Month: January 2025

I created the output for this voice to text task on Seesaw, an learning portfolio application that I use with my students. I created a journal entry through the Seesaw app on my iPad that uses Apple’s speech to text functionality.

A couple of summers ago I had a really scary experience. There was a large group of us probably between 12 and 15 people who were side-by-side and quitting and dirt biking back into a remote area to go fishing for the day we travelled for probably an hour and a half to two hours stopping for a quick lunch when we finally came to the spot that we were looking for it was a deep fishing hole with, a stream on either side of it as soon as we arrived, my son decided that he was going to head off to the other side to fish off the bank. Everyone else was getting up getting lawn chairs out find a fishing gear, but Sheldon had already had out to the other side , he gets to the other side and steps up onto the land. I noticed that a bear was in the bush and had stood up on two legs was about 12 m away from the bear and the bear hadn’t noticed my son yet so and I was so in shock that I couldn’t even get the word bear out of my mouth all I could do was in a quiet voice say Sheldon back up Sheldon back up , I knew exactly what I how I wanted this to play in my hat. I wanted Sheldon to slowly back away get back on this side of the water and for the bear to not even notice him however shot and looked at me like I was crazy and like what  And then someone from the group finally finally saw the bear and said Bear and Sheldon started to back away without panicking, however instead of running away as we expected Bear to do dropped down all four and started centring towards my son at this point someone in the group yells run and Sheldon drops his fishing gear into the water and gets turned around and starts running the best he can in waste deep water  Away start to walk towards the Bear because we don’t know how this is all gonna play it. I was freaking out. I picked up a rock not sure what it was gonna do with. It didn’t know what was gonna happen. Someone in the group airhorn and blast that off and it enough that he changes course and takes off running into the forest , my son seemed to the whole experience saying it was no big deal. However it is changed the way that I feel about being in the forest forever. I was never afraid of bears before. I always thought that they would leave us alone every time we go hiking or camping , I am that person who is terrified that we are going to come across the bear 

How does the text deviate from conventions of written English?

This text was created using the dictation feature on my iPad. I noticed that it attempted to include some punctuation and even adjusted as I spoke. However, it missed several places where there should have been commas or periods. Additionally, it didn’t include quotation marks around direct speech. For example, it should have read, “Sheldon, back up, Sheldon, back up.” The structural organization is also lacking due to the absence of paragraphs.

What is “wrong” in the text? What is “right”?

There are many places in this text where things don’t make sense. It doesn’t reflect exactly what I said. For example, quitting should have been quadding, had out should have been headed out, play in my hat should have been play out in my head, and centring should have been sauntering. Some of these “mistakes” are so drastic that it might be hard for a reader to figure out what was actually meant. For instance, where it reads, “…even notice him however shot and looked at me …” it should be: “…even notice him. However, Sheldon looked at me …”

Additionally, there are missing words, such as get up which should be getting set up, and the phrase my son seemed to the whole experience is missing the word indifferent, which is crucial to the story. Some words are also misspelled in context; for example, waste should have been waist.

What’s right, however, is that there are no outright spelling mistakes—the technology correctly spells all the words it thinks it hears.

What are the most common “mistakes” in the text and why do you consider them “mistakes”?

The most common mistake in this text is the lack of periods and commas. These are mistakes because the absence of punctuation affects the flow of the text. It doesn’t reflect how I spoke the words, and it makes it harder for the reader to break the information into manageable chunks. This, in turn, negatively impacts readability and comprehension.

What if you had “scripted” the story? What difference might that have made?

If I had scripted the story, I probably would have spoken more slowly and with greater emphasis on each word. Instead of focusing on what I was going to say next, I would have paid more attention to speaking each word clearly. This might have made the text more accurate, but I still think it would have been far from perfect.

A scripted version would likely have been more thought out and organized. There would have been more details, and I’d probably have used more adjectives and adverbs. I would have taken time to carefully consider each word choice and thought about which phrasing sounded best.

In a way, oral storytelling also follows this process: as a story is told repeatedly, it can improve, much like how written work is edited before being shared. The key difference is that with oral storytelling, the improvement comes through spoken repetition, while written work can be edited silently.

In what ways does oral storytelling differ from written storytelling? 

Oral storytelling is an art form in itself. Storytellers possess a unique talent to captivate audiences and pass on knowledge. However, it is inherently inconsistent—each telling can vary slightly. As Ong notes when discussing oral cultures, “They can tell you the story accurately, they can use formulas, but every time they tell it, it’ll be a little bit different” (Abe Adound, 2014, 2:54).

In contrast, written storytelling tends to be more consistent. While it allows for more precision, it can lack the tone, cadence, and tempo that oral storytelling naturally enables. This is especially true when written by less experienced storytellers who may not focus on the rhythm and flow of their words.

References

Abe Aboud. (2014, September 8). Walter Ong – Oral cultures and early writing [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvF30zFImuo 

Lera Boroditsky’s SAR lecture from May 2017 was fascinating and thought-provoking, prompting numerous connections to my own experiences and ideas. She begins (00:35) with a powerful image—language as a ‘magical’ ability unique to humans. This struck me immediately, especially as she explained how language allows us to plant ideas in one another’s minds. For me, this concept resonated deeply with my role as a teacher. The words I choose in the classroom are not just communication tools; they are seeds that can shape how students think and view the world. I reflected on my responsibility to use language thoughtfully, knowing that it can either nurture or limit a student’s ability to think critically and creatively. As I watched the rest of the presentation, I continued to make connections mostly with my teaching experience.   

At the 11:18 mark, Boroditsky discusses how different languages organize time. She shares an example from the Aymara people of the Andes, who view the past as in front of them and the future as behind them. This perspective is grounded in the idea that the past is known and the future is unknown. I found this notion compelling.  It made sense—yet, of course, I had never considered it, likely because my own language shapes my thinking. In English, we say ‘looking back’ when referring to the past and ‘looking forward’ when discussing the future. These expressions have shaped my perception of time to such an extent that I never imagined an alternative way of thinking about it.

All the talk about how different languages organize time led me to reflect on a change I made in my classroom a few years ago—one that relates to how we perceive information and the language we use. The hundred chart is a common tool for developing early numeracy skills, particularly in grades K-2. In most classrooms, the chart looks like this (Figure 1), where students learn to see patterns, such as counting by 2s, 5s, and 10s, and to explore math concepts like ‘one more/one less’ and ‘ten more/ten less.’ 

Figure 1

A Typical Hundred Chart

However, there is a problem when students use directional language in relation to the chart. For example, if a student is asked to add 10 more while pointing to 46 on a typical hundred chart, they would move their finger down the chart to land on 56. While the number is increasing, the visual movement on the chart contradicts the language—’ up’ for increasing and ‘down’ for decreasing—which can create confusion. This ‘directional conflict’ can be especially problematic for students with disabilities (Randolph & Jeffres, 1974, p. 203, as cited in Bay-Williams & Gletcher, 2017). In response, I began using a bottom-up version of the hundred chart (Figure 2). 

Figure 2

A Bottom-Up Hundred Chart

Now, when students talk about adding 10 more, they move their finger ‘up’ the chart, and the language matches the movement—’ going up’ corresponds with the number value increasing. Bay-Williams & Gletcher (2017) suggest that this alignment between language and visual representation helps students more easily grasp concepts of ‘more’ and ‘less.’ This change has made a noticeable difference in my classroom. By matching the directional language to the chart’s visual movement, students gain a better understanding of mathematical concepts. And while this solution works well for English speakers, it highlights how language plays a crucial role in shaping our cognitive processes. For example, in right-to-left languages, a different hundred chart orientation would be necessary to align with their directional language. This reinforces the idea that language influences not just communication but the way we think and understand the world around us.

Boroditsky says that “the kind of language that swims around you, the grammatical forms that swim around you and that are in your environment change what you attend to, even when you’re looking at new events, unrelated to what you’ve just been hearing about” (SAR, 2017, 33:52). In this example, Boroditsky is referring to test subjects identifying who committed an act, with their perceptions shaped by the grammatical structure of the language they had been exposed to prior to the experiment. However, this also resonated with me in terms of the power teachers wield. The words I choose, the order in which I say them, and even my tone may influence what my students focus on and how they interpret information. It’s mind-blowing to consider the extent of that impact.

At the 34:05 mark, the conversation shifts to the language of counting and numbers, which is something I have often thought about. In grade 2, the expectations for students jump drastically—from knowing numbers 1 to 20 to knowing numbers 1 to 100. This is a huge leap, and it has caused me to wonder how other languages handle counting. The only other language I am somewhat familiar with is French, and I have wondered if the French approach to numbers over 50 allows French students to have a better, worse, or the same number sense of numbers between 50 and 100. When counting in French, understanding the computation behind larger numbers is essential. For instance, the number seventy-two is translated as “soixante-douze” (sixty-twelve), making me wonder whether this method helps French speakers develop better number sense. 

Additionally, in my experience teaching grade 1 students to count between 11 and 20, I’ve often felt that there should be a better system. Numbers 11 and 12 are especially tricky, 13-15 are slightly easier, but even 16-19 present challenges. What exactly is a “teen”? Why don’t we have a counting system that works more like “10-1, 10-2, 10-3” to help students build a clearer understanding of numbers 11-19? Schiltz et al. (2024) discuss this in terms of “the transparency of the number system of a particular language (e.g., in Russian’ ‘one-ten’ for ’11’ is transparent, while “eleven” in English is not)” (p. 2416). From my experience teaching grade 1 students, I have found that the English words for 11 to 19 make numerical thinking more challenging for young students. I suspect that Russian-speaking students, with their more transparent system, might develop number sense more easily.

At 42:47 in the recording, Boroditsky explains one method of researching for causality between language and thinking. This process involves training people to speak in new ways and then observing changes in their thinking. I find this idea fascinating, and it reminds me of the work I do with my students around growth mindset language. Instead of letting a child say, “I can’t do that,” I encourage them to say, “I am still working on learning how to do this,” or “I can’t do this yet.” To help emphasize the power of the word “yet,” I use the picture book The Magical Yet by Angela DiTerlizzi. This book introduces students to “a most amazing thought rearrange-er” (DiTerlizzi & Alvarez, 2020, p. 8)—the magical creature known as The Magical Yet. The story shows how language can change how we think, or as the book puts it, how it can act as a “thought rearranger-er.”

During the Q&A session, Boroditsky responds to a question from the audience about whether teaching literature can enhance brain development.  The answer given by Boroditsky is that “there’s some suggestion that reading fiction improves your theory of mind, so theory of mind is this ability to read other people’s minds and infer their intentions and think about what it is they might be thinking” (SAR, 2017, 53:32).  This was an intriguing concept for me to hear.  As an elementary teacher, I practice this every day. I read to my students, and we discuss the characters’ emotions and motivations. Although research on this is still in its early stages, hearing Boroditsky’s statement reinforced just how powerful literature can be.

Although not in chronological order, I have saved what I think is the most powerful statement of the talk for the end.  At the 18:38 mark, Boroditsky states, “Language has this causal power. You can change how people think by changing how they talk” (SAR, 2017).  This is the key takeaway, and as an elementary educator, I find it extremely profound and encouraging.

References:

Bay-Williams, J. M., & Fletcher, G. (2017). A bottom-up hundred chart? Teaching Children Mathematics, 24(3), e1-e7. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.24.3.00e1

Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62-65.

DiTerlizzi, A., & Alvarez, L. (2020). The magical yet (First ed.). Disney-Hyperion.

SAR School for Advanced Research. (2017, June 7). Lera Boroditsky, how the languages we speak shape the ways we think [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuuHwbuQOg

Schiltz, C., Lachelin, R., Hilger, V., & Marinova, M. (2024). Thinking about numbers in different tongues: An overview of the influences of multilingualism on numerical and mathematical competencies. Psychological Research, 88(8), 2416-2431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01997-y