Orality to Literacy Implications for Teaching
The book Orality and Literacy The Technologizing of the Word provides insights into the transitions that have lead to the invention and refinement of writing (Ong, 1982). In his book Ong outlines the differences between orality and literacy. His ideas on learning and communication have provided me with an interesting opportunity to look at the implications of teaching Language Arts in a classroom setting. Ong’s work has helped me to recognize more precisely the connections that exist between reading, writing and oral language.
The selected reading from Ong’s (1982) book have helped me appreciate the close ties that exist between reading, writing and oral language. Although he sets out to trace the differences that exist between oral and literate cultures I have come away from his book with an understanding of interconnectedness. As an Ontario teacher, these connections are supported in the curriculum I use to guide my teaching practice. The Ontario curriculum document recognizes that (2006), “Although children normally start to develop oral language skills before they learn to read and write, the development of reading and writing skills can enhance their ability to use and understand oral language clearly, accurately, and critically” (p. 9). Reciprocally, I also believe that oral communication skills can be used to enhance writing skills. When students are given the opportunity to organizing their experiences and knowledge through supportive discussions they are often in a better position to articulate their ideas more precisely in their writing.
Ong’s book also provides some strategies and ideas that have practical implications for classroom teaching. One of these strategies is the use of mnemonic devices to support the retention and retrieval of information. Ong (1982) shares from a historical perspective how mnemonic devices were commonly used prior to the development of writing technologies. The use of mnemonics it is still considered by many to be a useful learning strategy. These devices can be used to assist with making meaningful connections with new and unfamiliar information. My own experience as a child using mnemonic devices has demonstrated to me that it is an effective way of processing information into long term memory. I am still able to recall the names of the planets using the mnemonic device; My Very Educated Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto).
Ong (1982) also addresses the the use redundancy and repetition in an oral culture. He holds the idea that in oral discourse not everything the speaker says is heard by the listener. Redundancy and repetition were used to help the speaker to get his/her message across to the listener. This same strategy is also used by many teachers in today’s classroom settings. Distractions especially in an elementary school setting are a common occurrence. Students with varying attention spans benefit from instructions that are redundant or repetitive in nature. Having things stated different ways or repeating instructions more than once is often seen as a supportive strategy for students who are developing their listening skills.
One of the other important concepts that Ong (1982) shares is the idea that orality brings people together. He maintains that people become united when words are spoken and that reading can cause individuals to disconnect from being part of a community. This idea bears some consideration in today’s society when texting, messaging, and online written communications is commonplace. Ong’s idea that writing can cause people to isolate themselves seems obvious when groups of people get together but instead of actively conversing they seem more focused on their mobile devices. Isolation of this type can also occur in an education setting. With increasing emphasis on elearning, asynchronous communication, texting, and various other forms of remote communication, people engage less frequently in oral discourse. It is important not to lose sight of the benefits of face to face conversation. The art of oral conversation needs to continue to be encouraged and fostered. Teachers have a prime opportunity in their classroom setting to foster recognition and practice of community development through oral exchange.
References:
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and Literacy The Technologizing of the Word. Methuen and Co. Ltd.
Ontario. (2006). The Ontario curriculum grades 1-8: Language. Toronto: The Ministry.
Hi Maureen,
Thanks for your connections and insights. This is all pointing me to math, and how I am currently feeling like I need new ideas in how to conduct my math time in my classroom of grade 6/7 students who range in abilities from gr. 1 to gr. 9 in math!!
There is a push around math talk and I like it, but because I am new to being a generalist teacher, and math is not my subject of strength in teaching, I really want to develop meaningful practice in the classroom with math! Have you heard some expression about how math “floats on a sea of talk”? I can’t recall the entire quotation but it was uttered by a math consultant in my department of education, and it struck me as “a good thing”! I also feel that orality is the basis of everything. And, in it, comes thought, and reading and writing are based on orality.
not new ideas, but it’s late, and I’m tired, but I wanted to comment and say thanks. I enjoyed your post.
Hi Maureen,
I largely concur that with literacy, one hand shakes the other. The fine ‘balanced approach’ is what makes for good instruction.
As communications technologies progress, we must be mindful of the implications that they have on our learners’ futures and the skillsets that should be embedded into their learning. One thing that came to light at a recent conference I attended in Manilla ( http://learning2asia.org/ ), was teaching digital, coding and visual media literacy.
For digital literacy, Jeff Utecht (see Coetail, Learning2 and more: http://www.jeffutecht.com/) brought up the interesting argument in his Keynote of why we weren’t teaching children explicitly how to link jump? A most basic, yet quickly overlooked thought. Without the proper skillsets in this area, how quickly could one get sidetracked on the web at a young age?
Secondly, were the notions of teaching children to code. Nothing new in the education spectrum as of late, yet ever so important, in my opinion. The linear notions, special awareness, problem solving ability, and other related skills behind this form of literacy are essential skills to consider, since more and more careers of the future will require it. Some of the best paying jobs outside of medicine are directly linked to those with coding ability. How many app startups happened in this year alone? It doesn’t have to be an intimidating skill for those who are adverse to it and can be taught at a young age. Everything from Beebots (https://www.bee-bot.us/ ) in early elementary, to ScratchEDU (https://scratch.mit.edu/) and https://code.org/ in later elementary, or learning how to program Arduino’s and Rasperry Pi’s to make robots and other cool things from middle school and beyond.
Lastly, with all this newfound digital literacy, how are we modelling its visual representation? Thinking of our old Bristol board and butcher paper displays just won’t cut it in the digital world. Teaching children about the presenting literacy of “a picture is worth a thousand words”, contrasting foregrounds and backgrounds, avoiding vertical video syndrome, and more will only add to the way the message is communicated, rather than hinder it.
All these come with the argument of where do we fit it all in? I think any of the above skills should be embedded into learning rather than stand alone. Coding with Beebots and Scratch has great integration with position units in maths. Digital and visual literacy is embedded and scaffolded into any major project.
For every element we add to the ‘cup’, we must try and think of what we can take out. Keeping things transdisciplinary or embedded in current learning objectives is one way to achieve this. However, I’m sure all educators can agree that our teaching plates are not getting any lighter. On another recent conference to see Dylan Williams speak (aka Formative Assessment’s Front man: http://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Welcome.html ), he was very adamant on administrative staff being comfortable that all curriculum should not be taught and that much should be done to look at reducing learning intentions, rather than keep adding more. Speakers at Learning2 also echoed this notion by alluding to the fact that there are almost as many learning intentions as days of teaching in the respective International Baccalaureate and American Program curriculums.
So much to ponder as we consider the history and future of literacy…