My homeland, Jamaica, in many ways still reflects the traditions of an oral society. Jamaican Patois, which is an oral language, is the dialect spoken by most Jamaicans and for some this is the only language that they speak with ease. Jamaican Patois is a mixture of English and West African influences and in some parts of the country the dialect reflects influences from other cultures that are a part of our history, for example the German language. There are two main issues we face when dealing with the Jamaican dialect. There are those who feel that the language is inferior and therefore its place should be relegated to less formal settings and it should have no place in the classroom. There are others who believe in the value and importance of the Jamaican dialect as the mother tongue and want it to be moved from an oral language to a written language. In the Jamaican classroom, students who come from homes that use Jamaican Patois as their primary form of communication face significant challenges.
There is a view that those who come from an oral culture are less intelligent than those who are from literate societies. Researchers have argued that is view is flawed and usually stems from ideas that literate, dominant cultures have about illiterate, non-dominant cultures (Gutiérrez, Morales, & Martinez, 2009). Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz (2013) noted,
“Although the educators’ preconceptions that non-standard speech is somewhat “lacking in grammar” and reflects
“unsystematic thinking” have by now been disproved, many continue to assume there is something about the
phonological, syntactic or semantic characteristics of the home vernaculars that impedes the learning of writing
skills.”(p.99)
The implications of this view have been deleterious to the advancement of children. Students who originate from an oral culture who enter a classroom that has a literate culture face issues of lack of confidence in their abilities and find it difficult to assimilate into the culture. If we as teachers however, start from a premise that an oral culture is different but not less than and we reinforce this principle in our students it will go a far way in helping them to recognise their potential.
As I read Ong (2002), I started to think about the differences between oral and literate cultures in a way that I had not previously considered. The reading made me realise many of things that I take for granted in a literate culture. One of these considerations is the value of repetition in an oral culture. In an oral culture, because the words don’t exist beyond the moment they have left the speakers mouth, the hearer is forced to slow down the mind and pay close attention to the speaker (Ong, 2002). Repetition therefore aids in the process and gives the hearer a greater chance of grasping the speaker’s intent. As I have previously mentioned the students with whom I interact may come from homes that are primarily oral in nature and in some cases my students may have little interest in writing or fully appreciate the value of writing and how to write effectively. It is quite common for my explanations in class to be interrupted with “miss can you repeat that”. Many of them don’t trust their own note-taking abilities and feel that it is best if I repeat myself several times so that they get every single word down. While the process of repetition might be time-consuming and somewhat annoying, considering it in light of the background of my students has allowed me to recognise its value and to consider how best I will be able to assist them in making the transition between their home culture and the classroom.
The thoughts I have laid out here are just a few of the ways the readings have awakened my consciousness to the implications and challenges students face in trying to transition between an oral and literate culture.
References
Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (2013). From oral to written culture: The transition. In Writing (pp. 99-120). New York: Routledge.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 212-245.
Ong, W. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
chris clarke
June 8, 2018 — 6:44 pm
Thanks Kamille,
The idea of using repetition to engage students from predominantly oral cultures is an interesting one. Ong (1982) surely agrees with the foundation of the sentiment as he posits that “redundancy, repetition of the just-said, keeps both speaker and hearer surely on the track.” This seems like a positive on two fronts as it allows for the teacher to maintain a flow of dialogue and also provides a setting that is more conducive to the orally cultured student.
If we consider a classroom to have a large audience, which it can often feel like even if the number of students per class has now dropped in BC, Ong (1982) presents some addition perspectives that could be considered valuable in the classroom:
“Redundancy is also favored by the physical conditions of oral expression before a large audience, where redundancy is in fact more marked than in most face-to-face conversation. Not everyone in a large audience understands every word a speaker utters, if only because of acoustical problems. It is advantageous for the speaker to say the same thing, or equivalently the same thing, two or three times.”
As a teacher, it is possible to take lessons from these orators. Their job was to pass valuable information along to groups of people with the intention of retention. They repeated the information often, but used phrases that allowed for it to be presented in a different format each time. This seems remarkably similar to the idea of providing different perspectives or descriptions of a concept when it is being taught in class.
However, it should be noted that standing at the front of a class and only lecturing is considered poor pedagogy. If repetition is needed to engage these students, how should teachers use this technique without spending too much time only lecturing?
Reference
Ong, W. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
sara segovia rocha
June 8, 2018 — 10:45 pm
Hi Kamille,
I really enjoy reading your post, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I found very interesting your perspective about how your students experience the transition from an oral language to a literate classroom and also I think this is very valuable to understand more about the complexities involved in it. It reflects the variety of experiences in oral cultures that could differ to the generalized effects of orality and literacy on cognition that Ong determined with his argument referred to as a “Great Divide Theory”.
However, Ong’s contribution can also be very helpful to understand some of the possible differences between oral cultures and literate ones in particular approaches to learning, in this sense how the Jamaican Papoi speaker’s experience the transition to literacy. I can see how this transition is such a complicated process for them and other oral cultures, especially when the nature of their oral language reflects that they are used to learn mostly by observations, repetition and other important forms of thought process that differ to those used by literate people. I think here is where educational technologies can be used to strengthen the value of oral dialects and help students to approach this transition in an easier way.
I found this Ted Talk video by Lera Borodsitsky very intriguing, it is about how language shapes the way we think and I believe it can be related to the implications of orality and writing for language and thought. Boroditsky says. “Human minds have invented not one cognitive universe, but 7,000.” Here, she refers to the 7,000 languages spoken around the world and this reflects the intrinsic value of linguistic diversity and the importance to preserve them.
Ted Talks. (2018, May, 2). How language shapes the way we think. Retrieve from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKK7wGAYP6k.
natallia kuzmich
June 8, 2018 — 10:49 pm
Thanks for your post, Kamille! I enjoyed it a lot! It is amazing how much we can share coming from all over the world!
I am a LINC (Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada) Instructor and with my over 20 years teaching ESL all over the world experience…. I had to learn and educate myself how to teach literacy students! It is a very challenging, but, no doubt, rewarding experience! I think you aroused a very important issue of teaching literacy students. Repetition is definitely the key to teaching all the essential skills!
I also found critical literacy is usually is usually not given ‘enough attention’.
‘Critical literacy helps teachers and students expand their reasoning seek out multiple perspectives and become active thinkers’ (McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2004)
Edward H. Behrman (Behrman, E. H. (2006) examines 35 articles published between 1999 and 2003 that present lessons or units to support critical literacy at the upper primary or secondary levels. The classroom practices are organized into six broad categories based on student activities or tasks: reading supplementary texts, reading multiple texts, reading from a resistant perspective, producing countertexts, conducting student‐choice research projects, and taking social action.
Behrman, E. H. (2006). Teaching about language, power, and text: A review of classroom practices that support critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(6), 490-498.
McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2004). Critical literacy as comprehension: Expanding reader response. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(1), 52-62.