Hello, class! I hope your labor day weekends are going well. I chose to celebrate mine by synthesizing some of our inchoate definitions of literacy. Here goes!
The understanding and comprehension assertion that we discussed in class comes up again in Katie’s post, in chg38’s post, and in mwishee’s post, although chg38 and mwishee draw a distinction between the two whereas Katie does not. Cof6 doesn’t bring up the distinction explicitly, but uses understanding and comprehending as synonyms. So it seems we’re not all in agreement on the words we’re using. But there is a sense of consensus that literacy isn’t just decoding; it’s also comprehension. I like the way kvb8 puts it, “literacy extends beyond the shallow act of simply scanning a page or lifting a pencil; a literate person should be able to learn from what they’re reading/writing.”
We see a need for production of language, rather than just reception, or as chg38 humorously writes: “is literacy all that complete if all you can do is take it in and not dish it out?” Using the “unmarked” definition that Barton points out of “illiteracy” to be the basis of his definition of literacy, sm90 agrees that “it seems imperative to consider both comprehension and production crucial aspects of the definition [of literacy].” And in her short explanation, pigtaily biker writes that “literacy operates on both ends of the spectrum as far as interpreting or expressing.” The idea of “exchange” seems to merge both the “understanding” and “production” aspects of literacy in dgdz’s definition.
The notion of standardization, or agreement, as in lms103’s post: “literacy points to an understanding of an agreed system of notation that makes a language common and definable.” The word “standard” makes it into dgdz’s definition, and he wrestles with what that means for the concept of “cultural literacy,” which, he points out, none of us addressed in our conversation in class despite its relevance and prominance in such current icons as Justin Bieber. We all know who he is, right?
Participation is key to knc20’s definition because participation “is the ultimate goal of literacy.” Cinnabarhorse agrees and clarifies that this means active, not passive participation. In other words, literacy is about communication with others. But this definition for knc20 also covers the fact that communication changes across different communities and times—literacy is dynamic.
Levels of literacy are addressed by cof6 and by sbelle, who writes “I do feel that a certain level of proficiency is assumed when discussing literacy.” However, sbelle thinks it’s too subjective to include the measure of how well one reads or writes in a general definition of literacy so she refrains from including it. The issue of age as a factor in levels of literacy erupts in kms186’s definition. She doesn’t want to leave younger kids who are learning their alphabets out of her definition, but she admits their understanding is limited.
Lilypolo is clear about how literacy can involve many different domains of language, such as computer literacy, sign language, etc. The center of alp89’s definition is language, and in her clarification of what she means by language, she agrees with lilypolo that it can include sign language and other languages. Language governs gap23’s choice of words in her definition, although she declines to go into specifics on why. The definition of language is something that blhein wrestles with, and ultimately arrives at a more general sense of communication because she doesn’t seem to want to draw the line between textual and bodily communication; she writes “literacy is communication in all forms possible (human, animal, alien, etc.).” Interestingly, although JennReed1220 says that she’s keeping her definition broad, she cuts body language communication out of her definition of literacy, hence contradicting lilypolo and blhein; according to JennReed1220, “literacy is based upon manipulating a spoken language that is then transferred to print.”
The issue of enjoyment vexes kvb8 in her definition; she wants to include it but doesn’t go quite that far. Also referring to mood and affect, rad75 wants to extend her definition to include creativity and inspiration in writing. I wonder, is there a reason we might want to include feeling and inspiration in our definition, but don’t quite go there?
Some additional, general observations I made reading through all of these…
Few people pointed to the shortcomings in their definitions. Does that mean there were none?
Also, the “it’s too big for me to do an adequate job of defining” is an intellectual cop-out! Of course it’s too big! That’s why we have a whole course on literacy. But wrestling with and trying out new ideas is how we make our brains strong. BRAINZ!
Not that there was a contest, but if there had been, the best title would go to cinnabarhorse for “i put the racy in literacy!” I mentioned on the first day that I wanted to look at literacy differently after this class, too; cinnabarhorse has already helped me do that. 😛
Thanks, everyone, for sharing your definitions with me and the class! I look forward to seeing how they evolve for all of us.