Jennifer Gartman
what we did: split of into smaller groups to discuss four educational theories from the print out "Chapter Seven: Teaching Composing Processes."
Criteria for group discussion focus:
1. Summarize the main position of the theory.
2. Identify the key proponents of the theory.
3. Identify the pedagogical implications.
4. Identify any faults/drawbacks.
Stage Model Process Theory
1. prewrite-write-revise; was a series of set stages you had to follow for the writing process
2. Rohman and Wlecke
3. sets up a chart for the teacher and students to follow through with on a one way street
4. not everyone can write in a set pattern like that
Recursive Theory
1. likened to a tornado; is not a linear process: may start at prewrite go for write but then move backwards and so on until end result is achieved.
2. Emig
3. students must write as well as the teachers; everyone must share their writings with everyone else
4. process a bit chaotic; no set rules; some may not be comfortable with
Cognitive Development Theory
1. looks at students' cognitive process and development; the brain's development is the focus; set up of stages for development
2. Piget, Vzg, Emig, Mofit
The American Question: How can I push my student/child forward to next level?
Connection with writer and audience and subject
Social Contructionism
student as social learner
awareness of audience
vky
giving a speech in your head before writing
colab ideas with groups
discourse communities
Implications: create a discourse community in classroom
Problems?
Idea of thinking before talking or talking before thinking. We were unable to answer this. Major conclusion was that we thought before we talked. Comparison with animals and humans. Teacher says rhet and comb are open field for research of all kind
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have thought about the talking before thought or thought before talking issue as discussed in class in great detail since our discussion yesterday.
I talked about it with my husband, my best friend and my mom. The interesting result was 3 different opinions. My husband felt that a person clearly could not communicate with out there first being cognitive thought and that you started having some cognitive process in the womb in the later trimesters. My Mom felt pretty strongly that you experienced language even in utero and that this language would give the fetus the vehicle in which to formulate thought, My best friend felt that it wasn't a chicken or egg situation, but rather, a more simultaneous or symbiotic relationship.
I still feel torn but I think that even if we do not experience auditory language, even in the womb, perhaps for reasons such as our parents are mute (though I think we would still have to experience some language just for the fact of being around other people)that we are sentient creatures and it is the very essence of being human to have cognition.
As far as this relates to feral children I feel that those children are still having cognition, though it may never progress past a certain point due to the structures that were not formed for these children at critical times. But they did learn from their experiences and they did survive in an alien environment and adapted to to the situation they were in. These children were also still able to integrate to some degree into human society.
In regard to the writing process we discussed, it is interesting that as in any academic area, there are varied positions in regard to what is expected and accepted and what is actually the most viable in actual practice.
This brings home for me, the idea that as teachers we do have to understand the basic pedagogy underlying what we hope to teach and that we truly can't just go in a classroom and "wing it" or learn as we go.
Though of course, we will learn on the job for the rest of our teaching careers.
I drove home from class last Wednesday wondering if I was the only person confused about the general consensus of the class concerning the language/thought debate. It seemed that the general conclusion was that language (i.e. verbal communication or "talking") was the vehicle through which thought occurs.
My personal understanding of the issue is as follows. I believe that thought, even higher order though, can be independant of verbal communication, yet verbal communication is by no means independant of thought.
To say that babies do not think because they do not yet possess spoken language does not seem to fit with what is currently taught in the field of child psychology. In Child Psychology we learn about the exponential rate that babies acquire and synthesize new information and learn about the world around them before having anything close to a grasp on verbal communication. This rate then steadily declines as the individual grows older. In order for this to happen, a baby's brain must have some way to make sense of the new information. And without a tangible grasp on verbal language, it must occur through some other means. One way in which we know this initially happens is through sensory experience(e.g. a baby putting everything he can get his hands on into his mouth). Through this sensory experience with the world, the baby builds for himself a sort of "sensory vocabulary" if you will. X is different from Y because it feels different. Does this "sensory vocabulary" function exactly like verbal language? Probably not, but it does help the baby make sense of his world just the way that language functions for an adult.
As I shared with the class, I actually do most of my higher order thinking visually. I can make sense of images much more readily than I can words. Words seem very arbitrary to me and if I could speak to you by showing you a video of my thoughts I would. I know this must sound odd to everyone given our chosen field. While many of you are probably "language" people, I'm actually more geared toward art and math, yet I love literature and I love learning about the functions of language. All of this has led me to take a deep interest in Gardner's idea of "Multiple Intelligences." According to his theory, an individual may have one or two dominant ways in which he or she synthesizes new information and/or "thinks" yet may still be able to learn and think in other ways. Some of these intelligences include: verbal, mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, etc. And it is my understanding that researchers are finding new "intelligences" everyday. As a future teacher this information is important to me because not all of my students may think or learn the same way that I do.
As far as feral children, I think that Michelle brought up a very important point. In some way, they used reasoning to make sense of and integrate into their environment. This fact makes me question where to draw the line between instinct and higher thought. It is not inherently instinctual for a human to behave like a dog and express herself through the "language" of dogs (e.g. face-rubbing to express submission), yet one of the feral children learned to express herself in this way. Is this phenomenon instinct or is it in fact higher learning?
This leads me to another question: Just what is language? Is spoken word the only form of language? Can't expression, communication, thought, and understanding occur in other ways? What about deaf people? Language isn't something they hear. Through ASL, it is something they see. And what about Hellen Keller? Language wasn't something she heard or saw. It was something she could only feel through her teacher signing into her hands. I wonder what her internal thoughts were like. I bet she didn't think in spoken words, though, having never heard them.
Speaking of Hellen Keller, language wasn't accessable to her for many years, yet she still possessed the capacity to learn language (although it wasn't a spoken language). It seems that human beings are "hard-wired" to learn language and furthermore, they learn the language to which they are exposed whether it is English, Chinese, ASL, or "dog-language." So would it be fair to say that acquisition of language (i.e. any way to communicate, not just verbally) is a human instinct?
Just some thoughts. I would love to know what everybody thinks.
Just one more thought about the nature of language:
I came across an article on ERIC which I think may apply to some of the questions in my previous comment. I have included excerpts below as well as the ERIC identifier and website. Go there if you want to read the whole article.
But first my comments on the article:
According to semiotic theory, verbal language is simply a system of signs that signify meaning. These signs are words and each word signifies a specific meaning agreed upon by the culture. Therefore, when I say the word, "apple" it has meaning to you because we both agree that the very arbitrary word "apple" means a red fruit that grows on trees. It could very well signify an animal that barks.
Two people with the same or at least similar understandings of a particular sign system can communicate using the sign system because they are in essence sharing meaning for otherwise meaningless signs.
The point I'm driving at is that although verbal language is a sign system (albeit perhaps the most significant sign system there is between humans), there ARE other sign systems. For instanse, gestures are signs with their own system. Many physical gestures signify a particular meaning shared by people the world over. A hug signfies love, affection, acceptance, and indication of support or comfort, etc. the world over.
Therefore, if there are other sign systems (i.e. ways of signifying meaning), then there are other ways to think besides through verbal language. The author of the article makes the point that verbal language is the most dominant type of sign system used by humans in learning and helps them to make sense of the other sign systems. I think it may be more individualized than that. What does everyone else think?
Here are the excerpts from the article:
WHAT IS SEMIOTICS?
Semiotics is the study of SIGNS. A sign is something that stands for something else. There are three kinds of signs:
1. symbols--signs that bear an ARBITRARY RELATIONSHIP to that which they stand for (e.g., the word "apple" by convention stands for the fruit we identify with the word).
2. icons--signs RESEMBLING that which they stand for (e.g., a painting of an apple looks like the fruit it represents).
3. indexes--signs that are INDICATORS of a fact or condition (e.g., a chest pain can indicate heartburn; smoke usually indicates fire).
* * *
A constellation of cognitive, aesthetic, and psychomotor skills is brought to the surface when we consider students' abilities to understand and perform in numerous sign systems. The role of language in the curriculum, moreover, takes on new power in the semiotic perspective. Language is the main arbiter as students learn to use and understand all of the other symbol systems. Language is used by musicians and visual artists in articulating their intentions and describing their techniques. Analysis of the syntax of any nonlinguistic object, from an equation to a piece of sculpture, involves language. So does description of the ideas or emotional responses that the object evokes in us.
* * *
The centrality of language in semiotics can be disputed on theoretical grounds, but as Eco (1978, p. 174) says, "Language is the most powerful semiotic device that man has invented." Piaget (1970, pp. 45-46) states that "language is but one among...many aspects of the semiotic function, even though it is in most instances the most important." John Carroll acknowledges the educational importance of pictorial forms but notes that they "are almost always accompanied by language and often require language to make them intelligible" (1974, p. 156). Language across the curriculum, then, is not a mere buzzphrase; it is an essential condition for learning.
ERIC Identifier: ED329960
Publication Date: 1991-00-00
Author: Suhor, Charles
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills Bloomington IN.
http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9219/english.htm
Post a Comment