Knowledge and Emotion

Bomer’s chapters continue to introduce his thoughts about literature being not only for teaching and learning reading and writing but also a way to live our lives. Bomer took readers on a tour to different English classrooms to see how teachers guided students to respond to literature. Also, Bomer explained how strategies introduced in the preceding chapters could be used along with experiencing literature. As I read through chapters, I noticed that what Bomer carefully and purposefully presented is to show teachers’ teaching philosophy matters and how knowledge and emotion are connected.

        Usually teachers’ teaching philosophy affects how they arrange the class, select reading materials, and assign coursework. In chapter 5, we see teachers arranged their class differently every day with different reasons. The reason to do so could be summarized by Bomer, who stated that “The point is not to inject them with, for example, paired reading so that they have ‘had that,’ but to provide an experience that will add to their repertoire of situations into which they can put themselves, and perhaps to situate them in a conversation that will change their mental habits – get them to actively construct sense, test a text against their own life, or formulate questions as they read, for example – when they read on their own” (p. 99). In other words, the teachers, including Bomer, tried to construct a reading life for students, helping students to build a relationship with literature before they jump into interpreting and analyzing literature as they read. The purpose, according to Bomer, is “opening opportunities for what Frank Smith calls ‘membership in the club,” helping them [students] to see themselves as ‘the type of person’ who would meaningfully engage in and with reading and writing” (p. 105). This sort of teaching philosophy – encouraging students exploring literature via their senses, their curiosity, and even their impulse – is close to the quintessence of reader-response theory and highly related to John Dewey’s educational philosophy.

        John Dewey recognized that emotion plays an important role in thinking and learning, stating that “Knowledge is a small cup of water floating on a sea of emotion” (Fishman and McCarthy, 1998, p.21). That is, emotion is a source of knowledge. Our feelings toward a person, an event, or an incident influence the choices we make, which affects the way we reason and construct knowledge. TV commercials are examples of arousing customers’ emotion by blending sound and image to influence our choices. What happened in the courtroom at the end of the book, Monster, is another example that defendant lawyers and the prosecutor used language to appeal to jury and, to some extent, elicit their empathy for James King and Steve Harmon.

         Overall, Bomer’s texts enable me to see how teaching philosophy can be actualized and put into practice via the use of teaching strategies and the purposeful-arranged classes. I always think this is a very difficult task for teachers, but Bomer seemed to make it possible!

Reference:

Bomer, R. (1995). Time for meaning: Crafting literature lives in middle and high school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 

Fisherman, S. M. & McCarthy, L. (1998). John Dewey and the challenge of classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press. 

(Source: http://bemusingjobingo.blogspot.com/2010/02/tok-again-knowledge-and-emotion.html)

Question: 

In Figure 7.1 (on p.121), Bomer showed examples of possible schedules for introducing different genres to students. Do you think they are feasible? Why?

Multiple Literacies

        Speaking of adolescent literacy, Bomer seems to be influenced by John Dewey’s educational philosophy profoundly, stating that reading and writing are meaningful when literacy experience is based and drawn on students’ lives. With this being said, Bomer presented some reading and writing strategies, including free writing, keeping writer’s notebook, one-on-one student-teacher conference, and reading-writing workshop, that he considers useful and meaningful for students. On the other hand, Pirie calls for reshaping high school English curriculum by adding elements of media and popular culture to English classes. He advocates the importance of the web of textuality by stating that “the ‘web’ is the accumulated experience ‘texts’ that students bring to the activity of ‘reading’” (p.22). In this sense, “text” is referred to products of mass media and popular culture, and “reading” involves viewing and listening. Both readings provide authors’ thoughtful insights with respect to adolescent literacy development and experience, which reminds me of the idea of multiliteracies proposed by New London Group.

        The essence of the idea of multiliteracies lies in that literacy is for communication, and since we are living in an era in which our ways of communication are changed by technologies, we need to have multiple literacies to live and survive. That is, reading goes beyond reading physical texts, including reading perceived texts as well; writing may involve different modes of products. As reading and writing expand their scopes, we need more varied skills and abilities to function within the society. Typing, navigating websites, and critically analyzing information are examples of being a literate person in the sense of multiliteracies.

        With the idea of multiliteracies in mind, Bomer’s and Pirie’s reading address different types of literacies. In Bomer’s text, though he especially focuses on the so-called traditional ways of reading and writing, and he has his particular approaches to train students’ ways of thinking and then reading and writing, I think the training he provides for students is the foundation that enables students to experience “the web of textuality.” Pirie’s argument, on the other hand, is closer to the idea of multiliteracies with a particularly emphasis on critical literacy.

        What I think is lacking in both readings, in terms of multiple literacy, is the discussion of writing – the different ways to present writing. As mentioned above, writing has expanded its scope, and students can use different means to produce “writing.” Making a Youtube video and designing a game (board game, video game, or online game) are examples which have the characteristic of blending sound, image, and text. Also, in the process of creating these products, students need to exercise their creativity and draw on their web of textuality. Their products, thus, would be a remixing of cultures (culture of their own and cultures they have experienced), which might address Pirie’s concern of literacy education only passing on a cultural heritage (i.e. dominant values). Since middle and high school students have already experienced literacy via multiple media, providing an opportunity for them to create different “writing products” may also support their literacy development. 

Literacy Mushroom
(Source: http://allthingslearning.wordpress.com/tag/multiple-literacies/)

Questions:

What are some strategies in Bomer’s and Pirie’s texts you find useful and/or practical? What are some other strategies you would recommend for teaching reading and writing?

Deconstruction: Love or Loathe it, or both!

           The second half of Appleman’s book introduces other literary lenses for reading literature, and they include the social construction of gender, postcolonialism, and deconstruction. Among these theoretical perspectives, I am interested in the chapter with the discussion of deconstruction and would like to focus on it in this response.

            Deconstruction, the word or the idea I have heard many times but have not understood what it really means. Whenever someone mentions “deconstruction,” I always wonder what it is and why it is needed.  I am as confused as students mentioned in Appleman’s chapter. However, as exploring more about this term and read through Appleman’s chapter, I stared to get a rudimentary understanding of what deconstruction is and even began to be fond of it.

            Although deconstruction is a term or an idea that can be difficultly defined, Appleman showed the gist of it by pointing out that “Deconstruction seeks to show that a literary work is usually self-contradictory” (p. 98). In following this statement, self-contradictory could be identified as the essence of deconstruction, and such self-contradictory nature could be intimidating because it might imply there is no truth existing. Take Holden’s narrative in The Catcher in the Rye as an example. In the novel, Holden always has a long train of thought that keeps his narration about one incident lasting for one or even two pages with a long paragraph. Within this incessant monologue, he would, at times, insert the phrase “if you want to know the truth.”  Even in the very first paragraph of the very first chapter, the phrase “if you want to know the truth” appears. What does it mean, then? From the deconstructive perspective, this phrase seems to imply that if Holden says, he will not tell the truth. However, Holden has already said a lot before this phrase pops up. So, does it mean he is lying? It seems that on the surface, Holden is telling the truth, but in fact, he is lying – the self-contradictory is played here.

            As I tried to use deconstructive lens to read The Catcher in the Rye, I began to understand why deconstruction puzzled or irritated students. A fuss but also a power statement made by a female student, Jessica, on page 108 presents students’ uneasiness and insecurity of using deconstructive lens to read literature, for deconstruction suggests no right or wrong and no black or write. It rejects binary and asks students to question their beliefs, their assumptions, and even everything they see and hear. Using deconstructive lens stirs emotions of confusion, rejection, and anger, putting people in the state of chaos at first. However, as I follow such non-linear thinking process of deconstructive point of view, I find that perhaps the world of deconstruction is the one that can portrait the reality most. Maybe it is its closeness to the real world that makes people love and/or loathe it. As for students, taking a deconstructive stand may help them find the connection and/or disconnection between the literary text and social text they live in.

(Source: axsoris.com)
Deconstruction: An apple or a orange?

Question: As I read Appleman's book, I feel that every literary perspective she introduced is Freire's critical pedagogy slightly. This makes me wonder: what is the difference between critical pedagogy and critical thinking?  

Reading Lenses

Both Appleman and Beach addressed issues of teaching literature to adolescents. Why, what, and how we teach literature as well as why adolescents need to read literature and what they can learn from reading literature are discussed in both readings. While many points mentioned in the readings are critical and interesting, making me think about their connection with my reading of The Catcher in the Rye, I would like to focus on the discussion of the reader response lens and perspective-taking.

Reading through the lens of reader response caught my attention as my first encounter of Louise Rosenblatt, a pioneer of reader-response theory. Her ideas intrigued me because I was always an invisible reader as I reflected on my education experience in Taiwan. I remembered no matter whether it was in my Chinese or English class, teachers interpreted readings for students, and students had to memorize what teachers impart and reproduce teachers’ explanations during the tests. Thus, when I read about Rosenblatt’s conception of reading – efferent reading and aesthetic reading, I thought that finally there is someone speaking up for readers. However, as I explored more in the realm of reading and writing, I was baffled.

Why?

With an unexpected opportunity, I read an essay, Good Readers and Good Writers, by Vladimir Nabokov, author of Lolita. In his essay, he likened writers to mountain builders and readers to hikers. As writers build a mountain via their work, what they wish is that one day they can meet readers on the top of the mountain. Although writers know that such an opportunity is rare, once it happens, every effort writers put into creating the work of art pays off. This totally makes sense for me, for I consider that the purpose of writing lies in not only telling a story but also having the story be known, be heard, and be understood.

So, here comes my confusion. On one hand, I believe readers should have the freedom of interpreting texts on the basis of their personal experiences. On the other hand, I also believe literature carries messages that writers try to deliver to their readers. I felt I got lost in the ideas of scholars, wondering around the forest of reading theories, not knowing which direction to go.

Chpater 3 in Appleman’s book saved me. After reading that chapter, I started to realize that the use of reader-response approach depends on student population and literature. I agree with Appleman’s statement that “Meaning is a result of a kind of negotiation between authorial intent and the reader’s response” (p.31). That is, both writers’ intention and readers’ personal responses are crucial in the act of reading literature. Also, using reader-response approach may be a starter to attract students to read, but to support students to read in breadth and depth, they need more. That is why both Appleman and Beach mentioned that one of the important components of teaching literature to adolescents is to prepare them with the ability to adopt different perspectives to see the world. Taking different perspectives enables adolescents to understand different aspects of reality. Then, from reading literature, they will know that reading is not merely about themselves but beyond.

(Source: http://www.theillustratedprofessor.com/?p=1356)

Questions: 
In Beach's reading, it mentioned three learning theories that shaped instructions, and they are transmission theories, student-centered theories, and practice-oriented theories. In transmission theories, teacher modeling ways of interpreting texts has an implication of "correct answer." However, in practice-oriented theories/Socio-cultural learning theory, Beach also talked about the importance of teaching modeling ("I do, you watch; you try, I watch," p. 9). I wonder whether modeling in socio-cultural learning theory also suggests a correct way to interpret texts too. 

Testing

                                                     Magnolia on Pullman Campus