The Implications of Orality and Literacy for Middle Level Educators
Although Orality and Literacy does draw distinct binaries between preliterate and literate cultures and this “great divide” proves to be problematic for some as it overgeneralizes the effects that technologies have on shaping society (Biakolo, 2005), there still remain pertinent implications for K-12 education. For Middle Level educators (such as myself), these implications range from the pedagogical to the curricular, as we seek to teach students who prefer oral expression as opposed to literate expression.
Teaching English as a subject, to preteens is an interesting and often difficult task, as students who are orally expressive struggle at times to grasp the nuances and rules that come with learning how to read and write. One of the questions that I have been asking myself as of late is, as we progress to societies which are becoming more and more text based, how will students who are primarily orally oriented succeed? Perhaps this is where 21st century learning skills diverge from the previous values found in early literate societies, in which rote memorization and copying texts verbatim was valued. By allowing students who prefer to express themselves orally (through presentations, videos, animations etc.), students can still succeed in demonstrating their knowledge of curriculum, despite being in school environments that are designed with traditional notions of literacy in mind.
An overarching theme that resonates throughout Orality and Literacy is the notion that the mode of communication used by individuals within a given society, ultimately shape the thinking that results from it (Ong, 36). If this is true, then teachers would be asking questions such as: What kinds of thinking will result from entirely text based communication? As students move toward virtual, cloud based communication platforms, what will the social affect be for these individuals? As a Middle School teacher, I can say without question that these are queries I hear in the staff room on a regular basis.
Amongst a number of generalizations Ong makes to compare contrast oral versus literate cultures, Ong claims that oral societies tend to be more empathetic and participatory in nature, as opposed to literate cultures which tend to be more objective, analytical and distant (Ong 45). The reasoning Ong gives for this particular assertion is that in oral societies, tend to live in the “present”, which are said to be highly relational in nature. Empathy and participation are ideals that all schools seek to teach, and if what Ong says is true, perhaps more face-to-face interactions between students inside and outside of school would lead to greater empathy amongst peers.
Lastly, a point that Ong makes that I found interesting was: “sparse linear or analytic thought and speech are artificial creations, structured by the technology of writing” (Ong, 40). For hundreds of years, text was cumbersome and expensive, but now it is portable and free. What will the future bring for us, as web based technologies evolve? How will this impact our societies moving forward and how will it shape education? I guess this is why we are taking this course.
References:
Biakolo, E. A. (2005). On the theoretical foundations of orality and literacy. Research in African Literatures, 30(2), 42-65.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Routledge.
Yik Wah, thank you for your comments about the classroom implications of Ong’s Orality and Literacy.
Although I am not an English teacher, I can echo many of your observations about students’ difficulties expressing themselves in writing. It’s gratifying to see that many students have more success when they can demonstrate their learning orally or in other non-written forms. I also see other benefits to building a strong oral culture in the classroom.
As you pointed out, Ong (2003) contrasts empathetic and participatory oral cultures with objectively distanced literate cultures, and describes how these characteristics change what it means to know or to learn. Ong makes the point that, in oral cultures, “learning or knowing means achieving close, empathetic, communal identification with the known” while “writing separates the knower from the known”, and creates objectivity and distancing. If we can create an oral culture in our classroom, we have a better chance of motivating students by creating the conditions for them to identify with their learning.
Ong (2003) claims that “the spoken word forms human beings into close-knit groups.” In the classroom, a group such as this can function as a collaborative learning community and improve student learning. This is another reason to build a strong oral culture in the classroom.
I have been puzzled by some students who express themselves much more easily orally than through writing in the classroom, but who carry out a large part of their social communication by texting. It seems that texting may be closer to oral communication in being more spontaneous and less formal, and by allowing immediate response. I wonder if there is a way to use spontaneous written communication as a stepping-stone to teaching students to write in a more formal writing style.
References
Ong, Walter J.. (2003). Orality and Literacy. Routledge. Retrieved 31 May 2015, from