|
|
Post by tom56omara on May 14, 2016 15:59:20 GMT
Today there is growing awareness of literacy as a social practice rather than as a set of skills which a person has or has not. In this approach, literacy is what people do, not what they learn. “Literacy is not simply knowing how to read and write a particular script, but applying this knowledge for specific purposes in specific contexts of use” (Barton 1994 p24). This quote definitely makes sense, but in my opinion education is not there yet. We can argue that just because a student can not read or write doesn't mean that student is illiterate. Illiterate students still "communicate" which is a form of practicing literacy according to the quote mentioned above. My problem with this accusation is if communication is a social practice of literacy then why was this quote from David Barton written in 1994. It upsets me that this quote has a sense of originality. I hope that people who were considered "illiterate" before the year 1994 were at least observed as people who still have literacy skills.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamestgardiner on May 14, 2016 16:26:18 GMT
There's a few pages of the second reading that aren't loading for me. Is anyone else having this problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by leighvand on May 14, 2016 19:36:30 GMT
Yeah, I just didn't try to read them. I think because it isn't a purchased book, it's just the preview, it doesn't show all of them.
|
|
linda
New Member
Posts: 30 
|
Post by linda on May 14, 2016 20:55:45 GMT
Pahl's chapter on Representation brings up how print based literacies are more valued than other, less recognized forms; oral, cultural, digital. She mentions multilingual students bringing a wealth of complex literacy experiences to the classroom, which is just now being appreciated and used in classrooms and education today. When my mother arrived in America in 1948, she was placed in a regular classroom with no English Language instruction and expected to become assimilated into the American culture as quickly as possible. It was the goal-along with forgetting her roots as now she was an American. Her parents, who couldn't read and could not communicate in English wanted the same for her as well. Now schools are more sensitive and aware of what immigrants and second language learners bring to their schools and communities and attempt to provide positive support and appreciation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jennifer Todd on May 15, 2016 21:09:00 GMT
I am having some difficulty with terms we are learning about. Most if them are abstract to begin with but are also changing as we go along. Also, I believe everyone is operating on their own unique definition. For example, before entering this class, my definition of literacy was the ability to read and write. After our first class, that definition was thrown out as to narrow. Now I feel that literacy is more about the ability to effectively communicate in a particular situation, would you guys agree? Now, after listening to the Literacy Events and Practices video, I'm confused again. The video defines literacy as the behavior acquired as a result of belonging to various discourse communities and we then participate in discourse by becoming situated in a practice of a discourse? So is my definition of literacy the same as the situated practice of discourse? I'm not quite sure, but I thought it might be helpful to hear other peoples "definitions" of these more abstract terms. Maybe thinking about them differently will help me settle on a more concrete definition.
|
|
linda
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by linda on May 16, 2016 12:04:44 GMT
I, too, believed literacy meant reading and writing, but now feel that this definition is evolving or at the very least making me think of literacy in a not so linear form. Literacy seems to mean different things in different situations. This gives validation to students with different experiences and can help teachers work in the classroom to encourage and build on literacy attempts. The student who arrives in your class from Central America probably doesn't speak or write in English, but has a rich heritage of culture and language literacy in their first language. In the Literacy Events & Practice video, school success for children increased when it was matched with community based literacy practices. I took this to mean that when the school and community were a 'good fit', as expressed in the video, then students were more successful in their school. Situated practice encompassed many areas, according to the video presentation, and shows how there are different literacies, not just reading and writing. An ELL can struggle in class and fail tests but be literate in her first language. Can we consider a student literate in Art? Without reading anything at all, or being able to read? Or in dance? Culturally literate? I agree with Jennifer about the definitions being confusing, maybe it is better to be fluid in our beliefs (about literacy, for example) so that we can adjust them to help all students to be successful?
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelmartin1 on May 16, 2016 13:45:59 GMT
I read the article entitled "The Aesthetics of Everyday Literacies: Home Writing Practices in a British Asian Household." I now understand why Dr. Boggs was asking us how we feel about reading papers from disciplines other than our own. I thought some parts of the article were interesting, but I also had a hard time getting through the whole article. I did not understand everything I read but there were sections or lines that stuck out to me. Pahl, the author of the article, discussed the home literacy practices of a British Asian family. These home literacy practices are influenced by the "everyday aesthetics" of a family, or how their culture, race, background, and beliefs have shaped the family. Because every family is different, these "everyday aesthetics" will inform the home literacy practices in different ways. For this British Asian family, gardening and their experience of racism were important in framing the discourse of the family and influencing their written texts and oral stories. I am not sure if I interpreted the article correctly, but this is what I took from it. As educators, I think this has important implications in the schools. The main takeaway for me is that every child is unique, with different experiences and backgrounds, and to look for this uniqueness in what students say and in what they write. We can be sensitive to the diversity of the students and encourage their use of their "everyday aesthetics" in what they bring to the classroom.
I also agree with Linda and Jennifer. I am having difficulty with some of the terms that we are throwing around in class. Ever since our discussion in class about the definition of literacy and how that might differ in different cultures and with different people, I also think that I have a narrow view of literacy. I liked what Linda said about being culturally literate or literate in art. But maybe instead of being literate in art, maybe a student is just talented or gifted in that particular subject? In the schools, we proscribe to a certain view and definition of literacy which is why I like Pahl's discussion of the "everyday aesthetics" in the home and allowing students to bring those different voices and opinions in the classroom.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamestgardiner on May 16, 2016 14:16:23 GMT
It seems to me that the definition of literacy, as Linda said, is evolving. From what we have read and discussed so far, I would define literacy as the way people express their thoughts and/or communicate in different settings. It is hard for me to support the definition of being literate as reading and writing well. For example, one of my friends works as a car mechanic. I am a better reader than him, but he can fix anything on a car or truck. I however, am lost when it comes to working on my Jeep. It is almost as if he has a sixth sense as to what the car needs fixed. There's also language used in a garage that I have no idea what it means. When I'm getting my oil change or having my tires rotated, I can hear the workers as well as my friend screaming things that I do not understand. I would consider him literate in the garage, and I would consider myself illiterate in the garage. However, I would be considered more literate in the classroom compared to him. So, I believe literacy cannot be thumbed down to one concrete definition. I think it is a working definition depending on the social practice.
One question I have stems from the definition of literacy being abstract. In IQ/Achievement testing, one must be able to read and write to do well on some of the sub-tests. Therefore, for the most part, one must be "literate" to be labeled as intelligent. An assumption that I have is that if one is very literate then one is intelligent. But, to me, literacy cannot be defined so concretely. Therefore, neither can intelligence. I wonder that if literacy is a social practice then possibly so is intelligence. From the video and article, we see that the Maintown children are the ones that do well at school. These are the types of children in which the norms from testing are made. Although I think it is good to have a base definition of intelligence and a way to test it, I do not think the way we do so is fair. It seems to me to be a very biased process. I also do not think we test all aspects of intelligence. I think we are testing the social practice of intelligence in a school setting. I guess my question is, do you all think that literacy can defined narrowly? Do you think this affects the definition of intelligence? Are the two related?
|
|
|
|
Post by aholcomb on May 16, 2016 15:33:04 GMT
I read Kate Pahl's article, "The Aesthetics of Everyday Literacies: Home Writing Practices in a British Asian Household". Pahl’s study of the aesthetics of literacy when it came to a British Asian family was incredibly thought-provoking. I have never thought of literacy as being a work of art before reading about the ways that this family was able to express their literacy in different ways. Some of the examples of literacy that Pahl included were about textiles, such as sewing, craft activities, stitching, and the embroidery of words. The embroidery of words was the perfect example for me to think about things on a deeper level, because it was the embodiment of both literacy and aesthetic. It is the work of making words look like art. It made me think about how I have several friends that have started practicing calligraphy and how the popularity of the art of calligraphy has grown. Not only my friends, but a large group of people on the internet, have started using calligraphy to write down quotes and sayings and making them look beautiful. Some graphic designers have copied the style in their own work, using the calligraphy style to make quotes into posters. The best example of an artist that has done this is Risa Rodil, whose art can be viewed on risarodil.tumblr.com/ which is her Tumblr. While the family that was studied was not practicing calligraphy, strong ties can be made between embroidery, stitching, or even crafts, and the now growing art of calligraphy. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelmartin1 on May 16, 2016 22:24:50 GMT
J, I can't answer all of your questions but I did have a few thoughts after watching the video "Literacy Practices and Events" that are in relation to what you are talking about. The video talked about how social practices of literacy and how they operate in communities (such as Mainstown, Roadville, and Trackton) leads children to be literate in "different ways." The video also mentioned that there is not a hierarchy of what community has the best social practices of literacy but our job as educators is to be aware of communities differences so that we can meet the needs of each child. By being literate in "different ways" I assume she means making links between the abstract and real, not making these links, or using oral storytelling, which is what differentiated the three communities in Heath's research. But maybe there are different ways for a child to be literate. A good example is your friend who works as a mechanic.
One of my assumptions is that in order to be successful in life, you have to be literate in the way that I view literacy. Just as there are different ways to define literacy, I think there are different ways you can define intelligence. And I shouldn't put what I believe to be true on other people, however I do think that when providing kids with a K-12 education there needs to be a common definition of literacy that educators agree on. Whether you are a mechanic, chef, accountant, or a university professor, I think it is important to have some level of literacy skills so that you can be successful in whatever path you choose, and some paths might require differing levels of literacy skills. Also, intelligence tests may not measure all definitions of intelligence, but it does measure the definition of intelligence that is important for success in school.iThose were just some of my thoughts after reading J's post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiffani on May 17, 2016 2:21:24 GMT
J, I do believe that literacy and intelligence are very closely related. It actually almost seems like we have been using them interchangeably. Your friend is intelligent/ literate when it comes to working on cars. My definition of literacy has become very broad. Because of this, I believe that I will consider a wider variety of measurements/ assessments to identify literacy deficits/ weaknesses or strengths in students. However, I also agree with Rachel in that it is important for literacy to be commonly defined so that there are clear guidelines for implementing some sort of support system for students in the schoolhouse. Without a common definition of literacy and literacy standards, it would be difficult to hold individuals up to certain expectations. Common standards are needed to assess students, to norm scores, benchmark standards/ testing, state tests, college entry-level tests, etc.
Rachel makes a great point that intelligence tests measure the definition of intelligence that is important for students to succeed in school and academics. A common definition of literacy that should be used by educators should be one that conceptualizes the aspects of literacy that are important for success in school/ education.
I also wanted to add a tidbit of thinking that pulls from both J and Rachel's posts: Consider someone who could build a car on their own, build a house, do boss electrical work, or someone who could live off of the land and survive using what they know, BUT they don't know how to spell that well, or read fluently. What definition of literacy is important when indicating these individual's skill levels? Could this effect the view that some weery individuals have of vocational degrees at the high school level?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Navarro on May 17, 2016 2:48:19 GMT
My personal definition of literacy was much like that of everyone who has posted thus far. It is definitely broadening now as I continue to read more of the coursework for this class. It's starting to seem that literacy can almost be compared to someone's phenomenological perspective, or their individual experiences interacting with their environment. Different interactions produce different perspectives, or different literacies.
In one of my English classes in undergrad, the professor had us write a nonfiction piece about a group of our choosing. The example he gave us was a book in which the author spent about a month spending time with and interviewing truckers, and it resulted in a very unique piece about trucker culture. I ended up writing my paper on the Rocky Horror Picture Show group at Universal's City Walk, and it was very insightful to get to see how different groups use different jargon to communicate with one another, and how it lends itself to creating a sort of microculture.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicadiazr on May 17, 2016 2:48:47 GMT
I, like you ladies, am also having a difficulty with the terms that are being used in class. Like Jennifer, I would also like to have a more concrete definition of literacy. However, by the looks of what we have been reading, watching, and discussing, it seems that "literacy" has a more fluid meaning. I particularly like J's definition of it.
To answer on of your questions J, I think that literacy can be defined narrowly, as we see that the majority of us have been doing that (defining it as being able to read and write). In addition, I think that in our profession it can be helpful that we do. I feel like our profession at it's core is to help children succeed, and success in this country seems to equate to being literate in the way that we first viewed literacy. But that doesn't mean that we should subscribe exclusively to that narrow meaning. Having in mind the more fluid version of literacy helps us expand in the way that we help children succeed. By bridging the gap between both definitions, it seems to create a more holistic way of aiding children succeed. We cover success in the traditional terms, but also open up to different successes, such as the one your friend has in his field.
|
|
|
|
Post by ataylor617 on May 17, 2016 4:26:03 GMT
Pahl's article led me back to the discussion we had last class. If we really wanted to I'd imagine we could consider any kind of knowledge a literacy. I always knew that the term "literacy" went beyond reading and writing, but I have never allowed myself to think creatively about the different types of literacies. The video refers to changing "literacy registers" to understand students. Teachers must be aware of of different literacy registers in order to be a successful teacher in any context.
|
|
|
|
Post by crystalpiroozy on May 17, 2016 5:27:59 GMT
As I am reading the comments above my personal definition or thought on what literacy was is changing like what Jennifer previously stated earlier. This class is quite challenging for me since I am trying to embrace all of the literacy concepts that are stated in them. That is honestly because I am new to these types of concept but overall I am agreeing with Jennifer's comments because I also as well thought literacy meant for someone who knows how to read and write in their own language. But after reading the piece from Materializing Literacy's in Communities: The Uses of Literacy Revisited, I realize that literacy has a huge spectrum that can intertwine with many different concepts on perspectives and how things are viewed. These ideas are basically what the main idea of this piece was. Like the quote said earlier about more how literacy is not what you learn instead its more about how you use those concepts that you learned about and applying them to use in situations. After reading that it makes sense that literacy is a word that can be applied to many different situations and its used to say whether or not you perceive the knowledge given to you. I also read that one who can express themselves in a language is thought to have literacy. This sort of true because being literate is not just "memorize words and communicate" but instead you should reach a level of being able to express ideas and deep thoughts in a language that digs into areas of deep thought, that may be an area of being literate in a language. Also being literate doesn't only have to pertain to language but like it was mentioned earlier being literate in an area of practice is acceptable as well. Being literate in fixing computers or working on cars has nothing to do with languages yet they make sense to the understanding of how literacy should be put into context now.
|
|
