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?