Developing Empathy for Literacy Learners
Developing an understanding between literate or illiterate ways of being can increase empathetic linkages to those who rely primarily on oral modes of communication prior to literacy education. Empathy can help to promote interpersonal relationships, which Ong (1982) asserts is prized in oral culture: “When all verbal communication must be direct by word of mouth… interpersonal relations are kept high…” (p. 45). Relationships are also highly prized in the educational realm as well, whether dealing with literate or illiterate students.
There are small but subtle differences in working with young illiterate students and adult illiterate students. In one vein, it should be noted that adults will likely experience some negative interference when learning to link visual text to oral language, due to their heavy reliance on what they hear as a means to communicate over several years of life. In Chandler’s (1995) overview of graphocentrism, he states – through thorough research and historical context – that many of us rely more heavily on what we see. When we consider this sensory shifts for adults, we need to ensure that utilize sound first to develop phonemic awareness and pairing the phoneme sound with the visual presentation of the alphabet rather than the other way around (hear first, see second). This empathetic outreach can meet the adult student where they’re at instead of forcing an unfamiliar and alien sensory input upon them with no linkage to their strengths.
Young children, on the other hand, do not hold several years of experience in their reliance on one method of communication and do not have continuity theory working against them. They still have space and time to develop other sensory abilities more acutely than their illiterate adult counterparts. However, this module’s work made me realize that I have experienced evidence of Ong’s (1982) theories as a teacher of early student writing! For example, as my early writers learned the conventions of forming proper sentences (inclusion of capitals and periods), they often had difficulty identifying where a sentence should end. Their work was frequently littered with additive language to begin their sentences (“and” “then” “but”, etc.). I.e. “I went to the park. And I saw my friend. And we played tag.” Even into the Grade 3 and 4 levels, I need to continually promote the appropriate use of compound sentences!
For both adult and child learners, this emphasis on oral learning first can include the use of alliterative epithets, songs, chants, or sayings that aid the students’ mnemonic abilities to recall, for example, letter sounds or sight words. I.e. amazing ants, bouncy ball, cuddly cat, etc. Additionally, oral repetition of these learned mnemonics can be supplemented with visual prompts. Remember pocket charts or chart paper with primary-level poems written on them, and your teacher pointing to each word as you sang or spoke? These methods can help the learner pair their oral understandings and learning with visual aids, helping them become more familiar with text, as they, once again, utilize their strengths of speaking and listening.
Ong (1982) states that, “Writing separates the knower from the known and thus sets up conditions for ‘objectivity’, in the sense of personal disengagement or distancing.” (p.45). He continues in a later chapter, “Texts are thing-like, immobilized in visual space…” (p.98). Texts do not immediately lend themselves to easy comprehension for an illiterate person because they have often have no connection to that person’s immediate context. Connecting illiterate students’ reading of texts with real world experiences is pivotal to ground them in the understanding that texts mean something; they’re not merely static items on a page.
Finally, Ong’s (1982) work inspired me to consider that in the empathetic development of relationships, instructors need to listen closely to their oral students. Students require space and time to provide rationale for their thinking. When instructors listen to their students thoughts, not only can create better formative assessment for themselves, but they can also gain a better understanding of the cultural aspects of the students’ orality. For example, Ong’s (1982) assessment of Luria’s (1976) work on illiterate identification of objects (tools, shapes) based on categorical classifications fits here. Luria’s work revealed that “[Illiterate] subjects identified the designs as representations of real things they knew. They never dealt with abstract circles or squares but rather with concrete objects.” (Ong, 1982, p.51) Similarly in today’s curriculum, a common task in early mathematics is the categorical sorting of objects: by shape, by colour, by size, for example. Students should be able to provide rationales for why they sort something the way they do; it shouldn’t simply be a correct or incorrect answer based on the literate authority’s analysis of appropriate sorting. Once again, understandings of oral and literate ways of being will allow for greater empathetic connections between instructor and student, and can inform teaching practices to play to the oral student’s strengths.
References
Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the Ear and Eye: “Great Divide” Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism [Online]. Retrieved, 2 October, 2015 from: http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/litoral/
Luria, A.R., (1976). Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations. Ed. Michael Cole. Trans. by Martin Lopez-Morillas & Lynn Solotaroff. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and Literacy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Victoria,
Thank you for conceptualizing much of the reading material of this module with classroom realities. As I concluded your post, the word “conversation” came to mind, possibly because it’s been a word that I have been pondering during this past month in connection with teaching and educating as a whole:
A conversation does not require a right or wrong response; it requires time for speaking and listening, and it requires space to think and to consider how to respond. Your statement that “[S]tudents require space and time to provide rationale for their thinking” is worthwhile to think upon further. If we think about the occurrence of a stimulus and then the absolute of a response, then we need to recognize that in between the stimulus and the response is a space in time. It is this space that is valuable and provides opportunity for the student to think and consider, and yet it is this same space that is often rushed and neglected. The consequence of this neglect leads to a diminished opportunity, and hence ability, for effective communication, thinking and literacy.
One further comment related to your own teaching experience with students who struggled with writing proper sentences. I wonder if there is a connection between a lack of hearing proper sentences and the difficulty in deciphering proper sentences when writing. Conversational language and written language are quite distinct in both formality and structure. In order for students to write appropriate language, would they not have had to have many experiences hearing appropriate written language through read aloud stories, audio books, poetry and rhyme memorization, oral speaking presentations, etc.? Does one write well because of one’s oral culture or does one write well because of one’s literate culture? I’m leaning towards the latter.
Thank you again for sharing your insights and for spurring my own thoughts a little further.
Jessica,
I love this comment. There is so much depth and consideration for us to give to the points that you add. First, the need for “wait time” or “think time” is something that is largely ignored by traditional schools. The need to immediately recall or recite a response, often without elaboration, aids more in reinforcing the lecturer than it does to aid in reinforcing the learner, regardless of literate ability.
Secondly, I hadn’t yet considered the differences of formal language structure when comparing the modes of orality and literacy. This could be a big disconnect for students as they attempt to copy oral language onto a page, decipher where appropriate capitalization and punctuation should occur, and decide when to utilize conjunctions to adjoin thoughts. I would also wager that proper writing skills are more likely to stem from what we see vs. what we hear, again reinforcing reliance on visual sensory input to teach written output skills, as you mention. Thanks for your thought-provoking comment!
Thank you, Victoria, for this thought provoking response. I would agree that empathy is critical in effective and inclusive teaching, and is all too often, sadly lacking. Meyer et.al’s Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice (2014) reminds us that, “in the past quarter century, science has elucidated the great variability of the human capacity to learn. Yet our educational system is designed around the idea that most people learn the same way and that a “fair” education is an identical one.” The potential effects of this one-size-fits-all approach is also outlined in Todd Rose’s well known TEDx entitled, “The Myth of Average”. If we fail to know and respond the complex needs of our students (through, as you describe, “empathetic development of relationships”), we not only alienate, but eventually provide a disservice counterproductive to our professional task.
In a recent “This American Life” podcast (Ep.532), show producer Chana Joffe delves into the lives of a couple who are working out what it means to be a caregiver to a family member Alzheimer’s disease. The strategy they adopt can be summed up as, “Step into their world.” The beautiful (and effective) simplicity of this approach is one that I believe all educators needs to adopt – it acknowledges the person (learner) for where they are at, and thus, centres around the “interpersonal relations” that Ong so values. It results in a “yes,and” relationship as opposed to the common, “yes, but”.
So as a teacher, (albeit one on leave, lucky you), how have you seen this concept in your classroom? Have you seen changes in students where empathy and being-known is prioritized?
Thank you again.
Hi Josh,
Thank you for your comment. Yes, our factory model of education isn’t catering to the individual needs of students in general. The new BC curriculum can hopefully address some of these issues and lend to more ease in personalization of content and curricula to student interests, passions, and curiosities. However, I still think this personalization and choice comes as a part of a supportive community, which, as both you and I mentioned, where relationships exist.
Choosing to build community lies solely in the hands of the teacher, who ultimately has the power to shape the feel of a learning space. To address your question for me, I make the conscious choice to pass community building and shaping the space onto my students; I have equal enough power to NOT shift it to them, which is why I highlighted the point that it is up to the teacher to build community. By doing this, and through regular guidance, I am able to demonstrate trust, build tolerance and empathy for others, let them solve complex social problems, and develop an understanding of the teamwork that goes into building a positive community. And yes, the changes have been clear in my young people; their ability to clearly lay out social situations and to engage in civil, age-appropriate discourse is astounding. They just need to be given a chance! Here is a blog post of mine that outlines one of the ways I can empower my students to build their own classroom community and culture: http://www.techteacheronamission.com/blog/student-governance-let-their-voice-shapeyour-classroom-space
Cheers,
Victoria
Thanks Victoria for the classroom application of the material. I was particularly interested in your thoughts on illiterate adult learners. I have worked with semi-literate learners in the past, both in a regular class and in one-on-one settings. I hadn’t conceptualized it at the time, but I soon realized that I was thinking too visually: that the learners were having trouble connecting the sounds they spoke to the words they were reading. I bumbled at the time into having them work on reading and writing about things they knew and had experienced, rather than the dry ABE materials that I had. It was much more successful. Empathy and connection to real-life were definitely key.
Hi Mary,
Thanks for your comment. Having no experience working with illiterate adults, much of my thinking regarding them was deductive reasoning, so I’m sure there are many points to add and likely even some to refute. I’m sure the reliance on orality, however, is one that sticks. As a literate person, we make many assumptions about how people learn and that sensory bias is certainly visual. I’m glad that you found a personal way to reach your adult students!
Victoria