Letter

Dear James,
I was reading through some of the articles and a few things jumped out at me which you may or may not agree with.

When reading the article: Writing as A Mode Od Learning by Emig I felt his references to Vygotsky and Bruner were important to recognize. The idea that higher cognitive functions such as analysis and synthesis develop fully only with a support system of verbal language, particularly the written language. It is important to remember that writing is an integral part of varbalization and vice versa.

There are many differences between talking and writing which need to be acknowledged because many people blur those lines. As teachers it is important to have the students express themselves verbally through discussions, but they need to know that when it is time to write there must be a change in the way they tackle questions. In order to do that we must value the differences between the two. Among the differences are that writing is a learned behavior where talking is natural. Writing is considered a technological device and is a slower process compared with talking. When a person talks they tend to lean on the environment for content whereas writing is based on its own context. I do believe talking is a necessary part of the writing process, but a successful writer needs to know how to turn their "talk" into writing.

Emig also mentions that writing is self-rhythmed. One writes best as one learns best, at one's own pace. This statement proves itself time after time. Regardless of the activities an instructor can provide and the work they give, a child will continue to learn at their own pace.

I must say that when I was reading Britton's piece I found many parts to be enlightening and true, but I can not make complete sense of it. Two terms that he highlights and I found to be important for understanding his views were efferent and aesthetic concerns. These two ideas are equally important. When reading about poetic discourse at first it seemed clear and valuable, but as I sat down to write you about it, I am finding it difficult to make a lucid statement. In one respect I guess that means I am unable to get to the point of global contextualization which I feel is very important.

When Britton spoke about what Young Readers Need to KNow Applebee discusses two principles: centering which is a concern for unity of a story and chaining which is a concern for sequence. Children depend on these things to build up their confidence in reading. My three year old nephew uses his knowledge of sequencing to help "read" the story with me. He listens to the beginning of the story and then tries to piece the rest of it together based on other similar stories we have read together before.

Brittons article also mentioned that a successful writer learns all these things implicitly. Explicit learning would hinder a reader in these beginning stages.

I am going to end this letter with what I thought was the most powerful quote from these two articles. "If the most efficacious learning occurs when learning is reinforced, then writing through its inherent reinforcing cycle involving hand, eye, and brain marks a uniquely powerful multi-representational mode for learning". This shows how much a person can get out of the act of writing.

Hope you had a great week and enjoyed the readings. See you Tuesday

Kathryn