EngComp 1552: Uses of Literacy

In, “The Development of Initial Literacy” by Yetta Goodman explains how children establish and mature writing and reading throughout literacy events. Literacy events are incidents where literacy actually has a task in a person’s life. She also says how children “respond to names, logotypes, and directions (page 318)” and that the children truly comprehend the true meaning(s). When she gives the example of when a stop sign’s importance is, Yetta Goodman says that child understands the meaning. However, depending on the age of the child, does this child actually process this information into their minds that this sign means, “STOP” and know what they are stopping for? Or does the child remember their parents telling them that a stop sign means you must look both ways before crossing the street so that every time they see that sign, they do not know why they are stopping; they just remember their parents telling them to do so.

I guess I have to say that I am hesitant to fully agree with Yetta Goodman’s analysis. I do not believe that a preschool aged child grasps (for instance) what the directions are of an activity, the teacher tells them what they are suppose to do, and the children do it. On the other hand, an elementary child may be able to interpret these directions without being told what to do and be successful. Do you think children are capable of analyzing such things like directions, books they have read, or even signal signs? Do they actually understand the true meaning? Or do you believe that specific ages are capable of doing so? It seems to me, it depends on what age group you are considering.

In “Sponsors of Literacy,” Brandt argues that, in addition to familial upbringing and racial status, there exists another force that shapes how we become literate and determines what types of literacies we learn.

Briefly examine your own life and pick out some notable “literacy sponsors.” How have they shaped your literacy up to this point? Do you feel you owe them something in return? Finally, do you think your literacy would have developed the same without the aid of these “sponsors”?

As Goodman stated, “Although it may seem obvious, it is important to remember that children’s development of literacy grows out of their experiences, and the views and attitudes towards literacy that they encounter as they interact with social groups” (317). Goodman then refers to the three “major roots” of literacy: the functions and forms of literacy events, the use of oral language about written language, along with the third: “conscious awareness about literacy, including its functions, forms, and context” (319).

My question concerns this third literacy “root”: Do you agree that in today’s society children can be “conscious” about their own literacy? How can we know that this takes place? Can we distinctly say that despite all social/cultural influences and subliminal learning, children are aware of their literacy? Or do you believe that our development of literacy is generated more from unconscious experiences?

In Rose’s literacy narrative, he discusses his experiences growing up the son of two immigrant parents in a rough and violent neighborhood. As a child, he strived to educate himself, soon being able to do things his parents couldn’t. He had a passion for learning, and reading, even going as far as to state that “Reading opened up the world.” (23) However, later in his schooling–when he was put in the vocational track, specifically–he dumbed himself down. He says that “You have you shut down, have to reject intellectual stimuli or diffuse them with sarcasm, have to cultivate stupidity…”(29). Do you think that educational tracks sometimes force kids to fake their level of abilities and intelligence, for better or worse? Why? Do you think that, depending on your environment or even your age, there is a certain stigma that surrounds literacy/intelligence? Or, is it just a different type of literacy that you must apply?

Thinking about Rose’s upbringing with immigrant parents made me think a lot about my own childhood. Growing up with a Finnish mother, I’m sure my experiences with literacy were far different than people who grew up with solely English-speaking parents. Because I was raised speaking Finnish and English, I find an interest in thinking about literacy in the way of speaking multiple languages. With the idea of foreign languages in mind, what does it take for someone to be literate in a different language? We often compare our ability to speak a foreign language in school on a scale from beginner to fluent, but where does literacy come in to the equation? Is literacy only measured in your native tongue?

Rose’s tale of a boy growing up in a violent area, plagued with lack of intellectual influence and guidance, and a poor education system is not as uncommon a story as we may think. In fact, growing up in a similar area in California, I can attest that this seems more the norm in some areas than the rarity. Many kids use defenses of indifference to education as a means to shield themselves from the embarrassment of not knowing elementary concepts that they’ve seen in school a million times. Yet, this problem is continually seen and often ignored across the board.
From what we have read of Rose’s background, we know that though he spent years behind, bored, and indifferent in many of his classes, we also learn that as a child he had a budding interest in chemistry, astronomy, and sciences; which led him to expand his knowledge through literary practices. Most students, both those who are accelerated in their education and those falling behind have some interest or area in which they excel or are engrossed by.
Seeing how Rose’s interest in sciences led him to build his skills in reading and drawing, do you think that applying other disciplines to a particular area of interest to each individual student could help them further their learning in other areas? (For instance would a child who is interested in cooking benefit from learning to improve reading and writing skills through reading and writing recipes, improve mathematic skills through learning measurements through cooking, chemistry and biology skills through learning about nutrition and reactions when cooking, history through learning of how food and culinary arts have developed and changed throughout the years and the world?) Do you think perhaps this would not only generate interest in individual students having trouble, but perhaps provide applicability to the things their learning? Or on the other hand do you think specializing in too specific an area could close off doors to learning in other areas? Is this kind of teaching even possible in today’s education system?

I’m actually not sure what week it is or if I’m supposed to be posting or have posted, so I thought it might be prudent to put up a question anyway. Here goes:

• How important is it to have someone to read to? Akinasso seemed to think it was a very important part of literacy. So much so that his quest to find someone to read to takes up a significant portion of his literacy narrative. So how important is it in the definition of literacy to have someone to read to? If, somehow, you cannot communicate your complete language verbally – for instance, an entirely text-based culture in which texting, writing notes, and reading other peoples’ writing are the ONLY forms of communication – are you still literate? Or do you need to be able to read to people and give speeches and such? Along the same lines, what if the written language is separate from the spoken one, so that speaking to someone and reading to them are entirely separate?

Considering many of the individuals in this course want to be teachers, what are your feelings about Rose’s claim that “Students will float to the mark that you set”.  Since literacy seems to be such a malleable concept, do educators need to constantly identify and adjust their lessons to suit specific students coming from backgrounds like Rose? Or would it be better to teach to a predetermined lofty standard in hope that everyone will reach such goals?

Reflect on personal experiences identify what qualities make teachers like Mr. MacFarland so influential. Additionally, discuss whether these characteristics would be universally effective or how they might have particularly suited you at that point in your life.

Though both men were raised in what can loosely be labeled “non-literate” environments, Rose and Akinnaso had different methods of becoming literate; and thus the attitudes towards those methods differ.  Compare and contrast the beliefs Rose and Akinnaso have towards their learning styles.  More specifically, was one view focused more on intrinsic/extrinsic values?  While Akinnaso emphasized a “keen sensitivity” (149) towards learning, would Rose feel the same way or differently?  Which method do you believe provides a stronger foundation for learning?

Akinnaso relates his unique journey to literacy in his essay Questioning Literacy and Individual Consciousness. In the current educational reform atmosphere of American education a student’s home life is frequently touted as the most debilitating or successful variable in a student’s success.  Given Akinnaso’s example of a home life where no homework or language acquisition help was available, how important do you find the pride he felt rising above the level of his community in being asked to help in increasing literacy-requiring events?  Are there ways that his situation could be used as a model to help literacy acquisition and English language learners in the current US education system?