“James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher”.
(Wikipedia)
I can read every single word in that sentence. I am familiar with the letters, with the words, and with their typical use. However, I have absolutely no clue what this sentence is saying. Despite my ability to read the physical words that are printed on the page, I am unable to assign any meaning to this sentence. It seems like a mistake, and error. Or is it that I am not intelligent enough to understand what is being said? Maybe the issue is not the sentence, maybe the issue is me. Maybe I am not a reader. Maybe I don’t know how to read.
The article Changing the Face of Literacy by Abigail Anderson deals with this very problem. In the 1950s, the ability to translate printed text into words was deemed sufficient to establish literacy. In 2011, this is far from the case. For starters, it is now understood that text is not neutral and the meaning of written words is highly context dependent. Furthermore, understanding text in one form does not translate to understanding text in a different form. In 2011, there are so many sources of text bombardment in daily life that just knowing how to read words is not nearly enough to understand. From ads on television, to ads on billboards and busses, to newspapers, to magazines—all of these media include text that is written by someone, for a specific purpose. Abigail Anderson recognizes that just reading does not make an individual capable of comprehending this compendium of textual consumption. Literacy, in this day and age, has taken on a new meaning all together. The ability to read does not provide one with the context for understanding meaning. Literacy has grown up. From its younger days when it was only making sense of letters, literacy has developed into the critical analysis of producers and consumers of media in text form in order to understand not only the meaning, but also the meaning behind the meaning. Context is everything, and background and life experience become critical factors in the establishment of context.
To get back to the sentence above, it seems, now to be gibberish. I can indeed READ all of the words, but I have no idea what it means. Were I a student, learning to read, I would feel discouraged. I would think that I was unintelligent, and I may give up on reading all together. I would wonder why no one else questioned the sentence, why everyone else seemed to understand. The teacher would wonder why I could not understand. But my comprehension concerns are not because I do not know how to read, or because I am stupid. My troubles stem from the fact that I am missing part of the story, a vital part that is allowing everyone else in my class to gain meaning from the sentence. In this case, the vital information comes in the form of punctuation. Yet in an elementary classroom, this vital information can be life experience. Like Anderson mentions in her article, a young black girl growing up in a ghetto could never gain meaning behind storybooks of white children surrounded by “toys, pets and dotting adults” (p.1). This background information is not common knowledge; it is not in everyone’s realm of knowledge. Different backgrounds lead to different experiences which in turn lead to different understandings and perceptions of the world. Now, I have read the Wikipedia page about this sentence. I now have the background to get an A on this assignment, while you, without having the Wikipedia page in your repertoire of experience, are unable to understand the simple sentence. You will now fail the assignment. As a teacher, it is necessary to help all students be able to share the experiences necessary to be able to comprehend. In order to help students become literate, they have to be exposed to as much experience as possible, and it should never be assumed that all students will have the background to understand a topic or an issue. As a teacher, I will share with you the background knowledge that you need, and then you too will be able to receive an A on this reading assignment. Once I provide the context that this sentence should be read as: “James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”; “had had” had had a better effect on the teacher” (Wikipedia) you, too, will be able to understand.
In actuality, I had to read this sentence more than once, even once I was given the context, before the light came on. This just goes to show that if the context is unfamiliar, simply sharing it is not always enough for someone to grasp in on the first try. Students without the background will still not be on the same playing field as students who have the experiences needed to understand a text. They will still not be as familiar, and they will still struggle with meaning. It is for this reason that classrooms need to be filled with literature and media from different cultures and different backgrounds, produced with different intentions. Instead of watching the latest blockbuster book-to-film, why not show a Bollywood film and help students understand that different perspective. Instead of studying about First Nations people from a textbook, introduce media coming from a different perspective, such as First Nations authored stories, histories and songs. There are many ways to expand the experience of students, and it is this experience that is necessary in order to be critically literate.
When I was working towards a degree in archaeology, I had to write a great many papers. I would do research, compile interesting information to support a thesis, and put it together into a paper. This was all well and good, until I received a terrible grade on one of these papers. I couldn’t see why, but I didn’t make a fuss about it. Later, I was taking another course with the same professor. We had a lot of readings to do for this class, which I always diligently did. One class, I had done the readings, and was ready to discuss what I had read. When asked what I thought about the article, I relayed my opinion that it was interesting. Several others in the class shared my view. The professor looked at us incredulously. He went on to highlight many parts of the article, that, if reading critically, it was impossible not to notice that they were utter rubbish. The entire article was
, actually, constructed. It was poorly researched, poorly rendered—it was bullshit. Yet while reading it, I assumed that it
was credible because it had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Looking back, the paper that I had received such a poor grade on borrowed largely from ideas presented by this author. I give this example to illustrate that I made it to university, and through the first year of university, without being a critical reader. I understood that all text was constructed, but I assumed that some sources, like peer-reviewed journals, could be accepted without questioning.
Students need to be taught that everything needs to be questioned. Nothing should just be accepted as is, no matter what the source. It took me until my second year of university to learn this. Students should know this fact before they leave elementary school. They need to question the news, they need to question adds, they need to question everything they are bombarded with on a daily basis. It is hard to think that nothing that students read or hear should be accepted as fact, but this is the truth. Here is another great leap from the 1950s, when children were supposed to accept everything adults told them without question. Now, they must be capable of questioning everything.
Anderson mentions the importance of production in her article. This was not highlighted enough! The only way to help students understand all the thought that goes into producing even the simplest of messages they read is to produce it. Through production, students learn the concepts of audience, message, hidden intentions…less class time needs to be spent reviewing concepts, and more class time needs to be spend producing written work.
Whether it be had or had had, the best effect on the teacher should stem from the students refusal to accept any messages without first questioning them.