Theoretical Approaches to Reading Instruction

This essay covers the different theories and techniques in which people have learned to read, along with the arguments of the supporters of these different methods. There is the alphabetic approach, the word as a whole approach, and the meaning-first approach. The difference between these three, basically, is the order in which the three main principles are taught. The overall conclusion that I came up with is that, since all three are so intricately tied to one another, there can be no obvious right or wrong answer to which should come first. I suppose that I would be biased, based on my own education, that the alphabet should be taught first, therefore creating a foundation for the words and their meanings to follow.
I will say that I had two favorite parts in this essay. The first was at the bottom of page 313 where Adams writes "as they read, they fixate virtually each and every content word, quite meticulously processing the letters and spellings and translating the print to speech as they proceed." I liked to read what I was doing as I was doing it. It threw me for a loop.
My second favorite part was on page 312. He says "it was argued [that the] process of oral reading diverted attention from thought to pronunciations and expression." I really only liked this sentence because it conflicts with Ong's statements about the written word versus the spoken word.

Ong Again

I'll admit, the first time reading Ong I didn't spend much time looking up words that I was unfamiliar with. This time, however, I did take the time and my understanding of his essay expanded greatly. Though it may come across at times that Ong is a "writer-basher", I think the last sentence of the essay provides enough evidence to the contrary. He states "writing is a consciousness-raising and humanizing technology". That last line made me think that the entire essay was a way to make the reader conscious of the ways that writing can be taken for granted or misused. I found him to be making a very clear point that, with writing and reading, there is a separation (or can be) between writer and reader. The two never have to be aware of each other (except for in the underlying sense of "I am writing something to be read" and "I am reading what somebody has written", respectively.) It is because of this, the fact that a first-hand account is no longer necessary for information to travel, that there becomes detachment. And this detachment can have negative effects (i.e. the many discussed by Ong), but the overall outcome is far more positive. Information has a permanence. The reader can be conscious of the writer, the writer can (and as we've learned, should) be conscious of their reader. That consciousness makes writing the humanizing technology that it is.

Pencils!

Dennis Baron is right when he says that "we seldom give any thought" to the "humble wood pencil" (73). Never before had I thought so deeply about pencils! It's funny, isn't it? The in-depth procedure, the complexities of making such a simple, basic tool. Baron certainly made me appreciate the simpler things a little bit more.
I enjoyed reading this essay. It felt like Baron was constantly adding little bits of fascinating facts to spice up his writing. Like on page 77, "the word pencils means 'little tail'" or "the eraser substance was called rubber because it was used to rub out pencil marks...". This guy knows his pencils facts, and I was surprised by how interesting I found them to be!
I found Baron's overall point to be that new technologies are often "fought against or embraced" and it isn't until years later that we can reflect on how silly we were to fight against something so useful. People thought pencils were bad, that telephones were pointless, and that calculators would stop people from knowing basic arithmetic. All the hype boils down to fear of the unknown, in my opinion.


And to think, the only pencil I use is a mechanical one.