Disciplinary Literacy & New Ways of Reading Texts

The academic article in this week's readings touches on a lot of the issues that we exposed in the first two weeks of class. Namely, the reluctance of teachers to teaching literacy based on misinformation and the ever expanding variety of texts that students engage with. I think it is helpful to note that it is noted in the beginning of the article that "English departments...analyze popular cultural texts such a online fanfiction as almost as eagerly as they embrace canonical texts of English literature" (Moje 96). Now, my distaste for fanfiction aside, I think this example is a valuable reminder to us that ANYTHING with meaning is a text and can be used to promote literacy in students, no matter how unorthodox and strange it may seem. Using pop culture as in tandem with more traditional academic texts can be a way to encourage interest in your students and enable them to see the everyday relevance of the course matter. This juxtaposition of high and low culture and theory also flies in the face of established knowledge and can be used to turn outdated interpretations and knowledge on its head. Sizing up the value of different sources based on origin, author and other contextual components "builds an understanding of how knowledge is produced in disciplines, rather than just building knowledge in the disciplines" (Moje 97).

Using popular texts along with academic ones can in fact be a helpful way of understanding how society at large and not just a small circle of intellectuals understands an issue. This is especially important when looking at the way that people are socialized through media to embrace certain politics and worldviews (American Sniper for propaganda film of the year). Cultural criticism of this nature can be exemplified by the so called "Elvis of philosophy," Slavoj Zizek. A Slovenian Marxist, he is famous for his thick volumes on Hegelian theory and critical analysis of popular Hollywood films. In many of his books, he uses pop culture as a way of explaining high philosophical concepts, like using the novels of Stephen King to understand the work of French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. A lot of his work goes way over my head, but his method of incorporating many different texts to aid in understanding similar ideas is useful to us. Check out his analysis of the hidden ideology in the movie Titanic below:

Zizek makes philosophy more readily comprehensible through pop culture, just like we can show our students that history and physics don't only exist in textbooks but are all around us. His analysis reminds us that we are always being taught and indoctrinated, especially when we don't think we are. Literacy is simply the consumption of meaning. As soon as we can convince our students and other teachers that this is the case, resistance to disciplinary literacy practices will break down. Who doesn't like to watch movies? Ideology, which is the primary focus of Zizek's work, is something I find to be a particularly powerful force in history and science. Plus, that thick Slovene accent is pretty comical.

Moje's article addresses a crucial issue that is posited by secondary school teachers, "that the division of secondary school learning into subject areas drawn from the disciplines reifies a belief (and constructs sets of practices) that implies knowledge is inherently different in different
disciplines" (Moje 99) The instruments and spaces that we see as intrinsic to certain subjects (like protractors to geometry, laboratories to chemistry, etc.) define the ways we can learn. But does it always have to be that way? Can we not learn about physics through examining how the interplay between faith and positivist science? Could we not complicate our understanding of (in)famous historical figures and events by injecting psychology and other sciences? Why exactly do we study our discipline the way that we do? Are we overlooking something? To give an example of how easy it is to be lulled into a false sense of certainty, I'll enlist the help of Rupert Sheldrake, a scientist who in the video below explains how scientists are dogmatic in believing in the scientific laws as immutable.

Some people think Sheldrake's claim is a joke, but it's good to play devil's advocate.

What is key here is that knowledge needs to be looked at as constructed and not a predetermined body of values that needs to be absorbed. Moje illustrates this usefully on page 100 when explicating the normative practices of different scholars, from historian to mathematician. These practices are in place for reasons both practical and political and it is important to analyze the standards in our field. We might even ask ourselves how pedagogy is taught to us and why we learn it in a certain way.

The practices of professional scholars however, will not always be the most practical or attractive for our students. We need to back up and look the situations that our students may find themselves in while reading texts. On page 8 of Buehl, he notes that "reading does not occur in a vacuum." It is easy to forget that students may find themselves in situations that make it more difficult for them to dissect and quantify the meaning of a text. What prior knowledge does a student bring with them? Is the place in which they are working conducive to close reading and critical thought? Do they have the support of their peers and family? For who is reading an isolated act or a social activity? Like we discussed in the previous week, intellectual awareness is an emotional endeavor as well as a rational one. Ensuring the proper environment and attitude for our students critical thinking is paramount to success. We must remember to look up from the page we are wrestling with and ask where we are and how we feel.

The puzzles of Metacognition

In this video discusses, possible thinking involved in the pre, in, and post of an activity. This form of thinking is not all that new; as early as ancient greek civilization, philosopher such as Plato and Socrate pushed their students to ask questions every step of the way. Most people don't realized whether they are thinking metacognitively or not. In school's today, metacognition should be emphasize.

Metacognition can be broken down to metamemory and metacomprehension. Metamemory is basically the ability to recall information and the process in doing so. Metacomprehension can be broken down problem solving and critical thinking.

One of the things that I love are puzzles. The harder they are the more it forces you to think and ask questions. A puzzle that is easily recognized is a game called sudoku. It is basically 9 boxes filled with 9 smaller squares in side of each. The puzzle in completed when you fill in empty boxes with a number between 1-9, but there cannot be a repeat of numbers within the larger box of 9 or in a vertical and horizontal line to the empty box. If you would like to try out the puzzle below.

To some of you who have never done a sudoku or even a number puzzle, you probably would have spent alot of time learning how the game works, wondering "should this box be a 5 or a 7." Through the end of it all, you probably should have picked up a strategy or two. However, the typical sudoku veteran probably did this without putting much effort. They have done it so many time that it is second nature. They are essentially automated in doing the puzzle, that they could be engage in another activity at the same time. 

 After learning how the puzzle works, do you think you can solve these sudoku below? The one on the left uses symbols, while the right is distorted.

All in all, some of you probably can figure out how to do them, while some may have a hard time to find their bearings or where to start. When things get difficult, a second oppinion always helps. Much like a classroom, it is usually easier to work in group.

Thus brings me to this: In a classroom deep learning can be describe by the ability to attack as many aspect of a topic as we can. Breaking each topic down to the rudimentary who, what where, when, and why. Group work is and option that helps us to individually break down an idea. It allows for a melting pot of ideas bouncing back and forth. 

Whether working alone or in a group, puzzles are great way for a daily dose of metacognition.

• (below)also here is an actual sudoku that you can work on

Week 2 Post: Metacognition and Apprenticeship as Pathways to Learning

Let me first say that I enjoy the Wittgenstein (pictured below) quote that Martinez employs in the first paragraph. Wittgenstein wrote parts of his only book in the trenches of World War One. This leaves us with next to no excuses in completing our work. He also thought that nothing in the material world is real so I guess we've got that on him. 

I am a fan of Martinez’ definition of metacognition. ‘Thinking about thinking’ seems vague and uninstructive in comparison. By saying we 'monitor and control' thought, it reflects more accurately our desire to be our own advocates in the learning process. Metacomprehension and the ability to realize whether one understands a concept or not seems invaluable to me. I read things that go way over my head all the time (Foucault). Once I recognize this, I know that I can take a few steps back in order to gain an understanding of more complex material in the future. This is important. Had I misjudged my own comprehension, I would build a house on top of a swamp of misguided ideas. This reminds me of what John Cleese (of Monty Python fame) has to say about creativity. He says that the lack of ability to do a thing well also means a lack of ability to perceive that you cannot do that thing well. It really is a hilarious tragedy, and I don’t sleep sometimes for this reason. We talked about humanizing ourselves in front of our students and I think metacomprehension could be an effective way to do so. More important than intellectual integrity with others is being honest with ourselves as learners. It does no good to fear one’s own incapacity to understand or engage an issue or problem. Martinez’ insistence that metacognition is also an emotional process is on point. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the anxiety that can come with engaging in scholarly work.

However, sometimes it’s not practical to question every single one of our propositions. I know Martinez is using Socrates to encourage a spirit of self-evaluation to avoid illusions, but if you do simply question the grounds of everything you see, my thinking at least quickly escalates into the most basic philosophical questions of what it is to know and to be, which is not helpful to an extent. I found a panel discussion on the role of the historian at UIC as very helpful in this respect. A professor from Yale told everyone “We should be modest about what we know.”  The passage on Vygotsky reminds me of what I have wrote above about recognizing your own intellectual limitations and building from there. We can avoid going down a path ill-equipped if we recognize when we have left our zone of proximal development. 

One point I would add to Martinez’ passage on critical thinking is the importance of using metacognition before you engage in critique. If you don’t feel equipped to criticize a piece of work, it’s a good indicator that you need to recognize your own limitations. One can size up an argument only if one possesses sufficient background knowledge. Sure, you can analyze a text to see if the author’s arguments are consistent and logically sound. But disciplinary knowledge can’t necessarily be sized up using abstract logic. Failure to be cautious with criticism can dig you deeper into a put of illusory knowledge.

The article on apprenticeship strongly asserts the role of social modeling that Vygotsky explicated in his work. Given the mentorship project in our class, modeling is obviously a central component encouraging literacy in ourselves and others. An interesting facet of this apprentice/mentor relationship is that they model not only their methods but also the content of their thinking. This can be helpful and problematic. I know that the way I think about history was profoundly influenced by the classes I took at UIC with Professor Kirk Hoppe. I know little about how he reads texts, but the content of his class has shaped the way I conceptualize the world (world systems analysis). This is lovely. I love the body of historical literature that I’ve been exposed to through those classes. They drastically challenged the ways in which I had previously seen world history and politics. But we cannot allow ourselves to be trapped by our influences. We need to constantly be challenging and revaluating our thought based on new knowledge and accounting for new critical perspectives. This can be a daunting task in the realm of the social sciences but a necessary one.

Pictured: A map depicting core, periphery, and semiperiphery nations in the capitalist world economy

Part 2: The personal dimension presents writing one’s thoughts as a method of engaging with a text. I believe this invaluable. It is easy to have hundreds of fleeting thoughts while we are reading, but “It is only through writing,” said my professor, “that we find out what we really think.” Writing forces you to look at your thoughts head on, so that you can be intellectually honest in the way I described above.  Writing our thoughts prevents us from being wishy-washy and timid in our thought. The ink stays on the paper and it becomes readily apparent how you really think and what you really know. I picture the thoughts I have while reading as a cloud. It is high up, fluffy, spread out, and out of my reach. But when I write down what I think, I rip my abstract thoughts from the sky and I bring them down to the ground, a level where I and others can engage with them.

Another challenge I see in the section Changing Classroom Practice is still the coverage of all the required content for standardized tests and the like. A lesson can be slowed down in order to model metacognitive practices for students as well as have them engage in summarizing and challenging the reading together. Perhaps the preferred pace that encourages the most deep learning will not be able to be sustained for every lesson. However this does present an opportunity for students to exercise choice. Which areas of the curriculum should be approached in a slower, more critical way? Let students decide which is the most important. This will encourage debate on which topics should be analyzed most thoroughly and which can be read less carefully. Giving students a chance to voice their opinions on the value of certain material over others will make the construction of the course itself important to them.