Relections on learning

The Theories & Models of Literacy course offered this Fall 2011 semester was all encompassing, rigorous, and challenging. It was an excellent survey course on addressing the subject of literacy, language, and learning.

            The most important topics for me were emergent literacy and cultural literacy particularly as these subjects applied to individuals and groups who represent economically disadvantaged minorities and women.

The reading assignments that were most meaningful to me were Other Peoples words by Victoria Purcell-Gates and Literacy and Learning by Deborah Brandt. They made power statements about cultural literacy, emergent literacy, and literacy sponsors. They were especially adept in the area of how disadvantage and minority children and adults can advance their reading and writing competencies. We had the opportunity to learn how literacy is acquired, developed, and advanced from both of these authors and scholars as well as how and why children and adults become literate. They were also able to enlighten us on how much illiteracy exists in the world and how we can participate in eradicating it from society.

I would most like to learn more about how we as instructors and educators can teach and help adult economically disadvantage women improve their reading and writing competences and advance their formal educations.

The class activities I found most valuable and beneficial were the team collaborations on assigned topics from the weekly reading assignments. For writing I most appreciated the required blog postings since they provided the opportunity to respond to reading assignments and test our comprehension of the current topic. I mostly enjoyed our whole class weekly discussions around the long table. It provided the chance to get to know our classmates, discuss assignments, and exchange ideas about real life teaching and learning experiences.

Response to Rosenblatt

In Literature as Exploration, Louise M. Rosenblatt makes some interesting observations about methods and strategies used for teaching literature and English language, particularly to high school and college students. Rosenblatt’s basic theory is that students function on two separate and distinct planes, the first is that students learn literature based on what is presented as standard and traditional by the academy, and the second is that students learn by reacting to what they have read (58). Rosenblatt argues that teachers often teach what can be tested and evaluated and students learn my memorizing what they believe they will be tested on. One area of concern is that students are preoccupied with summarizing literature rather than experiencing and understanding the literary works they are studying (61). On the other hand what the teacher is interested in presenting may be different from what impresses students. Rosenblatt suggests that the result of this conflicting interest is that in their quest for good grades students will write about what the teacher wants to hear rather than focusing on the value of the works read or the potential knowledge to be gained. As literary instructors we must emphasize that when embracing literature personal interpretation and analysis are more important than good marks. Rosenblatt argues that in theory the primary aim is to enjoy literature but, unfortunately, in realty we as educators have a tendency to teach to the test.

            When studying literature students should be given every opportunity to express themselves and reveal their emotions. We must convey to students that what they have to say is important and valuable and does necessarily have to coincide with what the teacher wants or expects. Rosenblatt argues that there is no formula for giving students the assurance to speak out (70). However, experienced and creative teachers can develop strategies to encourage their students to think and act independently. Teachers must learn to be efficient facilitators and to create an atmosphere of self confidence among students that is conducive to the free flow of ideas. Most importantly teachers and instructors must have not only a knowledge of literature but of the students themselves. Knowing students similarities and differences will help to mitigate the anxieties and preoccupations that restrict their abilities and expectations.

             

Response to Warlick

In Redefining Literacy for the 21^st Century David F. Warlick informs us that the ways and means in which we communicate is changing more rapidly than past generations could ever have imagined. It is especially important to understand that the current generation appears to be almost oblivious to the changes in the way we view the world and the methods used to convey information. Warlick emphasizes that the advances in technology are happening so rapidly that the devices and mechanisms taken for granted today were unheard of only a few decades ago and that some suggestions made about what to expect in the future must not be ignored, but embraced and accepted. Though Warlick emphatically underscores the inevitability and necessity of technological advances, he concedes that education should be based on a personal relationship between teacher and student and we should resist the temptation to rely too much on computers to do our teaching (10). However, it is also important that this relationship not be one where teachers simply deliver instructions and student passively receive those instructions, but a relationship where teachers act as facilitators and students are active participants with the responsibility to learn to teach themselves.

            If the core of education continues to be the teaching of reading, writing, and mathematics and we are to accomplish this using constantly changing information and technology than we must explore the impact that this information and technology has on literacy and develop strategies to integrate the required skills. If students are to transform from consumers of education to creators of literacy it is crucial that when teaching literacy we emphasize skills that reflect the new information environment. Today students are consuming information that can be published by anyone on just about anything. Warlick is his article The New Literacy, argues that if our students have been taught only to read and understand this information they could be in serious trouble, possibly even in danger. Accessing information in the digital age requires a range of skills which include the ability to identify needed information and use strategies that expose the best information.

            It is critical that students learn to evaluate the information they encounter and to identify its value in terms of their goals. Warlick suggests that as information becomes increasingly important to our economy and culture it also becomes more powerful and can accomplish good as well as great harm and therefore it is essential to teach our students the ethical use of this information and to provide evidence of the accuracy and reliability of the information (The New Literacy). It is also important that students gain an appreciation of information as property that needs to be respected in the same way we respect each other’s material property. Warlick argues that planting a virus on a network is just as destructible as planting a bomb under a bridge (New Lit). Students must realize the importance and value of our infrastructure and how critical it is to our success. There is no question that technology is advancing more rapidly and more intensely than most of us could have possibly imagined just a few decades ago. With this increased knowledge and abundant resources comes a need for talent, skill, and foresight as well as a tremendous amount of responsibility.

             

Works Cited

Warlick, David F. Redefining Literacy for the 21st Century. Worthington, Ohio

Linworth Publishing, Inc. 2004. Print.

-------. The New Literacy. Tech & Learning. www.techlearning.com/print.aspx

            Accessed 11/27/2011.

Response to Winterowd

We have often seen, heard, and used the terms “good writers” and “bad writers” to portray those engaged in the “mental activity that produces texts,” the phrase that W. Ross Winterowd employs to explain what writing encompasses (103). The words experienced writers, inexperienced writers, expert writers, inexpert writers, unskilled writers, beginning writers, basic writers, and better writers have appeared frequently throughout Chapter 6 in The Culture and Politics of Literacy to describe those involved in the various stages of what is known as the “composing process” of writing. I prefer and believe it is most appropriate to use the terms basic writer to describe unskilled or inexperienced writers and good writer for those writers more experience in the writing process.

            What distinguishes basic writers from good writers? Winterowd suggests that good writers develop the ability to make the adjustments required to adequately met the readers expectations and produce “reader-based” texts. On the other hand, basic writers produce “writer-based” texts which do not provide the reader with enough information to properly recognize the writer’s intentions (104). Writing is generally considered a four step process that includes pre-writing to develop ideas, writing out those ideas, revising what was written by adding, deleting and rearranging text, and finally editing to correct spelling, syntax, and grammatical errors. Winterowd argues that good writers make changes, adjustments, and corrections as their writing progresses, whereas basic writers have not developed proper editing and revising skills because they “do not scan backwards as they attempt to move forward” (104). How do good writers differ from basic writers in the areas of planning and revising? Good writers plan more, take notes, and are flexible. Basic writers make few if any plans, preferring to just begin writing, and are unwilling to make changes when they encounter obstacles. Winterowd indicates that good writers tend to make changes in content by adding, deleting, and reorganizing while basic writers limit their changes to spelling and punctuation and make little if any change in content (112).

            How can we help basic writers become good writers? Unlike language, which is a collection of dialects, there is one acceptable dialect, edited standard English, which is characterized by rigid rules of grammar and sentence structure (118). Basic writers have not learned or acquired the system due to inadequate and undeveloped reading skills and lack of exposure to literary texts. Since most words are not spelled the way they sound, lack of exposure to literary texts hinders a basic writer’s ability to master edited standard English. As remedial writing teachers we should focus on the process of writing. Winterowd argues that we should not concern ourselves with errors and what went wrong, but on how we might help them write more successfully by concentrating on improving the process of writing and the difference between correcting errors and providing help with planning, editing, and revising the student’s writing.

            Writing is a complex activity. To help our students become better writers we should analyze our own methods of writing and review our approach to the composing process. Getting started is difficult for most writers as they encounter many procrastinating rituals. Some actions may help us get through the anxiety while others serve no purpose and should be avoided. The surroundings where we write and the writing implements that we use influence our performance. Students should be encouraged to take a favorite pen or writing machine to a familiar place with few distractions to begin their writing assignment. Attitude is a critical factor in overcoming the fear of writing. Subject matter may create enthusiasm and improve attitude, which will increase the writer’s chance for success. Prewriting and rewriting are essential to effective writing and the completion of the final product. Introducing our students to various prewriting techniques and the methods for preparing drafts, including construction of the final draft, will yield better writing and more satisfied writers. As writing instructors our ultimate goal is to advance the basic writer to the status of good writer. We can do this by demonstrating that writing is not only and instrument of thought but also a means of self discovery and self expression.

Works Cited

Winterowd, W. Ross. The Culture and Politics of Literacy. New York: Oxford

            University Press. 1989. Print.

Response to Purcell-Gates

In her book, Other People’s Words, Victoria Purcell-Gates makes some interesting observations regarding the sociocultural view of how language and literacy is learned. Purcell-Gates also addresses some of the more important economic and political aspects that pertain to how education is dispensed within and throughout American society. By innovatively stressing the concept of viewing the world through the eyes of others, Purcell-Gates encourages us to observe educational and cultural theories through the appropriate “lens”. The ideas and theories introduced in this book are paramount to the learning process and deserving of more analysis, research, and detailed discussion.

Most people are capable of learning, but as Purcell-Gates argues, “their abilities are based on their individual life situations” (4). Unfortunately we have a tendency to judge people’s cognitive abilities based on the way they speak and use language. My studies in sociolinguistics have informed me that there is no right, wrong or best way to speak and that any language that serves its users is the accepted standard of that particular language community. The myth that some languages are superior to others has no basis in linguistic theory since there is no objective way to evaluate language to determine which one is better than the others (Crystal 7). Regrettably society gauges the intelligence of learners by the language and dialect they use. I believe it would be more constructive to study why low income and minority groups have low literacy levels and by viewing the world through their eyes or what Purcell-Gates refers to as the sociocultural theory lens (6).

Urban Appalachian people are representative of a group often though of as deficient in language, motivation, learning ability, and parenting skills. Public opinion perceives this group to be unfit and incapable of learning to read and write in Standard English. Purcell-Gates argues that this misconception is due to a cultural difference rather than a deficit (86) and urban Appalachians are merely immigrants to the literate world who must learn about the culture of literacy (180). I surmise that this group faces many obstacles to educational attainment due to the inherent characteristics of their culture. One of the challenges this minority group must deal with is that they are mostly white and of European descent, specifically Scottish-Irish-English ancestry, a class that is not associated with what the general public sees as a minority or protected class. Another obstacle is that this group is not politically organized and is therefore left to their own efforts and individual devices when dealing with school administrators and other bureaucracies. Perhaps the most severe and least visible impediment is the prejudice and stereotyping directed at urban Appalachians. Derogatory references, such as “hillbilly” and “white trash,” directed at this low status minority are still socially acceptable. This negative stereotyping further restricts the group’s access to educational opportunities. It is apparent that negative stereotyping of a language can serve as a mode of exclusion particularly when employed by the media to portray the users as ignorant. Until we can break this cycle of prejudice and discrimination low status groups will not be permitted to participate in the mainstream culture that holds the key to educational achievement.

Research indicates that it takes three generations of urban Appalachian culture to break the cycle of illiteracy. While Purcell-Gates’ efforts to bring literacy to two generations of urban Appalachians was noble, I do not entirely agree with her methods. I would argue that it may have been a mistake to attempt to teach the two generations simultaneously due to the cultural characteristics of these individuals. The child’s pride that led him to protect his mother from shame and embarrassment restricted her ability to learn. The mother’s candor about her inability to read and admitting it to people with the attitude that it did not bother her set a poor example, which hindered the child’s motivation to learn. Considering that the needs, motivations, and abilities of adults and children are different and the unique culture of this particular group, mother and son should have remained in separate learning environments. As teachers we need to adjust our pedagogy and implement more creative teaching strategies and methods. As educators we must develop curriculums that are flexible and permit access for all groups so that we may increase our expectations without lowering our standards.

Works Cited

Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Second Edition.

            New York: Cambridge University Press. 1997. Print

Purcell-Gates, Victoria. Other People’s Words: The Cycle of Low Literacy.

            Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1997. Print

R%eponse Lisle & Mano

American culture dictates that we write in accepted standard academic writing. Our system values individualism and demands that we use our own words in ways that encourages self expression in what Carolyn Matalene refers to as the “Authentic Voice” (790). Bonnie Lisle and Sandra Mano suggest that in the United States the emphasis is on the “personal voice” and “individualism as the basis of identity” (14). However, this Western approach relies on certain ethnological biases and assumptions while ignoring the rhetorical traditions of other cultures. This ethnocentricity assumes that all readers and writers are assimilated into our culture and speak and write in standard American English. I am inclined to agree with Lisle and Mano that a cross cultural or multicultural approach to writing must be established in order to acknowledge the ethnic diversity that exists in our society. It cannot be assumed that all cultures can adapt or are comfortable writing in a personal context. In fact Chinese students find it difficult to write personal opinion essays as it is contrary to their culture and training. Other cultures resist writing about their personal experiences out of pride or due to painful recollections. Lisle and Mano argue that we can’t assume that “students find it easy to write about themselves” and that we should offer accommodations to culturally diverse students who are uncomfortable with a style of  writing that we might take for granted but does not come easy for them (15-17).

When teaching rhetoric it is important to understand that while critical and expository writing may be considered the norm in our society it is not the only acceptable form of writing. Failure to acknowledge such biases prevents teachers from learning about the wide variety of rhetorical models that exist in our environment. Matalene refers to learning the rhetorical practices of other cultures as “contrastive rhetoric” that is based on relationships and an understanding of language and culture (790). There are subtle and not so subtle differences in the world’s many rhetorical systems. Lisle and Mano suggest that what Asian traditions value, we would view as departures from acceptable rhetoric. Though American Indian story telling may provide an alternative and Arabic student writing does not always differ from that of native English speakers, all are considered digressions from the standard. Most importantly I am informed that Chinese rhetoric may present the greatest diversion from the Western form of writing and composition.

The Modern Language Association of America defines plagiarism as “a means to commit literary theft and to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source” (52). Diana Hacker advises in A Writers Reference that “any writing that borrows information from sources; the borrowed information must be clearly documented” (326). Can we surmise that a nation of Chinese writers is guilty of intellectual theft or fraud because the usual Chinese response to a literary text is to repeat it without paraphrasing or quoting the text? Chinese literacy requires intensive memorization, which is considered their most important rhetorical skill. While Western literacy insists writing be original and in the writers own voice, Lisle and Mano argue that “the primary function of rhetoric in China is to promote social cohesion and appeal to history and tradition” (19).

In China memorization is considered the most important attribute of intelligence. Achievement and advancement are dependent on how well Chinese students memorize the classics and their ability to reproduce them verbatim on essay examinations. What Western culture considers plagiarism is highly regarded as imitation and Chinese literary tradition encourages reproduction of writing from memory without citing sources. The idea that Western writers want credit for their own ideas is of no consequence to Chinese writers. Therefore Western academics should respect that Chinese writers are more interested in the harmony of the group than the wants of individuals. Also, I would entertain the idea that since most of Chinese society memorizes and repeats set phrases, this form of writing could be considered common knowledge and as Hacker argues “when you have seen certain information repeatedly in your reading, you do not need to cite it” (83). Therefore, Western academics should be tolerant of Chinese rhetoric and not categorize it as plagiarism.

References

Hacker, Diana. A Writers Reference. Fourth edition. Boston: Bedford/

St. Martin’s. 1999. Print.

Lisle, Bonnie and Sandra Mano. Writing in Multicultural Settings. Embracing a

            Multicultural Rhetoric.” New York: MLA Press. Year unknown. Print.

Matalene, Carolyn. “Contrastive Rhetoric: An American Writing Teacher in

            China.” College English 47 (1985): 789-808.

Modern Language Association of America. MLA Handbook for Writers of

Research Papers. New York: 2009. Print.

           

Response to Goody & Ong

The digital age has brought considerable attention to backup systems designed to preserve stored data in the event of a systems crash or other physical catastrophe that could destroy the very script that has meticulously been saved. Even stepping back just a few decades we discover that a considerable amount of time, money, and valuable space was dedicated to storing written paper files for eventual reference and retrieval. It would appear that a significant number of resources could be conserved if we reverted to the simple memorization methods and mnemonic devices that were employed by ancient oral cultures. Of course it would be absurd to think that schemes such as numerical sets, storing knowledge in stories, or constantly repeating information accumulated from generation to generation would serve a modern and highly complex society. However the idea provides some insight as to how an illiterate person with no reading or writing skills functions in a contemporary and mostly literate world.

Studying the writings of Walter J Ong and Jack Goody from Literacy A Critical Sourcebook directs us to analyze reading, writing, and literacy, and perhaps more importantly illiteracy, from a different perspective. Ong suggest that illiterate people are deviants because they lack literacy, which is considered normal, and the basic mechanical skills of writing (19). To appreciate the functionality of literacy and harbor a compassionate understanding of the world inhabited by illiterate people, it is important to grasp what writing is and how it is perceived by the nescient. Ong argues that literate writers think of words in letters and illiterate people hear only a sequence of sounds and this distresses literates because sound vanishes (20). Literate people prefer to have things written down. Suffice it to say that most of us have been informed that though an oral contract is as binding as a written one, it is crucial to get words in writing because if it was not written down than it was never said. People who live in a solely oral environment have learned how to survive and operate in a world consisting only of sounds and events. However to manage in these surroundings requires an extraordinary amount of energy and mental capacity. In reality it is inconceivable to expect an illiterate person to live a fulfilling life under such circumstances.

Jack Goody suggests that “progressive changes in the writing system increase the number of literates” (32). To further this concept Goody gives us three broad kinds of lists. The first is a simple inventory list for recording events, situations, objects, and people. The second is a shopping list, which serves as a guide for future action, a to-do-list if you will. The third text is a lexical list, which resembles a basic dictionary or simple encyclopedia (33). To emphasize the significance of literacy in our everyday lives I suggest you imagine an illiterate person attempting to manage using only oral skills. I think you will agree that the thought of someone operating in modern society, under these circumstances without any written records of personal transactions or a basic guideline script is incomprehensible. The fact that this scenario does exist in our communities should prompt us to explore avenues that will lead to higher literacy levels and improved reading and writing skills.

The idea of writing as a technology presents an interesting concept that has negative and positive connotations. On the one hand Ong argues that “writing was an intrusion, though an invaluable intrusion, into the early human world, much as computers are today” (21). On the other hand Ong identifies Plato’s condemnation of writing as a comparison to the objections people have against computers, specifically that they are an external alien technology (22). I would yield to Ong’s theory that writing is one of the three technologies of the word and perhaps the most important since it “initiated what printing and electronics only continue” (22).  Printing and electronics are readily acceptable as the principal technologies of the word. However some people have difficulty accepting writing as a technology, but since it uses tools and materials it should be acknowledged as the technology that it is. It is understandable that ancient oral cultures would regard writing to be an artificial device devoid of human involvement similar to the way some view the absence of human contact as characteristic of the digital age. Resistant as we may be to new technology, in the final analysis all cultures come to the realization that they are using the apparatus of that same technology to denounce it.