RIGHT SIDE ARCHIVE

Does anyone else have difficulty with the authors preference towards acquisition? Yes it is important, and should happen as a foundation for learning, but is it the only way literacy and discourses are achieved? So much of education is trying to find the perfect balance, between what we think know and new opposing ideas, between self-conceptualization and direct instruction, ect.
And if acquisition happens as natural process does that mean it cannot happen with difficulty? If a student wrestles with an idea but in the end has developed a strategy to solve a problem, have they learned? have they acquired?

i thought this reading was very interesting. I loved the definition of literacy in terms of mastering a secondary discourse. However, I wonder at what point, one can say that they have mastered their secondary discourse. I feel like that alone would be a very controversial topic, as many would say they have whereas, others who are even more skilled in that discourse, may deny that another is considered a "master". So even if there is no fine line to this, where might we be able to draw the line to being "literate".

Also, i loved what jennie said about acquisition occurring naturally, so without difficulty? because at that point wouldn't it be considered learning because in learning we are further putting in effort to know new material and learn, and I feel as if once acquisition becomes difficult and one is struggling, then it is now considered learning.

Sorry i am behind, but I am just finishing my notes on Reading #3-Disciplinary Reading.
I agreed with Shanahan and Shanahan on most points of their article about how we spend so much effort improving young children's reading and assume that "vaccination" will lead them to continually advance their reading naturally as they get older, but that does not seem to be the case. There is clearly a need to continue teaching advanced literary skills at every level of education to build vocabulary as students advance to higher disciplines of learning.

I was especially intrigued by their comments about how we teach them whole word recognition skills for words like "Of", "is", "the", but what happens when they come across words like "paradigm", Rhombus" and "reluctant" later life?  I've tried reading the entire dictionary to memorize more words and that is not the answer. Thus the need to teach Phonics along with other forms of reading tools so students can pronounce words and then just use a dictionary to learn the meanings.  The importance of advanced literary skills in today's economic and political world, not to mention the health care aspect with the forms to fill out, disease and drug names and directions to follow, could make the difference between life or death.

Not only has our world changed from the division of higher literacy jobs versus blue collar factory jobs, but we are encouraging more young people to "be whatever they want to be".
I mentioned in a past posting that my younger daughter had issues with the "Whole word recognition/look-see" version of reading they were teaching when she was in the early grades. She also had problems with spelling and pronunciation. But she was smart in a lot of other ways. I taught her the phonics methods myself and later in life when I told her she could "be whatever she wanted to be", and she chose Veterinarian. The notion that disciplinary literacy cannot be learned at a later age if the proper additional assistance and guidance is given is a fallacy. But of course it depends on the determination and drive of the individual student.  I am proud of the fact that today, although she may not be able to spell every word correctly in a handwritten letter (thus the need/benefit for spell-check and computers), she has been saving the lives of animals and finding solutions for lame animals to walk again in a field that the teachers of the 1950s and 60s would have told her she was not cut out for.  There is a lot to be said for giving that extra help needed by some students to let them adapt and move over the literacy hurdles that might otherwise keep them from their heartfelt vocations.

Let's address the shocking AMA videos of people  who were ashamed to tell doctors they could not read well and ended up signing away permission for hysterectomies, taking medicines in too large of quantities at the wrong times.  It is horrible that this is happening in our society, both from the standpoint that we do not teach the importance of reading to students for just these reasons (not being able to read could kill you), and on the part of the health-care industry not to realize that this is an issue and they should address it with their patients. Perhaps a chapter(s) should be added to our Biology books used in schools about dealing with the health-care industry regarding our bodies and the importance of questioning and reading everything having to do with your healthcare.

Elizabeth Moje studies the intersection of disciplinary literacies at school and the literary practices of students outside of school.  This is interesting because her premise that students draw from their homes, community, ethnic backgrounds and school cultures to "make cultures" is the explanation of what we used to call "cliques" and now might be called "gangs" or "packs".  Students enact identities based on a combination of all these influences on their lives and often choose to become a part of a group of friends of like minds and experiences.  I think I never quite fit in to any one group or clique at school, but was not really considered an outcast or outsider. The study she is doing in Detroit on modern teenagers sounds very promising for us to better understand the teenage psyche.

I just read the Knobel & Lankshear (2008) first chapter of their "Handbook of Research on New Literacies" last night. It deals with how the internet and other social media communication technologies alter the nature of literacy today.  I had already been thinking about this myself and considered this topic as a "Leading a Discussion" subject because everywhere I look people are either typing into their phone, talking on their phone with an earpiece while they work or walk, and sharing videos online.  This has to have an impact on future of education and the level of literacy practices we may hold for students in the future.  They bring up the question of whether this brings "anything new to literacy just because the tools have changed from pencil and paper to screens and texting?"  And the global impact of the fact that the new forms of digital social media and computer literacy has been adopted in such a short period of time by so many people world wide versus the earlier forms of chiseling in stone, to papyrus, to pen and paper to the printing press over thousands of years.  Will this create a greater divide amongst people of advanced literary and low-level literacy, the haves and the have nots over time?

Enough ranting on the questions that the readings/video in Reading #3 brought to my mind. What did the rest of you think about this section?

 

In regard to Sarah’s question: taking this class is a personal example of a clash of discourses. Throughout my undergraduate and graduate career, I have approached academics with a very structured and analytical approach. Most of my coursework has been science-based so focusing on data was key and interpretation wasn’t necessarily as important as having sound, data-driven evidence. With psychology, there is a lot that can be left to interpretation but the rules and guidelines for diagnosis are still pretty structured. I am finding that the discourse required for this class is something incredibly new and different for me. Very rarely have I stopped to break down ideas as much as is required for this class. It’s a good thing in that I’m realizing it’s a skill that I have a deficit in – something that is going to take some work. It’s a bad thing in that it’s uncomfortable switching the way that I mentally approach things for the purpose of this class and I find that I’m very set in my own way of thinking. 

Is anyone else finding that approaching information from multiple viewpoints is proving to be difficult? 

In response to Erica I do believe that it is extremely pessimistic to teach students to fake it to get by. I think it is our job as educators to teach students new discourses . Teaching new discourses will allow students to thrive in difficult situations. I am having trouble deciding what would be the best way to teach these new discourses.

The idea of mushfake made me think a lot about the Brozo video we watched earlier in the semester. The article says that non-mainstream students often have difficulties developing the dominant school based district. In the Brozo video he talked about how a teacher used rap lyrics to teach writing and poetry. This different type of discourse allows non mainstream students to connect with academic topics. However, many teachers do not incorporate non academic discourses in the classroom. What are some ways teachers can incorporate less mainstream discourses in the classroom?