When Politics Widen the Divide

This chapter demonstrates a a fair summary of the many complex parts which contribute to literacy pedagogy. Williams again provides a fairly well-rounded background of the genesis and evolution of different theories for literacy development. I really like the way Williams enlightens us to the notion of political forces playing such huge role in shaping teaching; the fact is very sad. Where the separation between whole language and phonics is concerned, I could not help but feel compelled to side with the way in which I was taught. Objectively though I guess I felt compelled to consider each side.

There seem to be a strong logic in the “decoding” aspect of phonics (155). We can imagine a child developing skills which allow for the uncovering of meaning in a sentence, or, even deeper, the sounds of letters within words and meaning derived from such approach. Given this, Flesh’s psycholinguistic theory works for my understanding of literacy development.

Whole-language possesses an appeal of almost accepting that the phonics people missed something –the extent of meaning in a word. The examples of the way the word, “house” operates in different ways in sentences shows clearly what seems to be a shortcoming of the phonics side (157). I however like to give credence to the whole-language people as far as the extended meanings of words. But such a paradigm for reading pedagogy cannot capture the complexity of language alone—neither side can. Therein lays the trouble with these systems. Linguistics calls into play a myriad of cognitive operations which co-work together in intricate ways.

I can think back to reading on Wittgenstein and his criticism of St Augustine’s views on the ways in which a child comes to know language. St Augustine likens the process to a strange coming into a new country language and trying to learn the language with no background of it (A.D. 39-38). Wittgenstein argues that the child in ST. Augustine’s model does not already possess a language as Augustine implied. The notion applies itself to a common language and does not account for variables in the constructs of different languages. In this respect, one can see how the whole language people may adopt or point to segment of Wittgenstein’s linguistics in order to support their stance. After all Wittgenstein’s philosophy may show what the whole language people are re-demonstrating. But nevertheless, considering the limits of a bottom-up method of phonics approach, we can see how meaning or the extent of possible meanings of words can go far beyond that allowed for in such approach.

Still, whole language opens Pandora’s Box in the sense that it may jeopardize the very framework of the language by allowing for local interpretations of meanings and even pronunciation of words (155). We are confronted, then, with the dangers of such a liberal ideology. The question remains whether or not the rigidity of phonics’ conservatism will accommodate the vastness of meaning in words .As well, can whole-language completely dilute the very framework of our language? I think, as a pedagogy, we cannot settle on one over the other, completely.

Considering the Universal to Specific Approach.

Williams really layers his chapters--so far-- with some dense material. Chapter 2 illustrates, nicely, the concept of induction versus deduction approach to writing. The " Bottom-up" system which William describes allows for the obvious flaws in today's writing pedagogy to show itself. The argumentation, which this system ignores, provides the distinction between--I think--synthesized and developing writing and sheer regurgitating of micro- factual information (45).

In our own writing--and this stands out more clearly when we read the writings of others--the realization of audience plays a big part in the effectiveness of the work. Where the contemporary writing pedagogy fails us is effort and constructing with small pieces and trying fit them nicely into the universal. It's more than just dwelling on the mechanics and the parts of the whole; it;s about forgetting the whole itself.

While I must apologize for my lack of adequately and expressively articulating my intended meaning--though as Chomsky may very well have insisted that I have developed an internalized grammar"-- I have yet realized how to express it.

It seems to me that writing owns a place in epistemological circles. I my self had not, as a young child, been exposed to any other form of rhetoric which would allow for the "writing to learn" process to take hold. Simply, as this chapter nicely exposes this shortcoming, my education
has insisted on including literary works that were suppose to expand my thinking powers, reinforce my intellectual mettle to the point where I would bravely go where I hadn't gone before. I would squeeze, extract what I thought to be credible inferences from the works I read. I therefore believed these inferences made me smarter! Who knew?

Chemistry and interaction

Wow! At first, I was trying to get into my head this "crazy" connection Elbow makes with the chemistry of cooking and how changes occur-- how elements transform. I could not wrap myself around it. But the analogy which, at first, I thought a great stretch, helps to illustrate Elbows ideas of the synthesis of ideas.

The notion that the interaction with another person can greatly contribute to the development of new ideas cause me to want to gnaw on something for a second. I mean, I've always thought of writing as a solitary journey, sort of like long distance running: it's painful but something pulls you to it. I always enjoyed the loneliness of it all. But now I realize that all of themes I was stuck for an idea, when I could write nothing but repeated ideas, all I needed (at least according to Elbow) was to talk to someone else. Of course, I realize this only after having read this section.

The whole "cooking" things makes sense when we look at the idea of interaction. Other people's views, opinions--whether we agree with them or not--sort of 'disturb" some fixed way of thinking and leads us to ideas we never thought, no matter how we've struggled with trying to find them.

And about the "interaction between modes": I like the model Elbow gives us. While writing and writing, we can and should shift from a fixed perspective. Elbow suggests: poetry to non poetry and empirical to a priori, or from third to first person. These perspectives open doors. I really can use this.

Mr. Elbow likes to think outside of the box and I appreciate that. So often we tend to get into ruts which stifle human progression and show limits. But Elbow, like so many innovators takes a firm stand at questioning convention; that's what leads to progress.
I like the whole, "writing is alive" way of approaching composition. Elbow stresses to write and write. Allow writing to Synthesize. Something, in a not-so-understood part of language creates a synthesis of ideas, arguments, words and points-of-view. I really believe that we can't identify these operations; they are deep inside--very complex.
Mechanics definitely get in the way of flow; and flow is what it takes to effectively express. It is the same in music and speaking or writing. Language operates on a set of rules (grammar, inflection, word choice, etc.). Too much thought put into the rules part and he writer chokes. Stop editing yourself! Let it out, Man! Let it out! That's expression and that' the way we should have learned it a long time ago.
Posted by MDJ69 at 11:44 AM Email This Blog This! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz
Labels: Blog1Mr. Elbow likes to think outside of the box and I appreciate that. So often we tend to get into ruts which stifle human progression and show limits. But Elbow, like so many innovators takes a firm stand at questioning convention; that's what leads to progress.
I like the whole, "writing is alive" way of approaching composition. Elbow stresses to write and write. Allow writing to Synthesize. Something, in a not-so-understood part of language creates a synthesis of ideas, arguments, words and points-of-view. I really believe that we can't identify these operations; they are deep inside--very complex.
Mechanics definitely get in the way of flow; and flow is what it takes to effectively express. It is the same in music and speaking or writing. Language operates on a set of rules (grammar, inflection, word choice, etc.). Too much thought put into the rules part and he writer chokes. Stop editing yourself! Let it out, Man! Let it out! That's expression and that' the way we should have learned it a long time ago.
Posted by MDJ69 at 11:44 AM

mdj-learning upside down

Mr. Elbow seems to shake things up in a refreshing new way. I always applaud those which dare to think outside of the box which is why my first degree is in philosophy. I never thought so then, but now, I see how such thinking can make a difference and question the premises we have canonized in all disciplines.First, let me say of Mr. Elbow's approach, I whole-hearted agree with the need for flow in our writing. We think too much, we question and second guess the words we've written and never come to what we "really" want to say. I have made this analogies before: Music is the same as any language and any language is the same as music. I've studied piano for years and I know that simply knowing the mechanics, the mathematics, the function and science of music and any instrument, does not necessarily mean that one will articulate, with precision,a sensible and coherent melody. Flow remains the key. There exist in language, another operation beyond of that which we are conscious of, outside the rules and this is what we can only reach by way of flow. And flow means getting out of the war, all of the distraction that try to stifle you, the writer.

also, I must comment on Mr. Elbow's position on the organic nature of writing. I do believe that if we, as writers, view our pieces- in- progress as a means to some already expected end, then we fail. We must allow the synthesis to occur, not quite knowing where we are going, but knowing we are going somewhere. So far, I really like this Elbow guy.