EngComp 1552: Uses of Literacy

In the selection from Other People’s Children, Delpit writes, “language choices are not neutral. The language associated with the power structure- “Standard English”- is the language of economic success, and all students have the right to schooling that gives them access to that language”.

Considering the necessity of teachers preparing their students to take certain standardized tests, there seems to be no doubt that “Standard English” is the language of power in our academic society. As future teachers, what are some potential ways that we can prepare culturally diverse students to succeed on these tasks while preserving their culture?

Delpit also suggests a strong connection between language and personal identity. Would it be best to encourage students to develop a knack for code-switching or rather to identify with the language that will help them gain some level of personal success?

I ran across a bit this morning that sheds some light on our discussion from yesterday about print vs. online writing, particularly blogs. There was some uneasiness expressed in class about the lack of vetting in online publications–that anyone could post under any otherwise-untarnished name, for instance, and claim any kind of authority they want.

Although he doesn’t comment on the authority issue, in his introduction to the Best Technology Writing 2010 (Yale U Press), Julian Dibbell points to differences in venue as central to critical reception of writing. He notes that for the edited volume, all of the selections come from print sources–despite the vibrancy and timeliness of blog writing, especially in technology. Borrowing the idea from Clive Thompson, another print-based tech writer, Dibbell says why the selections are still print-centered:

…it is difficult to transplant the best online writing into print with its bloom still intact. Though much maligned as exercises in solipsism, blogs, for instance, are in fact defined by dialogue more than monologue; embedded in a conversational universe of links and comments, they are closer in many ways to what Socrates imagined to be the heart of true knowledge. As such, they do not sit well on the printed page.

I find his (and Thompson’s) assessment spot-on, and important when we think about the contexts for writing and literacy.

Incidentally, Dibbell’s one of my favorite tech writers. Check out more of his work on his website.

Tinslet and Kaestle say,”We can group the purposes of reading under five headings: pleasure or escape; day-to-day information; economic or spiritual self improvment; cultural promotion of dominant or minority cultures; and critical understanding and dissent.”  They also point out that a single text can qualify under more than one of these categories. Later on, Tinslet and Kaestle state that,”…assimilative and critical reading combine to shape indiviuals’ social values, cultural identity, and political understanding…”

It is useful to comphrend the significance of reading texts that are meant to be pedagogical, but what does one miss out on if you are to focus solely on the texts that fall under the last two categories that Tinsley and Kaestle mention? Can you just rely on yhr “pleasure or escapist and day to day information” and be successful in college?

In essence, my questions is this: Can a person be successful without all aspects of Tinsley and Kaestle’s headings? Consider the social, emtional and functional  shortcomings of each.

On page 681 of the Tinsley/Kaestle article, they write that “Reading for information is so mundane, so continuous, and so ubiquitous that autobiographers say little about it”.  This really struck me and surprised me upon first reading it.  In the midst of a discussion about reading for other purposes like “self-improvement” and “cultural maintenance”, I can understand how “reading for information” might hold a little less luster.  However, it also occurred to me that almost ALL of the reading I do is, at least primarily, for information.  Does this mean that almost all of my reading is mundane?  Continuous?  Ubiquitous?

Certainly most of my school reading is for information.  When I read products around my home, the clock, etc. should I be thinking that these acts are just unavoidable necessities of going about my life?  Even when I’m reading a magazine or the Pitts news, I feel like I am primarily reading for information.  But I certainly don’t find those reading experiences to be mundane!

If I was writing my own autobiography, I feel like a huge part of my learning to read, and my earliest experiences with reading and writing, would have to do with “informational” reading.  When my parents, my friends, my teachers were helping me learn to read, informational reading was not just “not boring” it was in fact extremely exciting!  After learning to tell time, every time I read the clock was an adventure.  After learning to read the fronts of books, or magazines, any recognition of a title was a treat.

So I guess, my question ultimately becomes; do you really think that reading for information is “mundane, ubiquitous, and continuous”?  Do you think this generalization is too broad or just altogether incorrect?  And if you do think it’s a correct assessment, then what does it mean to say that such a large portion of our reading is destined to be… mundane?

In her article, Marcia Farr, uses the experiences of a handful of Mexican men to discuss the phenomenon of lirico or the informal learning of literacy. On page 474, Farr discusses a specific case in which one man picked up a pamphlet and began reading much to the dismay of his peers who were unaware that he could read. Farr, in regards to this moment, questions the belief, “if one doesn’t learn to read ‘officially’ in school, what one does when decoding print isn’t ‘really’ reading”.

This belief (which is not Farr’s), in my opinion, opens up a huge can of worms. My question then is simply what are your feelings on this? If one can read the words on the page, but does not necessarily comprehend every word are they still reading? In other words, how much comprehension is necessary to make reading “count”? Also, what are your thoughts on informal vs. formal literacy acquirement? Do you believe self-taught literacy is to be less valued than literacy taught in school?

Reading Tinsley and Kaestle’s piece, I was reminded of a debate that broke out within the literary blogosphere at the end of this past summer. Franzenfreude, as it was later termed, was oriented around the idea that male authors command more respect and are granted greater visibility than their female peers. The debate, well-covered here (http://www.theawl.com/2010/08/behind-the-franzenfreude) and here (http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/08/all-the-sad-young-literary-women/61821/), was complicated by a multitude of factors, including but certainly not limited to demographics of readers, sales, ulterior commercial motives and ingrained gender and social biases.

The Tinsley/Kaestle essay touches on this briefly on the third page, mentioning the derogatory connotation of the term “escapist” reading, before describing the usefulness of escape for a number of different individuals from varied backgrounds. Tinsley and Kaestle focus on female readers, but explore what they call “a great diversity of books.” The debate over Franzenfreude was mired in the issue of diversity, but two ideas stand out to me. The first, that Female authors face more hardship than their male peers. The second is more thorny to me: if women are the dominant consumers of literature, then what does that mean for “diversity?” Certainly escapist reading is a positive action, no matter the text, and female authors deserve more equitable treatment than they currently receive, but are there other imbalances these critics and commentators are overlooking? Should men be instructed to read for an escape? Should women, rather than champion their own, work towards representation for other minority authors, be they queer, immigrant or colored? What must we do to better represent, as Michelle Dean at the Awl put it, “the collective American experience?”

To try and condense my thoughts into a simpler form, what I’m asking, essentially, is how do our various biases affect our attitudes towards reading, literature, curriculums, cannons? There’s no correct answer here, just a variety of experiences and perspectives. Thoughts?

Brandt talks a lot about sponsoring literacy. Perhaps some took it in stride, but I was struck by how much pressure that put on educators – your name following someone through life, their proficiency with language hinging partially on how well you taught them. Since many of us are in education, I was wondering: how do we feel about “sponsoring” literacy? Would you be willing to put your name on the backs of Brandt’s metaphorical jerseys for your students to wear? Do you feel you are in a position to provide any special access to a student or apprentice? Does the idea of being responsible for and having your name attached to someone’s literacy freak you out? Do you think we have a choice either way?

When comparing ourselves, as college students attending a decent university, to Raymond Branch, in Sponsors of Literacy, our situations seem pretty similar.  We have easy access to everything we need in our literary world to become as literate as we wish to be, and there is a certain degree of common literacy background that we needed to get here, otherwise it wouldn’t have happened.  We all had access to the SATs, enough education to achieve good scores on the SATs, and good grades as well.  All of our backgrounds are not exactly the same, though, so could we classify any college student or most college students here as Raymond Branchs?

“Development of Initial Literacy”: In explaining how children acquire literacy, Goodman states, “I believe that all children in our highly literate society become literate […]” (316).

To what extent do you agree or disagree? Why?

And do you think that all children learn literacy the same way?

In Brandt’s article, “Sponsors of Literacy,” she discusses the economics behind literacy development and presents many case studies about people’s literacy levels and work environments that led them to those literacy levels.  Do you believe that literacy is the primary factor in one’s social and economic status? Should she take into account factors other than literacy that may account for a person’s economic/social status?  If so, what are some factors (other than literacy) that you believe she should consider?