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?
I think using ‘shortcuts’ or Jenny’s sign recognition method can still be considered literacy. The way I see it the ability to read and write is the ability to recognize a pattern as a comprehensible message. While this is true I think that many people, like Jenny, will eventually run into signs or patterns that they do not recognize so I do believe it is still important to strive to become completely literate. You also asked about becoming literate later in life, I believe becoming literate at any age will improve the quality life of an individual.
While I know very little about developmental psych, it has been engrained in my studies that there is a crucial period to learning language and when you miss that time, acquisition becomes very difficult. I learned this while trying to learn Latin. I think that if Jenny did eventually learn to read, it would be hard to incorporate this skill in her every day life because it would take her so much longer to decode the letters than it is to read signs and colors. Learning language would definitely allow her to become more independent, but I don’t think it would dramatically change how she lives her life.
I agree that these ‘shortcuts’ can still be considered literacy. However, I don’t think that Jenny can be considered truly “literate”. If you think back to the exercise we did on the board a few weeks ago where we formed the concentric circles of literacy, I think this example would be placed on an outer circle. The reason behind this belief is that while Jenny is able to recognize symbols and patterns, she lacks the core understanding of what these symbols and patterns convey.
A good example of this was when Jenny talked about the veterinary office sign. She was able to find the office because she recognized the color and shape of the sign, however when the office moved locations and changed signs, she was unable to find it because she did understand meaning of the text on the sign. This example also emphasizes the importance of becoming completely literate.
I would argue that the ability to understand shapes and patterns is not a form of literacy. This is hard to categorize what could be considered a shape or pattern and what is a letter or number, but to make my explanation simple I’ll use Jenny as an example. Jenny knew places based on the shape of their signs, which has nothing to do with writing, reading, or communicating. This makes her recognition of the sign no less impressive, however I believe that literacy does not cross the boundary of non distinct shapes.
While I don’t believe that the sign example is literacy, I do believe that the short cuts of R for the word are is still literacy. The understanding of the word is still there, and could be explained which is where literacy lies, the meaning behind the words, and the understanding of it. This is where I see problems with the “letter” elemeno, because the meaning of each letter represented in this one combination can be lost.