DISCURSO Y TABLAS DEL ANÁLISIS DE LA COMUNICACIÓN NO VERBAL
5.1 Transcripción de los discursos de Cristina Cifuentes
5.1.1 Discurso ante el comité ejecutivo del Partido Popular de Madrid (26 de marzo de 2018).
A TOOL FOR ENHANCING LITERACY
Work with one of the more literacy-inefficient students started with the learning facilitator acting as a word recogniser; the student talked, and the facilitator typed and read back what the former had said. The process of reading the student’s transcribed story back to him as he followed the text on the screen often resulted in their intervening and providing more information, which was subsequently added to the story. More importantly, it was noticed that his lips began to move in sync with the facilitator’s voice as the latter read the story back to him from the screen. The student had begun to recognise the patterns of words and phrases in the text of his story on the screen. Then one magical day he said:You didn’t read exactly what’s on the screen. You made a mistake.
At this point it was clear he felt safe to begin to transform his place in the learning relationship from student toward co-learner. Not long after this event, the student began to regularly correct the recording and reading process, by saying: “You didn’t record or read exactly what I said”. Shortly after this, the student began to read aloud what was on the screen and began to use the keyboard to edit his story.
The student’s process of mentally (silently) reading back his own material promoted his acquisition and control of text and language. Even more importantly, it was discov- ered that his reading back of the text reflected his anticipation of what should or could be on the screen, a combination of memory, anticipation, and meaning-making. Signifi- cant divergence between what he anticipated he had said, what was recorded, and what was read back often signalled that information was missing from the story. This frequently led the student to develop and include a whole new level of information and direction that enhanced his story.
Having access to his own story on the screen facilitated the student’s preparedness to risk reading aloud, because he knew the context and detail of the information in the story intimately. Consequently, he could anticipate what was going to be on the screen. The idea of “mistakes”, together with the courage it takes to experiment, was often discussed with the student. In discussing mistakes, it was emphasised that the story was
his story, he was the expert of his story; nobody else knew or owned his story. He had
the power to tell and control what he told and to whom, in other words, who had the right to access his story. The computer provided a good deal of safety because the student was able to put his story on a disc, take it out of the machine, and put it in a safe place. This can still result in withholding all the “truth” from disclosure because the process does not always guarantee safety.
The process of reading the text back to the student as he followed it on the screen often gave him the space to listen to and evaluate whether the information he was divulging was appropriate for the audience it was to be delivered to. It also gave him the facility to question and be questioned whether the story flowed and “hung together”.
Russell: I well remember the day he was reading back, and it became obvious to me that
his text did not flow. The story was flowing, then it jarred, kicked, bucked just like a chain saw hitting a nail in a log. He quickly moved on, and at the end of his reading, I read his passage back to him. I used my voice and actions to suggest something was missing — a relationship hidden, not divulged. At this point we were standing face to face, at most 15cm between us; he verbally exploded as I said:
R: This doesn’t work. Tell me more about this relationship and how it connects to this.
(There was some unfinished business; we were talking about a very close relative that was mentioned in his story.)
S: This is getting too personal mate. I’m telling you mate! You mate are not going to know this stuff!! This is my stuff!!! Family business! (emphasis on “mate”;
vehemence with which the words were spat; I was covered in spittle). We stood staring at each other, which culturally is a huge confrontation and can proceed to getting the crap beaten out of one. I stood still and said:
R: Writing is personal.
S: This is too personal this is my business!
R: I continued to stay very still. I dropped the level of my voice to a normal speaking voice and we began to be able to relax the process. And I proceeded to say: Well
it’s your decision as to what goes in here.
The riches that flowed from this reading back process were huge. From this point on, the writer recognised the value of reading back, the use of voice, body, text, and visuals. The floodgates opened, and he began to write like he had never written before. He came to know he was writing about himself for himself, in other words, for self- exploration and growth. The question of safety and security of information still remains, however.
The learning facilitation process was far removed from repetitive drills and skills. The student experienced the computer as a tool that he could safely experiment with and use to develop, to control, to tell and communicate his stories while simultaneously learning to be computer-literate and literacy-efficient. For example, he was able to make statements to the effect of:
The computer is a tool. It allows me take the boring crap out of writing. Like when I was at school it was exhausting [the process of drafting and redrafting
with a pencil was physically and emotionally taxing]. Bloody boring [tedium, the repetition] and having to get it right! [the teacher’s way, the way of the mainstream in a language and context that was not relevant to the student’s private, cultural and social world. The world beyond the incarceration space of the classroom]. Anyway I was put down the back of the classroom next to
the window so that I could stare out the window: ‘Be quiet! And just wait for class to be finished’.
The student later went on to research and write his own material and began to combine his visual, oral, and textual abilities with his telling stories of his people’s survival and growth.
By using the student’s context, stories, and the language of his labour of everyday meaning-making, he had a rich base for facilitating his acquisition and control of Creative
Arts language and learning. I remember him telling me one Friday afternoon how his writing was informing his artwork. A base had been laid that opened the possibility for him to further his study within the Creative Arts disciplines and enhance his creative process through writing. The process of becoming literacy-efficient through his own stories also provided a starting point for thinking about what form a software implemen- tation of DTW could take. Safety issues still remain paramount. A way through the safety process is enabling students to tell their stories and fictionalise reality, in which we switch the truth for fiction and fiction for truth, and create a place in which they can work safely.