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.