Critical vs. Uncritical Reading of Fiction

­I began reading this book at the introduction, which is something I admit I never do. I tend to skip over it, but I’m glad I started reading here because there were a few things that got me thinking.

The author starts by saying that as a college instructor he ran into problems teaching fiction. His goal was to show students “how books and poems were structured and how they worked, what values they implied, how they reflected or criticized the culture in which they were produced” (pg. 1).  The problem came when the students were reading fiction not to learn what he hoped to teach, but instead to relate to characters or find a message that fit in with their lives or their own beliefs and ideals.

Read more for fun than for the study of archetypes

He goes on to say that their readings were uncritical and more for enjoyment than understanding.  I can completely understand how this would be the case because I find that we are trained (or is it natural) to read fiction mostly for enjoyment as kids, and once we get to the college level it is a difficult transition to make into the theory-based reading.

He then goes on to describe the way that readers change throughout their lives based on several reasons. I find that readers change the ways they read and appreciate fiction mostly based on formal education. In my opinion, a child reads fiction because it is enjoyable. At least, that is why I read it when I was younger. I loved reading new stories, feeling suspense and excitement or some sort of attachment to the story.  I feel that this type of reading will continue unless it is interrupted by some formal training in critical theory and form. Without knowing what to look for in terms of structure or theory, a reader will continue to read in a way that many might call superficial.

Once that training happens, however, it is difficult to turn it off when reading fiction, and as the reader grows older, he or she will most likely find new connections between the text and life in general, whether it be through a feminist lens or a Marxist or historical one.

Though I'm partial to good ol' Derrida. I mean, look at that hair.

However, I find it hard to believe that a reader will instinctively know how to read critically without being taught how to do so. But honestly, I think that’s ok. I don’t think it is wrong to read solely for pleasure or for making personal connections instead of global ones.

I am interested in reading more of the book to find out how Appleyard sees growth in readers as they transition from child to adult and whether that transition has anything to do with formal education. 

Readers and Fiction: What's the Connection?

I've begun a new course on Studies in Reading and Literature, so I'll be picking up the blog again.

The book I've chosen to read and discuss for this course is Becoming a Reader: The Experience of Fiction from Childhood to Adulthood, by J. A. Appleyard.  To be quite honest, one of the main reasons I have chosen to read this book is because here in China I've not been able to receive any books ordered online (which means a fair bit of money down the drain last semester!) and getting this type of book is near impossible here, and this book has most of its full text online.  It's kind of a lame reason to choose a book, but we must make do, right?

In any case, I am a lover of fiction, and have been since I was a child. I enjoy reading anything, really, but sometimes I just like to settle down and read a good story. Recently, a friend of mine raided his roommates' bookshelves and gave me a few books, since I've been dying for some good fiction after my ebook passed away. I've been reading the novel The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova.

It's a Dracula story--no, not a vampire story about a generic immortal, perhaps sparkly, being. It's about Dracula, aka Vlad the Impaler, and his terrifying history and the legend associated with it. It's even written in the style of Bram Stoker's tale, through letters, mostly. It's quite good so far, and I've been impressed with its ability to keep me hooked through 600 pages so far (out of more than 900).

I'm looking forward to reading Appleyard's book, to see what kinds of connections he makes between a love of reading and the use of fiction, and why we as adults still yearn for a good story.

Before I post my next entry, I'd like to know some of your thoughts on fiction. Why do we read it? Why do we like it? Do you prefer non-fiction over fiction?

Did they get it?: Comprehension Activities

An important part of teaching reading in the classroom is being able to identify if students understand what is being taught. John Macalister (2011) offers a few ideas of how a teacher can analyze if students are really comprehending the lesson and the readings.

First, he offers the obvious comprehension questions as a way of knowing if students comprehend. Multiple choice, fill in the blank, and other common types of questions are good for gaining access to what a student has absorbed from the reading. This can be a challenge for the teacher, because writing good questions takes  a lot of time and thought. The questions need to probe the expected knowledge without being too difficult to understand, or focusing on the wrong things. There are several guides online that can help teachers come up with good questions to ask.

There are several other options if you want to avoid simple tests. When I was in high school, one of my favorite activities used after we finished reading a book or a section of a book was "inside/outside circle." I can't really remember the name of it, but it was something like that. The class was divided into two groups and given a couple of days to prepare. The first day of the activity, one group formed a tight circle with their desks, facing each other. The second group formed a larger circle outside that one. The outside circle asked questions for the inside circle to discuss, focusing on the reading. The next day, we switched groups. We were graded on whether we had 3 good questions to ask when we were in the outside circle, and if we spoke times when we were in the inside circle. That way we were graded mostly on participation, and were free to speak up on topics that interested us. We were free to voice our opinion about the reading, and not just answer questions about it. When we knew this would be our testing activity, we all tended to read more in depth and take more notes. We were more familiar with the themes of the book and took more notice of details. I would recommend this activity to any teacher.

In any case, when we use comprehension activities with the students, we can see if they are using reading techniques we have taught them. If they are having trouble, we may need to review the MINUS idea (mentioned in the previous post) to ensure that we are teaching the right things in the right way.  I feel like most, if not all, students can understand the assigned reading if we as teachers give them the right resources and reading cues. When we have a specific goal in mind for them to accomplish, we can better know how to go about teaching it, and how we can identify whether they have learned it or not.

Teaching Reading: We've Been Doing it Wrong!

Today's Teaching, Tomorrow's Text: Exploring the Teaching of Reading. By John McAlister

The article I chose for the next couple of posts is one that gives teachers some really great ideas for actually teaching reading. It begins by giving a common scenario present in thousands of classrooms across the nation. A teacher announces that there will be a reading assignment and proceeds to teach new vocabulary that the students will encounter in the reading. Then, the students take turns reading aloud. When the reading is complete, they answer written questions about the text, exchange books with their peers, and check their work. All assume that reading has been “taught.”

However, the author, John McAlister (2011), is quick to point out that no reading has actually been taught. Instead, it has been practiced. The real teaching of reading comes in when a teacher truly understands the purpose of reading. A question he proposes for teachers to ask themselves is “How does today’s teaching make tomorrow’s reading easier?” (p. 162).  If a teacher can identify what they want to teach today in order to give more substance to the next day’s reading, they can truly teach reading.  If not, then there are some revisions to be made.

From there, McAlister points out the four points of language—reading, writing, listening, and speaking (p. 162). However, these ideas don’t help in the teaching or understanding language.  Instead, he encourages the focus on “meaning-focused input, language-focused learning, meaning-focused output, and fluency development.” He goes on to explain that reading and listening are considered meaning-focused input, while writing and speaking belong to meaning-focused output. When a teacher focuses on these four “strands,” he or she can begin to understand the goals and intentions of the specific reading activity.

When teachers consider a reading activity, it is in their best interest to see if it falls into the strand of “meaning-focused input.” To help make this process easier, McAlister has included a mnemonic device to remind teacher of the goals (p. 162):

M – there is a focus on meaning

I – the texts and tasks interest the learners

N – there is new learning

U – for understanding; the input is understandable, activities help understanding

S– tasks are stress-free or, at least, designed to reduce stress for the learners

I found this device to be helpful in being able to see if certain activities are useful in the classroom. If an activity only fits one or two of the ideas, then it probably isn’t a great activity to include in the lesson schedule. For instance, if an activity has meaning, such as learning new vocabulary, but is boring to the students, or is too intensive for the grade level, then the activity should be omitted. The best activities will fulfill all of the requirements.

I really liked these ideas. I felt justified in feeling that even if an activity was important for knowledge, if it didn’t hold the interest of the students, then it was a waste of time. I find this happens a lot in my Chinese classrooms. The younger students need more games and educational cartoons (Blue’s Clues is a favorite).  I think I will start implementing some of these ideas when I am planning for class to make sure the activities are good ones to use. 

References:

Macalister, J. (2011). Today's Teaching, Tomorrow's Text: Exploring the Teaching of 

Reading. ELT Journal, 65(2), 161-169. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq023

Pairing with Peers: Does it Really Work?

When the writers of this article were doing their research, one of the main things they wanted to see was whether or not group work helped students utilize the methods of self-regulation that they had been taught. When a peer was introduced to the working environment, were students better able to create and maintain a plan? Were their plans better when they worked with a partner? Also, did they need to modify the steps in order to successfully work with a peer?

During the study, the section of students that were paired up were given instructions to note each time they helped their partner, or shared their own strategies. Another group of students worked individually.  As I read the article, I assumed that the paired group would do better than the individual group, since these were students labeled as having writing difficulties. I began to question my own hypothesis as I read, however. I thought back to my high school days, and I seem to remember the type of student that didn’t do well with peers. They were unmotivated and easily let anyone else take charge of the group. These were the students that were often behind or performing at a lower level. I wondered how the students in the study would perform if they, too, were that type of student that had a hard time focusing on groups. Working with a peer can be difficult; if you don’t get along, you don’t work together; if you DO get along, you tend to chat about non-school things.

As I read more, however, I noted that there was a lot of teacher-supervision and instruction going on with this group in order to help them identify what they needed to do as they worked together. By being asked to keep track of when they helped their partner, they were better able to focus on the task at hand.

Students who worked as part of a pair were graded better on their papers, and the length of the papers were longer than their single counterparts.  The results of this study made me reevaluate my own feelings about group work. Growing up, I loathed it. I dreaded the paired assignments and would much rather work on my own. I felt that groups held me back and I had no interest in slowing down to match my partner’s speed. I felt I could do much better on my own than with someone else.

I realize now that this isn’t true for all students. I thought students were either like me, and just tolerated group work, or were slackers, and used the time to just mess around. After reading this article, and after learning about learning difficulties in class, I see that a lot of students need this kind of thing. Like we saw in the Marvit video, group learning is helpful if done correctly. It brings out the “leader fish” in students that otherwise don’t really get to experience it. 

Makin' Plans: Learning how to Write

One of the main points in the article that I brought up in my last post is planning and brainstorming. The authors give a few examples of how to go about this process and what the students can do to practice using it.

11.       Select a topic. This is a pretty basic idea, but can actually be one of the hardest. I love writing and always have. I love the process of it and the way it makes me think. But the hardest part of completing a writing assignment (for me, at least) was choosing a topic. It took me days and a ton of partially written stories/essays before I found one that I really jived with. One of my (probably bad) habits is thinking of a really great title, and then working from there. But the title helps me think of what exactly is the topic that I am writing about.

22.       Write out a plan. This can be tough for a lot of students. Many students just want to jump in and start writing, putting all their thoughts down on paper. Instead, we should help them see that writing a plan will help them in the long run. They will have less thinking to do in the middle of their writing if they do most of it now. The actual writing process will go a lot more smoothly and quickly if they know what they are going to write before they write it.

a.       For Story writing, think of who the characters are and what their goals are. Once you know the characters, you know how they will act. I had a professor once that told me when writing fiction, one should keep notebooks for each character and write everything about them—their history, their favorite color, their fears, etc. Once you have the characters figured out and the plot set, the story basically writes itself since you know the characters so well. I have tried this, and it works amazingly!

b.      For persuasive papers, think of questions like “what do I believe,” “why do I believe that,” “what are my best reasons for believing it?” Once students figure out their thoughts, they can basically treat the paper as a fill-in-the-blank.

c.       Brainstorm “million-dollar words.” Have students think of words that will make their paper stand out. Think of words connected to the topic, then turn to the dictionary and thesaurus to find other associated words, especially ones that have more nuance and are better suited to the situation. Think of Gee’s secondary discourse idea, and help students understand that certain words are better used for different types of writing. Once they have a grasp on basic vocabulary, they can better write the paper.

33.       Use the plan, but don’t be afraid to modify it.  Some students are so stuck to plans that they have a hard time veering away from them, even if it turns out they weren’t the best to begin with. Remind them that writing is a transaction between them and the text (Rosenblatt!), and if the text they are writing isn’t really doing them any favors, it is perfectly ok to abandon them and try again.  They need to make sure that the transaction is fruitful. 

Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Mason, L.H. Improving the Writing, Knowledge, and Motivation of Struggling Young Writers: Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development with and without Peer Support. American Educational Research Journal, 2006. 43(2), 295-340.

Setting Goals, Self-Monitoring, and Self-Instruction: The Writing Trifecta

As is evident from the title of this article, one of the primary goals of teaching kids how to write is to teach them how to write for themselves, without constant guidance from peers or instructors. Reading and writing are tasks that can be difficult for some, and a lot of students simply rely on constant prodding from their teacher to get things done in the right way at the right time. This is somewhat counterproductive; what we really want students to learn is to regulate and monitor themselves, their own progress, and their successes.

But how do we do that? Where do we have to begin to help students develop the skills necessary to complete projects and assignments on time? And can we do it?

The authors of the article mention three suggestions of what to focus on for teachers looking to help their students become more self-sufficient with their writing.

11.       Goal setting.  In school, students assume that the permanent goal is to get the assignment done in time. More motivated students will have a certain grade as their goal. Rarely do students, even the exceptional ones, set a personal goal for themselves and their learning during a certain project.  Tragically, as they focus on superficial goals like due dates letter grades, they ignore the larger idea of learning. Indeed, much of high school education focuses on numbers instead of individual learning that students seem to be an obstacle for teachers to get good results and show how successful they are as educators.  However, when we help the students know that their personal learning should be the goal, we are better able to emphasize personal growth and a stronger motivation to do the work. When you have the right motivation, you get the right results.

22.       Self-monitoring. The old cliché goes: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” The same is true for students. You can give information and facts and a wealth of knowledge to students in the classroom, but if they don’t have the motivation to learn it or the self-sufficiency to learn it, all of that knowledge is just floating around the classroom. Often times, the metaphorical horse needs to be taught to take care of himself.  Self-monitoring is the process by which students can track their own progress without having to have constant guidance. It takes a lot of practice to reach a point where students take initiative to keep track of their work, and most of this practice happens in college. Wouldn’t it be so much easier for students to learn this sort of self-control in middle school?

33.       Self-instruction. This is a tricky subject. For all of these ideas, planning has been the focus of the research done in the article. Helping students learn how to lay out a proper plan to guide them through the process of whatever activity they are working on is a huge step. However, this part of the process is probably the most difficult. Students are still learning to learn at this point. They are learning to read, learning to write, and learning how to synthesize information and remember it. It takes a lot of practice. When they are told that they are expected to learn information on their own, they may feel incredibly overwhelmed. However, this is a process that merits much attention; it’s not just a writing thing, or a learning thing, or a school thing. Learning how to learn on your own, how to come up with ideas, how to make sense of other people’s ideas is a skill needed for navigating the world, and the sooner students learn it, the better. 

Teaching Writing

At my job here in China, we begin with the basics of English—the alphabet, “What’s your name?”, “how old are you?”, “how are you?” “what is your favorite color/animal/food.”  Our curriculum goes pretty quickly, but usually the students learn well and with repetition can answer those questions and recite the alphabet by the time they finish the first two levels.  When they reach the third level, they have a good foundation for beginning to read and write in English.

Once in a while, however, there will be a couple of students that slip beneath the radar, and we discover that they don’t know the alphabet, and can’t answer simple questions.  When this happens, it is difficult to know what to do. We can’t hold them back, because their parents pay a lot of money for these classes. Individual attention is hard to give in these classroom settings. So what do we do?

Harris, Graham, and Mason (2006) address these concerns in their article Improving the Writing, Knowledge, and Motivation of Struggling Young Writers: Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development with and without Peer Support. They admit that “waiting until later grades to address literacy problems that have their origin in the primary grades has not been particularly successful” (p. 296). It is necessary, therefore, to be on constant watch for problems that may arise in the young grades, and especially to be vigilant about 
preventing these problems from arising.

So far in this blog, I have talked about reading and learning to read. This post, however, focuses on the need to write. One of the course questions is as follows:

“What is the difference between writing to communicate and writing to learn? How are both important?”

As I began reading this article, I was made to think of the process of writing to learn, and also learning to write. Much like learning to read, especially within a certain context or subject, learning to write can be a daunting task for young students. Different styles are appropriate for different subjects (think creative writing vs. history, or an academic research paper on Shakespeare vs. a school newspaper article). When students learn to read, they often mimic the style of writing they read, which is useful insofar as it is used correctly and creatively. Practicing copying writing styles is a helpful practice for students to become familiar with different types of writing and find what they are most comfortable with, often combining styles to create their own unique flavor.

Learning to write is one thing, but then we are faced with the idea of writing to learn. To me, this is an easy concept to understand because I have seen it work in my educational career. I studied English in college because that is what I felt most comfortable with. However, I still had to take those damnable General Education classes, consisting of things like biology and physical science. I had a hard time understanding concepts, no matter how vigilant I was at sitting in the front of the class, taking notes, and reading the textbook. It wasn’t until I had to write an essay or short paper that I was able to synthesize the information and it finally made sense. One of my favorite classes I took in college was Bio 100. There were no tests, but weekly article readings and essays. When I had to write about what I was reading, I learned it. I was able to make sense of the information and tell it in a way that made sense to me.


In my next post or two, I will continue to discuss this article, and the way it emphasizes improvements for teaching writing in classrooms. 

Sumerians, Lists, and Learning

"Thousands of years ago, the Sumerians already understood that the teaching of reading should include explicite attention to multiple aspects of language."

This sentence stood out to me as I read Wolf's article on her response to Strauss' article. As I continued reading I became more and more intrigued by the way ancient civilizations emphasized the need to correctly learn and use a language through reading and writing.

Wolf uses several studies to point out how the Sumerians emphasized reading. They were extremely analytical, and left little to played around with, in regards to language. When a new scholar was learning to read, they were given lists of words that had commonalities amongst them.These were mostly semantic and visual. The reader would spend a lot of time learning these lists and the ties between all of the words. Once those lists were mastered, a second set of lists was given out. These words were interconnected mostly through phonetics. 

Teachers focused on teaching reading nowadays will recognize similarities in instructional methods between current practices and the Sumerian manner of teaching reading. Lists of words that sound the same, that mean similar things, or that have common patterns have been used for thousands of years, and prove the necessity of learning words in connection with other words so as to create meaning, understanding, and word-memory.

A Sumerian cuneiform lexical list.

After mastering the basic lists, more lexical lists were given to young learners with words that represented a visual picture of the morphology of the language, or grammatical lists that focused on syntactical uses of different words and phrases. In this way, readers were instructed in the multifaceted construction of language, thus enabling them to better understand what they were reading and why those words existed. I imagine this also helped comprehend the nuances of the language, something that is difficult to learn.

When I was in high school, I created my “word list.” This was simply a list of words I liked, words I wanted to know, words I thought sounded good. When I learned a new word, I put it on the list, and from time to time I would review the list and make mental connections. I would consider the roots of the word, the implications of it, and its aesthetic pleasantness. I learned lots of new words and was able to use them effectively in my writing.

I feel like my list, like the lists used in Sumeria, was a great help in becoming more literate and able to communicate my intentions in my writing, because not only was I learning distinct words, but how they connected with other words and ideas. Writing down the words in one place made them easy to find and refer to when I needed them, and also helped me remember them for use at a later time.

This article as a whole, I found, was a good example of an answer to the course question of “How do people become literate?” The article focused on the micro-aspects of becoming literate. That is, the more we understand the intentions and constructs of the language, we understand how to use it better. In my opinion, that’s what literacy is—not simply being able to read or understand the language, but being able to use it effectively, in a way that allows the user to express his feelings, thoughts,  and ideas.

Maryanne Wolf tends to focus on the process of reading and its implications within the arena of disorders and other reading issues. I am quite interested in learning more about what she has to say about teaching reading, especially when the odds are stacked against the teacher and student.

References:

Wolf, M., Kennedy, R., (2003). How the Origins of Written Language Instruct Us to Teach: A Response to Steven Strauss. Educational Researcher. 32(2), 26-30.

A Proper Introduction, Prezi Style

I realized that my introduction was a little shoddy, and after reading some of my classmates' intros, I thought I would give it another shot.

Instead of giving you all the run-down of my life, I'm including a link for an introductory Prezi that I did for another class.

Spoiler alert! Religion, Sex, Feminism, World Travel!


See the Prezi HERE

Phonetics and Aesthetics

As I mentioned in my previous post, the alphabetic system has been accused of being flimsy by some, while at the same time being praised as logical and natural by others.  I find it hard to side with either argument because I can see where they are each coming from.  However, I feel more inclined to side with Ms. Wolf.

English is a hard language to learn. I see that in my TEFL students now. Reading is difficult because of the silent letters and homonyms and all other sorts of strange pronunciations. Wolf’s article explains that these anomalies in pronunciation hold intrinsic value to understanding where words come from and what they mean.

I just had a conversation with a friend about the alphabetic system, Chinese characters, Korean characters, and the phonetic alphabet. It was quite interesting. We talked about how learning to read Chinese is extremely difficult because of the sheer number of characters, and how they give no hint as to pronunciation, but rather meaning. Korean has been identified by many linguists as the most perfect written system there is. The characters are easily readable (once you know the system) and give hints as to how the mouth should look when each syllable is being read, which helps with pronunciation. One of the tools we have in English (and other Roman alphabet-based languages) is the phonetic alphabet. My friend argued that the alphabet we have now could easily be replaced by the phonetic alphabet to help students begin to read. The pronunciation is standardized and there will be no homonyms or silent letters to trip kids up.

My issue with this is what Wolf mentions earlier in the article, that the way words are spelled gives clues to understanding their roots and morphology. If all words had standardized spelling using the phonetic alphabet, there would be no clues as to what the word actually means. Sure, they would be easier to read, but more difficult to understand, especially for adolescent readers that should be starting to understand prefixes, suffixes, and roots of words from Latin, French, etc.

As I teach students here in Beijing, I realize that doing so would be so much easier if we used the phonetic alphabet. Indeed, I like to teach it to my older students and use it often to correct pronunciation. But this wouldn’t help in the real world, and in my opinion, would be shortchanging the kids’ learning experience.  I’m an aesthetic reader, I suppose, so I love reading for more than just information. I love the nuance of language, including the way words are written. Some words just look better than others.  Teaching students to read and appreciate the alphabet does more for their knowledge than a simply oral-based approach, or one that uses the phonetic alphabet exclusively.

One thing to remember is that this kind of reading (and appreciating) must be taught. In my next post, I will continue with Wolf’s address of Strauss’ theories focusing on whether or not reading (along with speaking) is a natural process. 

Wolf vs. Strauss: Flimsy Alphabet or Morphophonemic Wonder?

As some of you may know, the book that I had ordered to read for this assignment never found me in China. I am really disappointed because I was really excited to read it. It seemed so interesting. I had chosen Proust and the Squid, which discusses the science behind reading, and how our brains have changed over time to adjust to this newfound “necessity.”

Instead, I have been asked to substitute the book with a few scholarly articles that discuss the topic of our class. In the spirit of my disappointment, the first article I have chosen is one written by the author of the book I wanted to read. So I hereby present:

How the Origins of Written Language Instruct Us to Teach: A Response to Steven Strauss

 By Maryanne Wolf and Rebecca Kennedy

Steven Strauss wrote an article in the Educational Researcher that talked about the origins of human written and spoken language. He used several of his claims and research as foundations for his argument that a certain method of teaching reading in schools was the best possible method. 

I do not think Ms. Wolf was too impressed.

She immediately states that, while several of his arguments receive her “approbation,” there are three claims that need clarification (which I read as “refutation”).  These three arguments are the origins of the alphabet, the “flimsy” nature of the alphabet, and the way these two claims interact with each other in order to teach reading in the classroom.

Before Wolf actually begins countering Strauss, she extends short congratulations to him for his actions—that someone finally wrote an essay about the history of our languages and the implications they hold for teaching them to others. Indeed, she says, “Even if we must disagree on content, we are grateful for Dr. Strauss for initiating such an enterprise.”

I think that was a way to soften the blow of what was to come next.

The first thing that Wolf does is refute Strauss’ claims that the alphabetic system is “flimsy”; that is, that because there are so many different spellings for words that sound alike, and so many “silent” letters in various words, English is a difficult language to make sense of. Instead of the “logographic” system that our ancestors used, we have developed a set of arbitrary markings to convey meaning. We do not use a picture of a bird to convey the oral word “bird.”

Wolf contests this argument by saying that English is an optimal language for gaining a deeper understanding of the words than what they simply represent. She uses the word “muscle” as an example.

The silent c in muscle can be confusing for some, and can even be considered a waste of time. How then, would that change the work “muscular”? What would we say instead? Furthermore, she goes on to say that the silent c is a remnant of the Latin roots from which the English word has sprouted.  Knowing this can help readers identify other words in the same family as well as understand that English isn’t simply based on phonemic identities, but is rather a morphophonemic language—one that changes and evolves.

At this point, I would like to talk about where I stand here.

Living in China, I have done a tad bit of studying Chinese. Not much, but some. My Chinese is actually pretty miserable. But I know enough to know that Mandarin Chinese characters were originally logographic—pictures of what the word meant. I say originally because they also have evolved so much (especially with Mao’s transition from traditional to simplified characters in order to boost the literacy rate) that it is difficult to tell what the characters mean just by looking at them.  I suppose that they could be considered a morpho-logographic language.  

I would agree with Wolf that Strauss’ argument that learning the way we do through a phonemic/alphabetic is “unnatural” as opposed to learning through a logographic system. Working with Chinese kids, I know that learning characters is almost as difficult as learning the alphabet.  I teach three and 4 year olds who can recognize more English than Chinese at this point, because, well, Chinese is hard.

I would like to discuss this a bit more in my next post, so stay tuned!

A Learning Adventure Begins

Well, today marks the beginning of a new adventure of learning. So far, the adventure has had a bit of a rough start. The book I was to read for this class hasn't arrived yet. I ordered it online about 3 weeks ago, and have yet to see it. Until then, I'm trying to figure out a way to get things done. If anyone has any suggestions, let me know!