Uses of Literacy

Our class discussion on Thursday revolved around how people of different socioeconomic backgrounds potentially may be lacking in literacy for several reasons, such as motivational factors, home and or work distractions, and potentially who their sponsors of literacy are. For the readings, they discussed a different outlook on why reading levels might be low, and the answer to that is a problem with cultural assimilation.

Based on the readings, and your thoughts on cultural assimilation, immigration, etc., do you believe that immigrants and minorities should conform to already established customs and attitudes that have set the bar for the importance of literacy? Or do you think we should take a pluralist approach, meaning that our nation should be open to different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups to exercise their individuality and help strengthen the ever-evolving definition of literacy so that no one is illiterate? In other words, should those who come into the USA be forced to become like “us,” or should we strive to broaden the meaning of what it is to be a literate American citizen to something more? What dangers do you foresee if we were to remain very by the book or if we were to take more of a pluralist approach?

In class on Thursday, Professor Vee gave us a sheet that covered some statistics on literacy in 1992 and again in 2003. We discussed some things about how the percentage of people in the “below basic” literacy rating decreased, but the percentage of people in the “proficient” literacy rating also decreased. The number of people classified as “intermediate” increased.

What do you think is a potential cause of this trend and what is one solution you think would help that problem?

For example, access to public education for all students would explain the lower amounts of below basic ratings, but the standardized curriculum could also cause lower ratings of proficient literacy. To resolve this problem, perhaps vary the curriculum in schools and focus them on what main literacy standards are expected nationwide.

In Kate Vieira’s article, “American By Paper,” she describes a concept that she calls “fragmented assimilation.”  Unlike the usual use of the word assimilation, fragmented assimilation accounts for the dynamic, changing environment and multicultural atmosphere that immigrants enter and assimilate into.  It also centers assimilation on the ways that immigrants use biliteracy to “assimilate partially to multiple host communities that are themselves being transformed by the writing of new immigrants” (Vieira 52).  Do you think that this concept of fragmented assimilation is useful for destabilizing the racist connotation of assimilation?  What is working and what could be better about the concept of fragmented assimilation?

In class Thursday, we discussed different communities, and whether it was right to impose different views of literacy upon them, even in attempts to educate. In our reading by Vieira for this week, the relationship between immigration and literacy was discussed. In many of the cases, literacy and bureaucratic measures made it difficult for immigrants to become citizens and help their families immigrate with them. In a few unfortunate circumstances, their misfortunes were abused by others who took advantage of their expired visas or imperfect English.

While outside resources to improve their English and navigate the government bureaucracy would be helpful, there are some potential conflicts. As we discussed Thursday, even good intentions might have negative results on a community’s identity, self-esteem, and culture.

Would it be appropriate to interfere in this situation? Would a hypothetical literacy ambassador be well-received, or would they be seen as an agent of colonization? Does the identity of the ambassador impact the situation, and who would be likely to be well-received, and who might be rejected by the community?

On an average day I write about three-five emails. Before I go to bed I read the shortened headline articles on Buzzfeed. Due to so many long assigned readings from just about every course I must admit that I have developed impeccable ‘skimming’ skills. All of my daily activities coincide with the “literacy shift” (3) that Brandt talks about in our reading. I do agree that lately I (alongside many of my peers) am more preoccupied with writing than I am reading. I think it speaks volumes that I choose to read articles from Buzzfeed because they are so short and get to the point. Those emails I write are also simple ways of me just getting across direct messages to my co-workers and professors. Looking back I skim each article just enough to get the gist of the thesis. Every time I sit down to read or write my goal is to be as direct, concise, and quick as I can be. My question however is similar to a question Brandt poses, today is the beauty of reading lost? 

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