The computer. I've often heard the power of the computer compared to the power of the printing press, but I've not heard the comparison between the computer and fire. Wow. That's a pretty powerful statement. I wonder if I agree.
Well, what has the computer transformed? It's transformed the cars we drive, the banking we do, the restaurants we frequent, even the car wash I use. It's transformed our ability to get up-to-the-minute information. Right? Now we have information overload. It's transformed the way architects design, the way music is distributed, even online shopping has transformed peoples' lives. Now it doesn't matter if you live in the middle-of-nowhere...you can even shop for designer shoes if you want.
It's transformed the way retail businesses do business - their inventory is always up-to-date, they know exactly how much money should be in the cash register, they know who has punched keys on any cash register (which is not really a cash register at all anymore - it's seriously a computer with a cash drawer...).
Although I can't remember all the institutions of a society, some of them are: government, religion, family, and education. I think that computers have transformed the way governments do business. I can complete my taxes online (well not really, but some people can!), add more money to my EZ-Pass account, or print out mailing labels for packages without ever stepping foot in the post office. From a religious perspective, the word is out on the web! Not only is information available about and from virtually any religious group - extremists included - but groups actively solicit new members online. Family is well represented on the web and I would wager to say the computers have transformed families. Communication is so much easier with email, blogs, and web pages. Of course if misused, that communication can be dangerous for families! Genealogical websites are at anyone's fingertips so digging for family dirt is just a keystroke away. That leaves education. Has education been affected by computers and technology? Oh absolutely! I remember how cutting edge I felt when I took an online course sometime in the mid 90's. It was such a thrill to plug into my phone jack with my 56k modem and "surf". Wow. Now people can get whole degrees online (as Ray pointed out in his comments about the University of Phoenix).
I guess the question is - is there anything that has not been touched by a computer? I'll have to give that one some thought. But I'm thinking that it really may have transformed our culture more than I even considered.
I just heard today that Bill Gates (whose billions can be attributed to the computer of course) was a major funding source for a program that is transporting millions of seeds to a vault somewhere in the Arctic to protect them from any disaster or doomsday type situation. His hope is that humans will still have a viable food source (that is of course, if they can get to the Arctic).
Oh- and on the topic of multimedia writing, I say "go for it." It's a fabulous opportunity to allow multiple intelligences to shine. I am not at all worried at the propsects of the "text" part of multimedia disappearing.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Last licks...
So what do we do with the basic writers? I don't think that eliminating basic writing classes is the answer. But are we trying to fit a square peg in a round hole? Perhaps we need to get a clear focus on the goal of a writing class. Is it to teach correct grammar and sentence structure? If it is, then maybe we should eliminate basic writing because I don't think that should be its focus. But, if the point of a writing class is to teach people how to communicate with whatever cognitive tools AND linguistic ability they possess, then we really should keep basic writing alive.
Basic writing doesn't mean "dumbing down." I also don't see basic writing as a "catch up" class. Rather, a basic writing course can serve the needs of a couple of key participants. One group would be those students who do not have a background in middle class language acquisition. Another group would be those students who were unable to learn to write through the traditional methods used in schools - maybe they are LD - maybe they just learn differently. Both groups of students are able to learn. And many in these groups can possess average or higher-than-average intelligence. But, I don't necessarily see these two groups of students as having the same needs. I guess I'm talking about some homogeneous grouping here. And for good reason - their needs are specific and must be addressed differently.
I regret that I'll be missing this class discussion. I am sure it will be fascinating.
Basic writing doesn't mean "dumbing down." I also don't see basic writing as a "catch up" class. Rather, a basic writing course can serve the needs of a couple of key participants. One group would be those students who do not have a background in middle class language acquisition. Another group would be those students who were unable to learn to write through the traditional methods used in schools - maybe they are LD - maybe they just learn differently. Both groups of students are able to learn. And many in these groups can possess average or higher-than-average intelligence. But, I don't necessarily see these two groups of students as having the same needs. I guess I'm talking about some homogeneous grouping here. And for good reason - their needs are specific and must be addressed differently.
I regret that I'll be missing this class discussion. I am sure it will be fascinating.
Read this "jawn"
I like your 'cognitive' style. Maybe that can be the new buzzword (buzz phrase?) in bars this summer. I never really thought about labeling the way a person solves a problem as an example of his/her cognitive style - but I like it.
Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences kept popping into my mind as I read Rose's work. I connected it to the profiles that Merlin Wittrock (VV, 349) built. When he talked about the field-independent people being intrinsically motivated and individualistic, it made me think of a person with an intrapersonal strength. His description of the field-dependent person as a more socially aware, extrinsically motivated being ties into Gardner's interpersonal intelligence. At the end of that section on Cognitive Style, Rose talks about students who don't perform in the way that we've been taught and how that may indicate a limited opportunity (or a lack of background knowledge) as opposed to a deficit in analytical ability. It made me think about Gardner's theory again as there are many ways to get the job done. It doesn't have to fit the design that we know or are most comfortable with.
When Rose talks about Paul Broca's work from 1865, it reminded me of the history of learning disabilities. Broca's work on brain hemispheres laid the cornerstone for later brain research that led to the much later "discovery" of learning disabilities. I was never a real fan of the right brain/left brain hemisphericity theories - and I didn't get the sense that Mike Rose felt they were too scientifically valid either! (note the exclamation point)
But I am a Piaget fan. Sometimes I feel like I can actually SEE students move from concrete-operational to formal-operational! I understand Rose's reservations about applying this developmental theory to adults. I do think that the brain can continue to develop even into early adulthood - definitely while in college - and that some people may be able to think more abstractly in college than they could in high school. But whether the test directions are explicitly explained is a question I can't answer. I can certainly believe that, if the directions were not explicit, then I understand the a"failure to reason or a failure to understand" argument.
One final comment about Rose's piece and that is related to his comments on page 374 when he talks about the most troubling aspect of the orality-literacy construct. I completely agree with his point about the way language is used in the urban ghetto and the attempts by those who speak "urban ghetto" to make sense of the uses of print. I see this all the time. I can practically taste the frustration that urban writers have when they search for a "real word" or a "school word" (or do I mean a "middle class word"?)to use instead of an urban word. Take, for example, the urban word "jawn". "Jawn" means 'a thing' - but it can also mean 'a person' - and it can even mean 'a feeling'. That's pretty vague - and they use it for everything. I've heard kids say, "You know that jawn?" And so I query..."What do you mean by jawn?" And so it goes...
The point is that when an urban student is asked to use more specific language while speaking, itcan be a daunting task. Add writing to the mix, and it becomes even more frustrating.
Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences kept popping into my mind as I read Rose's work. I connected it to the profiles that Merlin Wittrock (VV, 349) built. When he talked about the field-independent people being intrinsically motivated and individualistic, it made me think of a person with an intrapersonal strength. His description of the field-dependent person as a more socially aware, extrinsically motivated being ties into Gardner's interpersonal intelligence. At the end of that section on Cognitive Style, Rose talks about students who don't perform in the way that we've been taught and how that may indicate a limited opportunity (or a lack of background knowledge) as opposed to a deficit in analytical ability. It made me think about Gardner's theory again as there are many ways to get the job done. It doesn't have to fit the design that we know or are most comfortable with.
When Rose talks about Paul Broca's work from 1865, it reminded me of the history of learning disabilities. Broca's work on brain hemispheres laid the cornerstone for later brain research that led to the much later "discovery" of learning disabilities. I was never a real fan of the right brain/left brain hemisphericity theories - and I didn't get the sense that Mike Rose felt they were too scientifically valid either! (note the exclamation point)
But I am a Piaget fan. Sometimes I feel like I can actually SEE students move from concrete-operational to formal-operational! I understand Rose's reservations about applying this developmental theory to adults. I do think that the brain can continue to develop even into early adulthood - definitely while in college - and that some people may be able to think more abstractly in college than they could in high school. But whether the test directions are explicitly explained is a question I can't answer. I can certainly believe that, if the directions were not explicit, then I understand the a"failure to reason or a failure to understand" argument.
One final comment about Rose's piece and that is related to his comments on page 374 when he talks about the most troubling aspect of the orality-literacy construct. I completely agree with his point about the way language is used in the urban ghetto and the attempts by those who speak "urban ghetto" to make sense of the uses of print. I see this all the time. I can practically taste the frustration that urban writers have when they search for a "real word" or a "school word" (or do I mean a "middle class word"?)to use instead of an urban word. Take, for example, the urban word "jawn". "Jawn" means 'a thing' - but it can also mean 'a person' - and it can even mean 'a feeling'. That's pretty vague - and they use it for everything. I've heard kids say, "You know that jawn?" And so I query..."What do you mean by jawn?" And so it goes...
The point is that when an urban student is asked to use more specific language while speaking, itcan be a daunting task. Add writing to the mix, and it becomes even more frustrating.
The bottom line
I found myself shaking my head in agreement SO often while reading about the basic writing dilemma. Of course that didn't surprise me. Rather, it frustrated me that we continue to toss around the blame and the problem still exists - even 30 years (or longer) later. Wow.
Mina Shaughnessy hits the nail on the head on the first page of "Diving In" (VV, 311) when she references the phrase "catching up." Even though she wrote about this in 1976, I hear this phrase almost daily - and it's 2008. In fact, as I write this, courses are being developed at my school to "catch kids up" and "double dose" them in math and reading so they can "meet standard." It makes me want to throw up.
Although her developmental scale for teachers is not new to me, it so so relevant even today. Not only does it hold true for basic writers; but it also exists for basic readers and basic mathematicians. I had a conversation just last year with a second year teacher who wondered how she could have a whole class fail. I listened to her lament about all the things the students weren't doing (not doing their homework, not studying for tests, etc). I encouraged her to step back and see if the tasks she assigned were meeting the needs of her students. In the most non-threatening way that I knew, I queried whether there was anything that she could do differently. Honestly, I don't think she ever thought about that. I'd like to say that this was a revelation and that she just changed everything to try to better meet their needs. But, this story doesn't have that kind of an ending.
I know this scenario happens in schools everywhere in every subject and in every grade. I just read a letter to the editor in The Patriot News that suggested we move forward with the final exit exams for seniors because students have to do their part and learn when information is presented. Of course I agree that students must be involved in their learning. That's a no brainer. But, as in the case of the basic writing dilemma in colleges and high schools everywhere, the teacher has a huge a responsibility to look at "the task s/he is asking to students to perform "(VV 316) and ensure that it serves the purpose for which it was designed.
"But as we come to know these students better, we begin to see that the greatest barrier to our work with them is our ignorance of them and of the very subject we have contracted to teach." Yeah.
Mina Shaughnessy hits the nail on the head on the first page of "Diving In" (VV, 311) when she references the phrase "catching up." Even though she wrote about this in 1976, I hear this phrase almost daily - and it's 2008. In fact, as I write this, courses are being developed at my school to "catch kids up" and "double dose" them in math and reading so they can "meet standard." It makes me want to throw up.
Although her developmental scale for teachers is not new to me, it so so relevant even today. Not only does it hold true for basic writers; but it also exists for basic readers and basic mathematicians. I had a conversation just last year with a second year teacher who wondered how she could have a whole class fail. I listened to her lament about all the things the students weren't doing (not doing their homework, not studying for tests, etc). I encouraged her to step back and see if the tasks she assigned were meeting the needs of her students. In the most non-threatening way that I knew, I queried whether there was anything that she could do differently. Honestly, I don't think she ever thought about that. I'd like to say that this was a revelation and that she just changed everything to try to better meet their needs. But, this story doesn't have that kind of an ending.
I know this scenario happens in schools everywhere in every subject and in every grade. I just read a letter to the editor in The Patriot News that suggested we move forward with the final exit exams for seniors because students have to do their part and learn when information is presented. Of course I agree that students must be involved in their learning. That's a no brainer. But, as in the case of the basic writing dilemma in colleges and high schools everywhere, the teacher has a huge a responsibility to look at "the task s/he is asking to students to perform "(VV 316) and ensure that it serves the purpose for which it was designed.
"But as we come to know these students better, we begin to see that the greatest barrier to our work with them is our ignorance of them and of the very subject we have contracted to teach." Yeah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)