I do not know if you feel the same, as a portuguese speaker/reader, on=20
expressing ideas and thought in english. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT!
To me, it's easier read - or translate from english to portuguese -=20
than constrain my thought and express/comunicate them in english.
Do you feel the same?
It's something like we (portuguese speaker) need much more words than=20
them. And when we beguin cut them off form our thoughts they beguin=20
change completely because each language is a specifically way of=20
relationship with the environment/world.
If Luria and Vygotsky were wright, the use of words by speach makes the=20
thinking process radically different. And I deduce from this that=20
thinking in english is something very different than thinking in=20
portuguese, or russian or spanish etc
But, about Emilia Ferreiro (I'm not sure she is from Argentina or from=20
Mexico. I guess she is mexican) I think her proposal at all is very=20
interesting and usefull. She makes a critic and a distiction between=20
reading methods and writting ones (according to her, very common in=20
american educational thought) and proposes her 'holistc' one. And in=20
help of her arguments she uses the results of her researches that=20
are usefull to prove it is possible apply them sucsessfully all around=20
the world.
In her first book 'Psychogenesis of Written Language' (Psicog=EAnese da=20
lingua escrita) she refers to Vygotsky at the last chapiter. But only=20
mentions him without an exaustiv approach of his cultural-historical=20
theory. (We must have in mind that she was beeing adviser by nobody else=20
than Piaget... and there was, and there is, a certain illness=20
["mal-estar", in portuguese] on "inviting them to the same party")
So, all her pre-history of written language is very, very close to=20
Luria's and Vygotsky's. People here, in every convention she had been=20
present as speaker asks some space to speak and than acuse her of taking=20
his ideas without mention it. Such 'ideological police' constrained her=20
in order to write an article, in which she explains she did not know=20
about cultural russian psychology scholl descoveries when she conceives=20
her pre-history of written language... ( I ask you "How to believe?")
In this article she try to explain the differences between her=20
approach and Vygotsky/Luria's one.
Well, I guess I wrote too much. I'm not sure that what was written=20
above is what you had asked me to talk about.
Ax=E9!
=20
Ilda Carreiro King wrote:
>=20
> Ricardo,
> First, I am sorry your posts in Portuguese are not getting through. Yo=
ur one note
> came through and I responded at that time.
>=20
> As for Emilia Ferreiro's work, I am not familiar with it, so regrettabl=
y cannot
> comment. I am not sure from what you wrote what she did with her fiel=
d work that
> you thought was successful. Perhaps you could comment on that aspect?
>=20
> Ilda
>=20
> Ricardo Ottoni wrote:
>=20
> > Ilda,
> >
> > Everything you had been saying makes me remember Emilia Ferreiro
> > proposal of literacy.
> >
> > Although she had refered exaustively to Piaget - that was her advisor=
in
> > Genebre in the seventies - many people here in Brazil accuse her of
> > copying "her" pr=E9-history of written language of Lurias's work.
> >
> > Nevertheless, her proposal had been applied with some relative succes=
s
> > on worker's and poor people's childreen literacy, in Rio Grande do S=
ul
> > (a state of Brazil very close to Argentina and Paraguai), specially
> > during labor party government of Porto Alegre, its capital.
> >
> > She made her defense publiclly, in a book, edited by Marta Kohl de
> > Oliveira ( who has recently - 1988 - edited Literacy in human
> > development with Jaan Valsiner in USA, though Ablex Publishing
> > Corporation, Stanford, Connecticut, London, England).
> >
> > Would you please comment her ideas. If it is not too much for you, of
> > course.
> >
> > By the way, I tried sent you new private e-mails in portuguese but al=
l
> > them came back to me without reaching your mail box... The translatio=
n
> > of Peter's article is done and now is beeing reviwed. Anyway, thank y=
ou
> > very much for trying helpping us.
> >
> > , Ilda Carreiro King wrote:
> > >
> > > Ken,
> > > I find this interchange somewhat ironic. I would think you would b=
e
> > > sensitive to superficial representations of methodologies given wha=
t
> > > happened to whole language. Here in Massachusetts, teachers were a=
lso
> > > mandated to use whole language but at the city or town level since =
we do not
> > > have centralized state control of education in Massachusetts. They=
were
> > > sometimes given a book to read or a one day to one week summer work=
shop to
> > > attend.
> > >
> > > Primarily what I experienced as a consultant was the same horror yo=
u are
> > > envisioning with phonics mandates. School boards were thrilled bec=
ause they
> > > could stop buying expensive basals with supporting workbooks and sa=
ved a lot
> > > of money by buying the teachers 5 Big Books for the year- no exagge=
ration-
> > > and they could share them among all first grade teachers since the =
kids
> > > didn't need them! And I remember lots of circles of 20 children cho=
ral
> > > reading after the teacher holding the Big Book. And I got lots of=
teachers
> > > telling parents that one day, their child would read- don't worry- =
it would
> > > just happen. Just like one day they talked. I think you would be a=
s
> > > appalled as I was at viewing this as what whole language was all ab=
out.
> > >
> > > What teachers told me and I observed was that no training or unders=
tanding
> > > went with this mandate. Their books and materials needed to be put=
away or
> > > taken away and they were supposed to improvise on creativity. Most=
were
> > > embarrassed to take out a basal, even if it contained a good story,=
or a
> > > phonics worksheet, even if the child expressed a request to learn a=
bout a
> > > phonogram. It was the same disaster I have seen whenever any one s=
ystem of
> > > reading instruction is mandated.
> > >
> > > What I learned was that teachers need in-classroom, ongoing support=
to adopt
> > > new practices and that mandating a teacher to use one thing doesn't=
work for
> > > kids or teachers.
> > >
> > > I have taught kids reading successfully for over 25 years. I have =
been
> > > fortunate to have supervised experiences with flexible instructors =
who
> > > taught me to put the learner first and learn many techniques.
> > >
> > > I share your outrage at mandating anything but agree to disagree ab=
out
> > > phonics.
> > >
> > > Ilda