomae points out that the twist we are feeling comes from a double edge sword.
When we start to think,” how shall I write this” we tend to go towards a safe mode or commonplace. We become translators by just repeating or quoting what we have read our other people have thought. This is where I feel it is safer for the writer to stay on common ground and follow the rules, rules that have been embedded in his or her writing since they picked up a pen. Bartholomae states,” that kind of writing is writing that comes through you, not from you”. Are we writing papers truly from us, or are these papers channeled through us from a stamped outline of previous writers without any creative substance or truth. He points out in his first epigram as I interpreted, education may as well be the only righteous or moralistic path to take and it is the only we can gain access to discourse in our society.Rules that we must follow.Does it permit or does it prevent us from writing from within.
Is "commonplace" the appropriate type of discourse that is all too common in writing? It is a comfortable place to go for most academic writers. It is not always the right place to go when it come to writing to anyone. It covers many aspects of writing and touch’s each conflict whether at home our school. It’s safe. Most people will take the safe route when it comes to anything and writing is no different. Only the few that analyze each situation and speak in a voice that relates to each and every situation in one that writes from within.
I felt Bartholomae portrayed this through out his writing. In order to have the best of both worlds and progressively point writing in a positive direction,we must move towards a more specialized discourse, perhaps not only satisfying the common codes of the university, but satisfying ones self by putting himself in a position of privilege,working towards a code of his own. Which is the reason why Bartholomae liked the last essay better because the writer showed his versatility by his complete awareness of the codes that operate within a discourse. By doing this the writer can be effective on getting a strong message across by satisfying the scholars without losing ones identity our creativity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)