Dear Mr. Hirsch,
I am writing to you in regards to your book Cultural Literacy. I first read your book in 1996 in my Education Seminar while obtaining my teaching certification. I found the book to be intriguing and somewhat of an ego boost. Being a trivia buff, I enjoyed going through the lists and seeing how many of the terms I knew. I also enjoyed comparing the number of terms I knew with that of my classmates. Since I was older than most of the others in the program I usually knew more terms than they did, this provided the ego boost I mentioned before. However I did not relish the time when they knew more than I did. I can see where someone who was not familiar with many of these terms may feel somewhat intimidated speaking with someone that referenced these cultural phrases.
In one aspect I agree that it is important for people to be educated in the culture of their nation. For someone to not know who Roger Maris, Newt Gingrich or Jonas Salk are seems they are lacking common knowledge that they should have. The more people know about our culture the more connections they can make to other topics. It follows the axiom 'the more you know the more you can learn'.
Although I agree with your philosophy on cultural literacy I differ in how people should go about learning these cultural terms. Students should not be expected to learn terms through rote memorization just so they can spit them out during a conversation. It doesn't mean anything if people can recite terms but do not know the meaning or history behind them. Students need to learn the complete history behind your cultural terms. This may present a problem with becoming as culturally literate as you wish them to become. But then again are they truly literate if they no the term but not what it means? Is a student literate if they know the alphabet but cannot read words?
Paul Tavarone
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with what you said about everyone knowing common knowledge. Everyone can learn this knowledge through school and continue learning in the future. This would address the problem of knowing more than another. I would assume that some students would be more knowledgeable in other topics than others, but vice versa.
Dear Mr. Taverone,
Of late, I have been bombarded with criticism over my claims for the need for cultural literacy. Thus, it is very nice to read that someone agrees with me that cultural literacy is essential. Students need to know a lot of information (terms and concepts) in order to be able to be good citizens. Unfortunately, many of my critics claim that cultural literacy is not the main goal of education.
However, the path to creating culturally literate individuals must be as efficient as possible. The reason for this is simple. In order to become culturally literate, you must learn many concepts and terms. Thus, time is precious, and rote memorization, is the best way to save instructional time. This is, in part, because rote memorization can be done outside of class. There is little doubt that students will learn more terms via rote memorization than they would using something like the “project method”.
Also, I understand why you disagree with putting a huge emphasis on rote memorization. While rote memorization does not lend itself to in-depth analysis of a particular term or topic, it does allow for one to learn a lot of terms and concepts quickly. Thus, I interpret your questioning of me suggesting rote memorization to mean that you are wondering what is more important, quantity or quality. I think the reality is that quantity is particularly important to becoming culturally literate. Students need to learn many terms and concepts in order to be ready for the “real world”. My philosophy of education is the only one that meets this need.
Sincerely,
Mr. E. D. Hirsch
Post a Comment