Blog #2

My previous blog several weeks ago ended on the question of just “how can we as educators diversify our understanding of literacy and transfer that knowledge to our students?” I concluded that perhaps I would need to take this a step at a time and not let this tension burden my inner psyche. Of course, after beginning that process by taking a few steps more in the past few weeks, it then made me realize that a possible way for we as educators to diversify our understanding and to transfer that is through the essence of reading itself. And basically, our interpretation of it. Most especially through our conscious experience in what surrounds us and just how we view language. Interestingly enough, I feel that this week’s readings gave me some leads in constructing possible theories.

For instance, with Louise M. Rosenblatt’s critical essay “Writing and Reading: The Transactional Theory,” there are various points and theories she makes that resonated and felt that I should take into consideration for my own teaching philosophies and theories. She primarily focuses her attention on the essence of transaction. She states that “My use of the terms “transaction” and “transactional” is consonant with the contemporary twentieth-century shift in thinking about the relationship of human beings to the natural world” (Rosenblatt, 3). She then cites from John Dewey and Arthur F. Bentley’s “In Knowing and the Known,” that the notion of interaction has become too apparent into the idea of viewing humanity and nature as “separate entities” (Rosenblatt, 3). She furthers her citation with
The newer paradigm, reflecting especially Einsteinian and subatomic

developments in physics, emphasizes their reciprocal relationship. The scientist, “the observer,” to use Niels Bohr’s phrasing, is seen as it part of his observation” (1959, p. 210). Instead of separate, already-defined entities acting on one another (an “interaction”), Dewey and Bentley (1949, p. 69) suggested that the term “transaction” be used to designate relationships in which each element conditions and is conditioned by the other in a mutually-constituted situation” (Rosenblatt, 3).
So basically, what she states is that transaction, as indicated by Dewey and Bentley, be utilized as tools that would identify the relationship amongst discourses and how they intertwine and interact with each other. Further into her analysis, Rosenblatt argues on language that “it is often forgotten that language is always internalized by an individual human being in transaction with a particular environment” (Rosenblatt, 5). She then continues with “No language act, however, can be thought of as totally public or totally private. Always anchored in individuals, it necessarily involves both public and private elements, the base as well as the tip of the “iceberg.” And, although we speak of individual signs or words, we know that words do not function in isolation, but always in particular verbal, personal, and social contexts” (Rosenblatt, 5).
By keeping with what Rosenblatt has in mind, this means we ought to consider that language in our own understanding is internalized and not necessarily something we would reveal fully out in the world. However, in consideration of transactional theory, perhaps we ought to treat our cognition with language as ways of transacting. I may be way off but perhaps we can thus treat our internal and external usage of language as a hybrid of sorts. That is, we should hybrid our transactions into a synthesis of our intellect. What we write and read internally can be transferred externally through our hypothesis. And in a way, we have to treat it as a metacognitive experience. So, it would be beneficial if we ought to create external and internal conversation. That is why it’s important in metacognitive response to the language that we’re observing. We can’t just read or write the language. We have to literally experience language in pretty much the same fashion as Friere argues for in his analytical essays.

Of course, this is easier said than done, especially when in consideration of basic writers/readers. You can’t simply tell basic writers to ‘think on transactions’ especially if they’re not familiar with that discourse. So, it’s important that we approach it with as much delicacy as possible. In fact, in Cheryl Hogue Smith’s article “Interrogating Texts,” she discusses on how many students, especially basic writers, often come to college unprepared with the prior knowledge of writing and reading processes. More often than not, they even see “re-reading” as a sign of “weakness” and would much rather skim through text (61). Smith then retorts that instructors should then acknowledge to basic writers that even the most advanced, “professional” still has to re-read and analyze their reading (62). By doing so, it shows students that, reading can be transactional and that we need to view reading and writing as intertwined entities. So, we have to converse with the text. Which would mean that re-reading and annotation is necessary. By doing so, we can negotiate from the text by constantly being involved and constantly experimenting with different writing processes, whether they be summarizing, note-taking, double journal entries. Anything that would constantly fuel our intellect and understanding in order to continue negotiating with language. And keeping in mind of Rosenblatt’s argument, we have to understand that basic writers, especially in a new college environment, may feel uncomfortable in sharing their internal negotiation. So, by continued guidance, we can help ease their discomfort and hopefully they may be willing to add to the discourse conversation.

Now, keeping all this mind, this I feel helps with my previous question. Communication and how we negotiate and experiment with language is they key in externally transferring our internal understanding to students. However, the question I now have is, once we establish that diversity in our knowledge, how can we properly keep in mind with various theories and make it out own? Additionally, can there be a “right” or “wrong” approach? The articles this week touched upon in how we can inform students that sometimes our “interpretation” can be “wrong.” But, what if our own interpretation is “wrong.” How can we avoid that possibility? Or is unavoidable?

My blog ramblings

Jolliffe, David A., and Allison Harl. “Texts of Our Institutional Lives: Studying the ‘Reading Transition’ from High School to College: What Are Our Students Reading and Why?”

Freire, Paulo. “The Importance of the Act of Reading.”

Gioia, Dana. “On the Importance of Reading.”

Gee, James. “What is Literacy?”

In regards to this week’s readings, I have to say that it brought in quite the emotional response for me. The reason why is all my life, I’ve actually struggled with how I define myself as a reader. As someone who has earned a BA and MA in English, I was always ashamed in admitting that I don’t really practice enough activeness in my daily reading life. However, after reading the rhetorical and argumentative essays of Harl, Jolliffe, Friere, Goia, and Gee, I then realized that I shouldn’t have felt so ashamed of myself. Even if I may not be as a compulsive reader as many of my peers and mentors, I technically am an active reader too. If I’m not reading literary texts, then I’m browsing through articles on the Internet. Considering that I’m fortunate enough in having a group of intelligent thinkers as my Facebook friends, I’m constantly absorbing their style of writing in my newsfeed. Since we are in an age of millennialism where technology continues to have its hand in mandating how society should function and communicate, it is beneficial that I am quite proficient with texts within hyperspace as well. That way, I can acquire possible strategies that may aid students with their readership.

Therefore, how I was able to synthesize my understanding of each of the articles was through my schema and my emotional response to the notion of readership and literacy. Considering my bias, I felt quite engaged with each of the articles. And interestingly enough, I found it interesting that all of the articles appeared to equally share the same idea that how we define literacy needs to be re-evaluated. To read can’t simply be limited to just reading a literary text and how we comprehend it. Instead, reading needs to be seen as much more complex than that. How we gained literacy wasn’t just through grammar lessons for it was also on how we incorporated with language and how our growing understanding of the English language encompassed our daily lives. So, with academic reading and writing, it must be approached that same way as well.

For instance, in Friere’s “The Importance of the Act of Reading,” cites an example of how he learned reading from his personal narrative by arguing that the surrounding environment around him was a living form of text for him. On page 6 of his article, he states “The texts, words, letters of that context were incarnated as well in the whistle of the wind, the clouds of the sky, the sky’s color, its movement; in the color of flag, the shape of leaves, the fragrance of flowers – roses, jasmine; in tree trunks; in fruit rinds: the varying color tones of the same fruit at different times —- the green of a mango when the fruit is first forming, the green of a mango fully formed, the greenish yellow of the same mango ripening, the black spots of an overripe mango — the relationship among these colors, the developing fruit, its resistance to our manipulation, and its taste. It was possibly at this time, by doing it myself and seeing others do it, that I learned the meaning of the word squashing” (Friere, 6).

From that quotation, it made me think back from my own narrative. As a child, I too viewed the world and also incorporated vocabulary with what I saw. Seeing signs on the streets, I would visualize the redness of the stop sign and the black and white scrapings on the fading speed limit signs. Whenever the autumn leaves would fall, I’d visualize ‘orange’ and ‘red’ as it fell against the green lawn. I’d even think of ‘falling’ as I looked at the falling leaves. While I can’t eloquently re-paint what I envisioned during my younger years like Freire, my point is that what we learn isn’t restrictive to just the classroom setting but also with our daily life. I think that is why it’s essential to perhaps have students spend a day documenting their surroundings and have them metacognitively write about what they see and what thoughts they’re envisioning and even question their own reactions to their metacognition. By doing so, it would teach them that practicing academic reading and writing doesn’t just come from the texts but also how they react to their world.

This also makes me think of Goia’s “On the Importance of Reading” in which she states “Readers play video games, watch television; they do these things, but they do them in
a balanced way, versus people who are, increasingly, simply passive consumers of electronic entertainment “ (Goia, 2). Basically, she argues that many readers these days tend to balance out their tasks. And my thoughts as I read through is that in duration of their task of playing a video game, is that they’re also responding to what they see and whether or not they’re invested with what a character may be doing or saying depending on the genre of the game. As with passive consumers, Goia then states that “The passive people come home, watch TV, play video games, go onto the Internet, talk on the phone, go back to the TV, put a DVD in – and then it’s time to go to bed” (Goia, 2). So, essentially, the passive consumers on the other hand don’t create a metacognitive conversation. They simply view the game as a game without re-evaluating on the game’s purpose and whether their portrayal of, let’s say, gender constitutes a problem. What I feel Goia may be saying is that we as educators must be aware of how we should approach literacy and how we can convince the more passive consumers in creating metacognition within their daily routine as well. That way, they can establish on how to incorporate new ways in developing their critical thinking and writing skills through how they “read” their tasks outside of academia.

So, the question I have is just how can we as educators diversify our understanding of literacy and transfer that knowledge to our students? I mentioned earlier in that my reading habits and affiliation with technology and Facebook can give me an advantage with future students since I can express on how I too can identify with their tension with readership since I too often felt that I wasn’t an adequate enough of an active reader in the past. However, I still need to configure a way in synthesizing all those ideas into a clear course plan that wouldn’t result in students becoming lost through an overabundance of literary and hypertexts along with extensive tasks where they’re supposed to be critical read every breathing second of their lives.  Rather than me stressing over this notion, it may be best if I simply take this one step at a time and constantly review all my ideas and create a metacognitive conversation for myself as I continue researching and evaluating my own teaching theories.