Author: jmusco

The Stanley Fish article provided an interesting point to me that really actually did not make too much sense considering our past conversations about high school learning and teachers. At the beginning of the article, it stated that middle and high schools were not teaching writing skills in an effective way, which is unfortunate. I found this simple fact even more astounding when I drew back to two weeks ago when we talked about how the SAT Writing section was the second most important indicator for college success. These two facts just do not line up the way that they should. So my question is, how does the SAT Writing section predict college success when Stanley Fish just said that kids are coming into college without knowing how to write? Does this make sense?

The Dennis Baron article From Pencils to Pixels provides a brief history between the creation of the pencil and connects it to the creation of the computer we know today. One interesting point that I found (probably because I can relate to it) was in the beginning when he said that Braun often struggled writing and drafting notes during a conference because it was on a notepad instead of a virtual surface. He claimed that the physical effort of crossing things out and erasing seemed to almost overwhelm and restrict him. So, this made me think about how virtual surfaces help, but also hinder us on a daily basis. With the constant additions of technology in our lives, is there a point where there is simply too much technology and it is just easier to revert back to “pencil and paper?” Or do you think technology is only here to help, not hinder us?

The Lu article is all about the struggles between traditional classroom settings and the home. I found the stories and examples used interesting because they showed (especially the Marxism scenario) how even government and political ideologies affect literacy. However, I was most intrigued by something towards the end of the reading.

Later in the article, Lu talks about how both her and her husband are proud of how their daughter is doing in school, but they are worried that her very fluency will “silence” her in the scene of reading and writing beyond the classroom. I found this part interesting because (as a young college student myself) it makes me think how much classroom time is needed to perform your intended job later in life. So, my question is, what is more important, the ways of the classroom or more “on-the-job experience?” What is more important in developing into a white collared worker? Explain.

Like my classmates, I am also interested in what I read for the Gere article, The Extracurriculum of Composition. I am taking note at when Gere talks about the history of the acceptable composition that we accept today. I found it interesting that the “extracurriculum” was a nonacademic tradition that led to the development of English studies.

So outside of the classroom, college studies were participating in these clubs that actually enhanced their composition and ultimately their literacy. This brings me to the idea of sponsorship and schooling that we have talked about before. What should you value more, the traditional setting of learning in the classroom or the extracurriculum activities that also enhance composition and literacy? Or are they equally important in developing into a literate person? Why?

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?

 

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?)

Towards the end of Thursday’s class, we discussed Deborah Brandt’s Sponsors of Literacy and how she specifically defined people/things that sponsor literacy. At the end of her definition she says, “and gain advantage by it in some way.” What type of “advantage” does she mean by this? Is it strictly monetary value or is it more? Then, are there possibilities in where people don’t gain an advantage, but rather do it for other reasons?

My memory of literacy just occurred over my winter break in between semesters. Despite the fact that it was a very short break, I found myself very bored at home and wanting something to do. So, I began to thumb through old projects from elementary and kindergarten school days. I began laughing to myself at such the weird things I wrote and how they did not make any sense at all. For example, there was a simple sheet from kindergarten that was just a list of my favorite things (food, music, hobbies, and so forth). Considering the fact I was very young, I wrote some things down that did not make any sense at all. For example, as my favorite sport, I wrote ‘Suker.” If you couldn’t decipher at what I was trying to say, it was “soccer.”

The idea of how we develop into literate beings caught my attention when I was reading this. It just perplexes me as to how we can develop our minds and mental ability to become literate beings. Returning to the ideas of the class discussions, I am curious as to whether literacy is learned better from a classroom setting or just the surrounding environment and the places kids grow up in. I have never really thought about it, but the word literacy is a lot more than it seems.