Month: February 2016

Much of what we understand about the current state of the world at the time we are living in it is often taken for granted, or assumed that this was always the case without giving it much thought, even if we know its not the case, we often forget. I believe Resnick’s article on the history of literacy (as well as this class in general) touches on that nicely. Literacy has had an interesting development over the years, starting as an almost homer-like memorizing of certain stories via text for the sheer purpose of reciting and moving to a more “sophisticated” tool applicable to only an privileged few.

The article seems to conclude that there is somewhat of a disparity between our current institutional understanding of literacy, i.e. “functional literacy” and the fact that the needs of the everyday American worker from this point of few are exceeding what is current emphasized/actually provided (especially among school districts)

My question is then: Do we, as a society, need to redefine/refocus our understanding of literacy to one that provides a more holistic benefit (critical thinking, etc) or one that emphasizes the more basic skills we often take for granted?

Paying attention more to the Resnick article, I found a few things rather perplexing about how literacy used to be, especially in France during Revolutionary War times. I found the idea that literacy was often judged as whether not you could recite a few certain pieces of reading a little bit strange (especially in the late 1600s in France). They did not ask for any writing or either comprehension. Then, later in the work it claims that in the 1920s, “the ability to understand an unfamiliar text, rather than simply declaim one, became the accepted goal and new standard of literacy” (Resnick 382).

So, my question is why do you think it took over 300 years for this idea to become the expected value of literacy? Do you think there was an advantage by just memorizing familiar texts in the late 1600s? Or was it just that teachers and parents back then were unable to truly help children understand what they were actually reading?

 

This weeks readings have a lot to due with how perspectives on literacy have changed historically. I am interested in the more recent changes literacy has had in your personal backgrounds. How does your perspective of literacy compare to your parents’, grandparents’, younger relatives’? Why do you think this change has occurred?

For example, my grandparents could care less what who I read, or how I write, they only care about what I am doing to help me get into the occupation of my choice. Their focus is getting a job, because when they grew up you got a job as soon as possible, whatever it took. They do not value the acts of reading or writing, but when they were in school they learned to do both to the extent that the available jobs in the town required. Personally, I love having the ability to have intelligent conversations while referencing nationally respected writers. I value the knowledge one can gain from reading and writing, while my grandparents could care less.

Do the generations in your family have the same amount of disconnect? What part of history explains your differences or similarities?

In this weeks readings, two explanations were offered for our current state of technology usage in order to write and express ourselves. While it is typical for the adolescent to be writing more frequently, literacy skills and writing levels have been on the decline for some time now. Media and technology play a massive role in this: we are constantly reading news articles in under 500 words, and writing to one another as a form of communication rather than talking on the phone or face to face. What are other factors that are contributing to this shift in literacy, as well as actions we can take as college students to change this pattern?

I mentioned this in class on Tuesday, so I thought I’d share. A very interesting and brief discussion of the potential dangers of pushing kids to read (and thus “do school”) too early.

Too Much, Too Young? from the New Scientist

Last week , we talked and read about how sometimes well-meaning white teachers who want to value the culture of Black students end up not teaching their Black students academic English skills. They don’t mean to be doing a disservice to these students, but that’s what ends up happening because the students don’t learn how to write or speak in a more academic context. However, the flipside of this is when teachers enforce academic English all the time, even in casual conversations. We talked about a few different ways that teachers could do this, and they all had pros and cons. For example, the teachers could use roleplaying to practice formal English skills, but this is potentially problematic because students might see it as not accessible or part of themselves.

What do you think teachers can do to get the right balance of valuing language diversity while still teaching students important English skills? Is there something that is key to deciding when it’s time to enforce formal English?

As I was reading the Purceil-Gates piece, I went through a lot of emotions. I was mainly upset when Jenny said that, regarding how to read, “some people think it’s easy… but it ain’t.” That just broke my heart. Why is it hat so many of those in a lower socioeconomic status lack these resources to improve and get a better life? Why is it that these city schools that truly need exceptional teachers, really don’t seem to make the impact they need to, or to push the students like they need to? And the public then dares to blame these people on “not trying to better themselves” and “just skating by” when it truly does not seem to be their faults, at least not in the case of those like Jenny and Donny. My question is how do we begin to address this issue of literacy in those of a lower socioeconomic status, like the ones living in the rough areas of the city?

For my question, I would like to visit the Delpit article about how there is so much cultural conflict inside of the classroom, especially in areas with kids with strong dialects. My first question is why does the method of using the students dialect and way of speaking work in a classroom setting? Does it make it easier for the students to understand? Or does it perhaps make the learning more interesting? Secondly, when is it okay for teachers to stop using this method and go back to traditional learning (because they have to learn the basics eventually, right?)

In one of the articles we read this past week, we saw how some students struggled in schools because they had a different literacy background and how some teachers overcame that barrier.

For example, the one teacher used rap in order to better understand her students. The author emphasized how important these ideas are in celebrating diversity in literacy and how it can help all students better understand language.

If you were a teacher, what is one method or idea you would implement to better understand the cultural differences that your students have?

 

Both of our readings this week featured multiple instances of somewhat unorthodox methods to replace traditional literacy. In the reading on developmental literacy, stepping-stones such as the ‘elemeno’ to replace L, M, N, and O and the use of letters as stand-ins for letters (R=Are, U=You) allow children to communicate without a complete understanding. In the case study featuring Jenny, she used colors and shapes to bypass the need to read signs or labels. All of these cases use patterns recognition and memorization to transcribe and translate messages, in the same way the literate typically read letters or numbers.

My questions, then, are based around the legitimacy of these types of literacy. Can a shortcut to literacy still be considered literacy? If someone is able to perform basic functions by using tricks such as these to bypass the need to read, is there an absolute need for complete literacy? How might the culture of Jenny and her family change if all of them were to become literate?

In many of our readings, literacy has been associated with a change in status and thinking. In a culture that is predominately literate, would an adult becoming literate later in life experience any sort of change, or would these patterns of behavior and culture be too ingrained?