i have moments when i'm in the middle of a tech moment where i marvel at the speed at which i can gather information or complete a transaction thanks to the tech age we live in. yesterday i had to explain to my elderly neighbors how we write research papers these days, browsing through thousands of online journal articles, reading at least 50 of them, and writing at least a 30 page paper. my neighbor told me that back in the 1930s, when she was in school at UT, she remembers having to write a "term theme" by hand and slaving hours over it at home wishing "she could be out on dates with willie (now her husband)." times have really changed.
on that very same day, i had a flashback moment when my mom was trying to teach me how to cook a favorite chinese dish of mine. chinese turnip cakes. while she probably could have sent me a recipe (or i could have found one online), i needed to have her demonstrate, face-to-face, and orally, how it was to be done. "first you cut up the turnips and grate it in the food processor. then you add this much water if you had this much turnip." i don't think the tools of technology could have captured the depth of this learning moment. how does one define "this much water with this much turnip" through written remarks without something going awry with my recipe? i needed that oral coaching and proximity to fully understand just how to make a recipe that probably was passed down to my mom from her mom.
so i guess im trying to say that we're walking in between different worlds these days. sometimes we slip back into the roots of oral tradition, but for the most part, we are walking the path of technology. i feel fortunate to be living in this awkward age of in-betweens. i can't imagine not having my mom teach me how to make my favorite chinese dish any other way. i can't imagine writing a term theme by hand. and i sure can't imagine writing a paper without online journals.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Theory of Mind
"The theory of mind is nothing other than the set of mental concepts which correspond to the expression of the illocutionary force of utterances" (Olson, pg. 270). since this course started, I have been thinking about the idea of 'theory of mind' and what it is. to me, theory of mind sounds a like the ideas of cognition. or it is the recognition of cognition, similar to metacognition? quoting a definition on wikipedia, "the phrase 'theory of mind' has more commonly been used to refer to a specific cognitive capacity: the ability to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own." okay, so it's a part of cognition. so in this definition, theory of mind sounds more like empathy/sympathy, especially when many say today that autistics lack theory of mind--the inability to process the beliefs and feelings of others. olson relates theory of mind to illocutionary force--that illocutionary force is the manifestitation of theory of mind. i don't see the connection--can someone out there help??
another interesting part of the reading this week was the chapter on interpretation. i think it's safe to say that many of our world conflicts stem from misinterpretation. studying the philosophy of interpretation should be everyone's work, as we are all engaged in interpretation. this becomes an especially important task for those that make and execute laws, those involved in religion, and even in our profession as teachers. the repercussions of misinterpretation could mean life or death to a criminal, heaven or hell to the religious, or promotion or retention to a child.
another interesting part of the reading this week was the chapter on interpretation. i think it's safe to say that many of our world conflicts stem from misinterpretation. studying the philosophy of interpretation should be everyone's work, as we are all engaged in interpretation. this becomes an especially important task for those that make and execute laws, those involved in religion, and even in our profession as teachers. the repercussions of misinterpretation could mean life or death to a criminal, heaven or hell to the religious, or promotion or retention to a child.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
I'm published on the web!
this is amazing. in my vanity, i have googled myself many times to see if i have a place on the internet. and it looks like i finally do. i have not realized, until today, that i AM published on the web with this blog. there are actually people out there that want to read what i have to say. can i just say how powerful and more meaningful this blog is to me now??
in my last blog, i mentioned that i would like to learn hebrew. and i got a response back from some guy IN israel, referring me to some websites where i could. it truly amazed me that people all over the world have access to my blog. can you imagine the influece this could have with our students? in my psycholinguistics class, we are learning about using language as a cultural tool (see Wertsch) and i believe that the knowledge and use of blogs can create a cultural tool for students to use and see that they DO have power with words in this world.
in my last blog, i mentioned that i would like to learn hebrew. and i got a response back from some guy IN israel, referring me to some websites where i could. it truly amazed me that people all over the world have access to my blog. can you imagine the influece this could have with our students? in my psycholinguistics class, we are learning about using language as a cultural tool (see Wertsch) and i believe that the knowledge and use of blogs can create a cultural tool for students to use and see that they DO have power with words in this world.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
i wish i could learn hebrew
in class on monday, emily gave us a mini-lesson on the hebrew language. on page 83, /k/, /t/, and /b/ is explained as being the root word 'write' but when vowels are added in between those consonant forms, it can morph into 'he writes', 'they wrote', 'writing', etc., similar to how affixes are added to words in English. She said that the Torah is written only with consonant sounds and therefore requires a mediator to assist one who might want to read it on their own. If looking at the Torah for the first time, you wouldn't know how to pronounce /k//t//b/ beacause you wouldn't know which vowels went in between. Once given the pronounciation, it is expected that you memorize it.I thought this was so interesting, because it doesn't quite made the Torah a literal text until the oral is matched to it. It's one of the few examples of language we've read about that sits on the continnum between orality and literacy.
There were other examples of semi-literate cultures that used knots and tally marks as mneumonic devices. With the history of writing as a mneumonic device and serving a pramatic purpose, I am awed by how language today has evolved as it has into more.
There were other examples of semi-literate cultures that used knots and tally marks as mneumonic devices. With the history of writing as a mneumonic device and serving a pramatic purpose, I am awed by how language today has evolved as it has into more.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
recounting an IFC movie isn't always easy
we rented an IFC film yesterday called "unknown" starring some recognizable faces, like greg kinnear and one of the matrix characters. as many IFC movies can be, "unknown" was a slow starter and a slow finisher. no fast hollywood gun scenes or car chases. it was an ideal fall asleep and tell me about it later kind of movie. and the perfect setting for a retelling!
the movie is a little confusing already, so while nick was retelling it, i had several points of confusion. even the characters in the movie are unknown to themselves (everyone succumbs to inhaling a chemical that results in temporary memory loss). so as nick was retelling the story to me, i felt more compelled to pay attention to him--more than usual. i can usually surf the net while he's telling me a story, but i had to pay attention to this one. when listening to the retelling, i was either saying, "ok" or asking a clarification question. if i had seen the whole movie like nick, i would have been a more active participant, but then i guess i wouldn't need a retelling. i think it would be interesting to see nick tell someone else about the movie with me present. the dynamics of the retelling would be different and even newly interpreted.
retelling a movie that's become, in a sense, static because it's been recorded on film, as opposed to a retelling of an event between two active parties not recorded, poses some good questions about the nature of stories and their evolution with successive interpretations. movies can be retold or reinvented, but then there's always that hard copy of the material to revert back to. on the other hand, retelling an event that might have happened to me stands the test of memory and language. with no literate recording, it becomes a fleeting and changing product. it's amazing that cultures that used to (and still do) rely on oral history were able to pass down their stories with precision. not to say that they weren't reinvented each time themselves but that there was almost a reverence for the story and its details that changing them might of been seen as a defilement. oral cultures take great care in the details. while recalling the movie, instead of recalling some of the minute details, nick would insert, "and whatever" or "you know" in places that he felt weren't important. in oral cultures, these "and whatever" or "you know" places hold a place of importance that we don't recognize.
i am learning how to add sound bytes to my page and want you all to be able to listen to them, so as soon as i can get a little more tech savvy, i'll do that. in the meantime, i added links of everyone's pages to mine.
the movie is a little confusing already, so while nick was retelling it, i had several points of confusion. even the characters in the movie are unknown to themselves (everyone succumbs to inhaling a chemical that results in temporary memory loss). so as nick was retelling the story to me, i felt more compelled to pay attention to him--more than usual. i can usually surf the net while he's telling me a story, but i had to pay attention to this one. when listening to the retelling, i was either saying, "ok" or asking a clarification question. if i had seen the whole movie like nick, i would have been a more active participant, but then i guess i wouldn't need a retelling. i think it would be interesting to see nick tell someone else about the movie with me present. the dynamics of the retelling would be different and even newly interpreted.
retelling a movie that's become, in a sense, static because it's been recorded on film, as opposed to a retelling of an event between two active parties not recorded, poses some good questions about the nature of stories and their evolution with successive interpretations. movies can be retold or reinvented, but then there's always that hard copy of the material to revert back to. on the other hand, retelling an event that might have happened to me stands the test of memory and language. with no literate recording, it becomes a fleeting and changing product. it's amazing that cultures that used to (and still do) rely on oral history were able to pass down their stories with precision. not to say that they weren't reinvented each time themselves but that there was almost a reverence for the story and its details that changing them might of been seen as a defilement. oral cultures take great care in the details. while recalling the movie, instead of recalling some of the minute details, nick would insert, "and whatever" or "you know" in places that he felt weren't important. in oral cultures, these "and whatever" or "you know" places hold a place of importance that we don't recognize.
i am learning how to add sound bytes to my page and want you all to be able to listen to them, so as soon as i can get a little more tech savvy, i'll do that. in the meantime, i added links of everyone's pages to mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)