The complexities of reading

I found the evolution of how we teach people to read very interesting in this article. It seems that the we have a general idea of what are the individual important part involved. The include, but are not limited to; learning the alphabet and connecting the sounds to individual letter, piecing together these letter to for phonemes, recognizing words and their meanings, and interpreting when all of this comes together into a sentence. I thought that this quote really explained just how complex reading really is,

"Instead, all of the processes within are simultaneously active and interactive, with every awakened cluster of knowledge and understanding at once both issuing and accommodating information, both passing and receiving guidance, to and from every other."

As I was reading I began to think about how I don't really even look at the individual letter, I only see the words themselves, internally saying them "out loud" to myself. While some may speak of reading as if it is a simple mechanical skill, they don't take into account just how many things the human brain is doing all at once to understand the visual representation of language.

Importance of Reading

"I used the word readings(plural) advisedly because I read Animal Farm at least four times"

I think this quote symbolizes the importance of reading in becoming a fully literate. Akinnaso writes about his journey of becoming literate can be represented in his reading of Animal Farm and how each time, his consciousness was enhanced, broadened, and intellectually increased. Each time he read the book, the story became "substantially richer" as he puts it. His way of thinking differently about the book, recognizing it as a satire, changed his perspective of the story every time.

I can relate to him because I myself read the book twice, once in 7th grade and again in 9th grade. I had the same experience of coming to new realization about the story, and more fully appreciating the story as a satire.

This new understanding of the book, could not have been achieved had we both not read other books in-between. Reading is supremely important in developing literacy. Each time you sit down to read, your view of the world in which you live can changed and be enhanced. Akinnaso goes on to speak of the importance of being able to read because it is necessary to acquire other discourses. His story is remarkable, becoming literate in a non literate world makes me wonder why literacy is such a problem in our society today. I guess there just needs to be more people like his father who push the idea of the importance of literacy upon his son.

Successfully Aquisition of another Discourse

Lisa Delpit questions Gee's argument on those who are not born into the dominant discourse will find it very difficult, if not impossible to acquire a new dominant discourse. I agree that it is difficult to obtain new discourses. Especially those who are at conflict, that is to say dramatically different, from previously obtain discourses.

However, I agree with Delpit, that it is in fact not impossible to obtain other dominant discourses. Through proper and effective teaching, new discourses may be obtained. She points out many success stories of African Americans who against great odds were very successful in our society. These successes were do to their teachers persistence in making sure they acquired all the necessary tools for the new discourse. While it may be difficult, it is by no means impossible to acquire a new dominant discourse.

Reading and Writings, one or seperate

"Educators often assume that reading and writing form a single standard set of skills to be acquired and used as a whole by individuals who acquire them in a progression of steps which cannot be varied or avoided in learning"

I liked how Szwed points out the differences in standards of writing and reading. This assumption leaves out room for different writing styles, and interest of reading. It also assumes that if one has a good comprehension of language, that this also means that they two can produce language equal to that that they can comprehend. Both of these assumptions aren't very plausible. A person could love to read, but never write. And as pointed out in the reading, words in advertisements, a different standard of writing, are purposely misspelled to convey a different meaning.

The text points out that "not only should the assumption of a single standard that we must question but also the assumption of a single, proper learning progression" The text points out how those learning too write should not violate rules, while they are reading texts that do. While the rules are important, maybe a little leeway should be given for more creativity when learning to write.

Banking Concept

"This is the "banking" concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to students extends only as far as receiving, filling, and storing the deposits."

I think this quote symbolizes Freire's negative opinion of the education system. He feels that teachers are too authoritative, and that the knowledge they give to their students is controlled by the elites to subject them to their beliefs.

"The dominant elites consider the remedy to be more domination and repression, carried out in the name of freedom, order, and social peace (that is, the peace of the elite)."

I'd agree that what I learned in school is Euro-centric, but as for the material I was taught being used to control me, I disagree. I think that Freire brought up a good point that teachers should not consider themselves all knowing, and not take questions from their students or admit when they are wrong. While there are teachers like this, I think Freire overgeneralizes the system of education. A lot of my teachers in the past have stimulated my interest in what they were teaching; it made me think critically about the material like Freire says should be a part of good education.

Overall, I think that Freire is just ranting about a lot of random things he sees wrong in the educational system. He never really even gave a good definition of the banking-concepts or the problem-solving concept methods of teaching. While he brought up some good ideas, he never really made much of any kind of point.

Refering to your own writing with in a paper

"This writer is consistenly and framatically conscious of herself, forming something to say out of what has been said and out of what she has been saying in the act of writing this paper"

I found this to be the most crutial point Bartholomae had to make on 'good' writing. When reading the essay he is refering to, I found it dramatically different than the previous one's. It had a complete a sense of flow that the others seemed to lack. Some showed this at times, but none through out like this one. I like how it referenced itself, none of the other did that.

I felt this essay had flow because it went through a process of thought. It didn't just say what creativity was, it explored what it is, and gave different view points before making any sort of definition of creativity.

I learned a great deal on writing with a 'voice' from reading this essay. I could see how my writing would improve by useing similar techniques to this essay. I reference myself at times, but I still feel it is too systematic at times.

Academic Writing as Bullshit

"I was just bullshiting"

I can't count home many times I've said this about a paper or an answer to a test I just took. However, what does this mean, and was I really bullshiting? I think of bullshiting in academea as writing that is used to fill up space in order to try and get a good grade. I do this when I'm not sure of were to go with an idea in a paper, or trying to get partial credit on a writing question on a test in other classes.

What does this constitute. Basically throwing vocab words and definitions out, pure memorized things, to make it sound like I know what I'm talking about. Quotations of lines from a book can take up a lot of space. You can then explain what the quote means and give and example of the quote. This can take up half to and entire paragraph at times. Totally bullshited information that has little substance but to prove and opinion.

This quote explains what I mean by bullshited information in a paper, "So in your paper, you say Moby-Dick is actually the Republic of Ireland. . . . If you can regularly come up with lunatic interpretations of simple stories,...."

It's funny how ridiulous this sounds, but you could proable get a good grade on a paper if you argue your point correctly, even though the author of the book had no intention of Moby-Dick representing the Repbulic of Ireland.

Is all acedemic writing bullshit? No, but some definatily is. If acedemic writing is based on something with substance, say scientifically proved information, it has some backing; so it's not bullshit. But arguing things such that Moby-Dick reprsents the Repbulic of Ireland, bullshit.