Literacy Blog on Bartholomae and Eckert

English 329

Professor Boland

12 November 2009

Literacy Blog on Bartholomae and Eckert

            The relationship between literacy and it’s role in the traditional classroom can be seen in the following literacy texts, “Inventing the University” by David Bartholomae and Lisa Schade Eckert’s “Bridging the Pedagogical Gap: Interactions between Literary and Reading Theories in Secondary and Postsecondary Literacy Instruction”. Bartholomae speaks about the student and teacher relationship in the university, more specifically the role each person is responsible for pertaining to a piece of written work.

Bartholomae explores the errors that may arise in the relationship, for example, a new college student writing a paper for one of her classes will have to determine the teacher’s styles and expectations and write according to her standards. According to Bartholomae, “Every time a student sits down to write for us, he has to invent the university for the occasion—Invent the university…” (60).  This type of constant behavior will cause the student to automatically adhere to that genre’s expectation of that teacher. Bottom line is; the student will have to learn to write like their teacher/professor. Therefore, causing the student to lose or lessen her personal and creative voice to satisfy the professor. This may cause someone to lose faith or their love for writing because they will have to learn to write for the expectation of someone else. Losing a piece of themselves in the process.

            Furthermore, Bartholomae delves into the important relationship between writers and their readers. This is evident on page 64; he states, “…A writer’s ideas or his motives must be tailored to the needs and expectations of his audience”. He wants the author’s writing to tailor the needs of the readers and establish the relationships (“build bridges”) between their point of view and the reader’s (64). This is so the reader can understand the point the author is trying to convey and to make sure the reader is strongly following along in the work. For him, the reader’s understanding of the text is important to the quality of the work and if the writer is able to cater to the needs of the reader.

This leads to how Bartholomae also wants the author to write for the expectations of others. Thus, “The writer who can successfully manipulate an audience...is a writer who can both imagine and write from a position of privilege” (64). By being able to cater to the needs of your reader, you will be a well-rounded and very good writer. You’re creative skills will be very good which will also enhance your creativity and ultimately making you an overall better writer. Bartholomae is very specific in what he wants in the relationship between a writer and the reader. He shows the specific roles each person should play and how the writer should always be in control of their work and be able to accommodate the needs of their readers.

Moreover, Eckert focuses more on the student’s ability to understand and interpret the text. This article dealt with the importance of being able to understand literature in it’s entirety before you must comment or further break down the reading. For example, “There remains a gap between the conception and teaching of a reading and interpretation”(Eckert 110). This shows how pivotal it is for a student to first know how to interpret a text before they can actually do so. If you don’t know how to interpret a text or extract important items from that piece of literature, then you will just read without ever knowing the meaning of what you’ve read. Hence, “Too often, secondary school teachers and college professors expect students to effectively use advanced reading strategies and interpretive approaches…” (111). This is very true, students enter classrooms expecting to learn how to analyze and interpret texts and they are the ones who end up doing the analyzing. They aren’t taught how to do it but rather thrown the homework and expected to make the best of it. This is what sets the student up for failure or a difficult time in the class, learning and understanding the work. For instance, “Words mean something because the reader expects them to” (114). This shows how a student has the ability to give meaning to something they see fit. They have the option to give it importance, whether it needs it or not. Overall, Eckert shows how important it is for the student to be able to extract the meaning out of a text. It is both the teacher and the student’s responsibility to ensure their understanding of using strategies and being able to interpret and analyze texts.

In conclusion, both texts speak to the importance of the relationship between the student and the teacher and the importance of understanding how to analyze a text before attempting to even do so and also, the importance of the writer having control over their literature and making it understandable for the reader. Both text coincides with each other, you need to know how to analyze and interpret in order to read and respond to an author’s piece of work. I would like to know what kind (if any) of research is being done to assist the student in learning strategies to interpret literature and texts? This will help then to become better students and overall learners.  

Week Six: Discourse is/as Literacy

I apologize for the late post, I thought I successfully post this blog last week. Apparently there must have been a mishap. Thank you Jasmine for letting me know! :)


David Barton and James Paul Gee introduces the idea of discourses and the issues within literacy in "Literacy Embedded in Language" and "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction." Barton discusses that there is a relationship between literacy and language from various perspectives as we already know from hearing different perspectives of our classmates from various class readings. In greater depth, Barton also discusses the general ideas about language, making points about how language is used in different ways as well as how it is a part of a discourse and how discourse is a part of text. Barton claims that texts are bound to each other through intertextuality; that people are positioned by them; and the study of literacy as of all language is the study of practices and the study of texts (Barton, 72).
Barton believes it is important for us to understand registers within discourses. He explains that registers are identifiable different ways of talking in different situations. People decide naturally what is an appropriate register for a certain group. For instance, as Barton explained, a person would choose an appropriate resister for talking to a professor, or a mother, or child. The idea of a variety of registers is for us to understand that a spoken language does not only have registers but in writing as well. An e-mail to a friend would certainly have a different register than for a professor; people also choose an appropriate register in writing. As we have different forms of writing, we also have different genres. The purpose of the two: register and genre, is to understand the conflicts that have arose in terms of theories for the study of literacy. The problem as Barton brought up is that a person can make more specific distinctions. Barton gives an example that we can make distinctions of the way people speak in a staff room, or in a science room, or at a teacher-parent conference, and so on. He points out
that genres, registers, and discourse can go as narrow as possible or broad as possible.
Discourses differ in how the language is used. Discourse is a important part of literacy and language because it can emphasize that language is only one part of any social interaction, whether it is talking to a good friend, a professor or a classmate. The discourse of the social interaction involves appropriate language as mentioned above, but appropriate behavior and setting. Barton explains to us that the idea of a discourse is suffering from two problems in terms of registers and genres: having very general senses and much narrower ones, and implying them into ceratin theories (Barton, 74). As I agree with Barton, we need to stop focusing on the narrow things about discourse, or literacy forms that have been already mentioned: narrowed registers and genres, and start focusing on the broader aspects of study of literacy.
Then James Paul Gee continues with the theories Barton has discusses about. Gee makes interesting, yet fairly convincing points. Gee begins with a claim that there are some things within the world of literacy that just simply do not belong in the world of literacy. First thing he points out is that the term "language" can be a misleading term; I agree with him. Before being introduced to the issues of literacy in English 329, I was certainly misled with the term "language." The term "language" refers more to grammar than literacy which consists of reading and writing. As sad as the truth is, a person can know clearly of the grammar of the language yet not know the usage of language. Gee believes that the misleading claims and theories about language has led us here today with an issue that many people are lacking the formality and understanding of literacy. Gee provides a perfect example of how a person may know perfectly of a grammar and not know how to use that language: if a person walks in saying "May I have a match, please?" The person had all the right grammar, but what the person said was considered wrong. If he had said, "Gimme a match, wouldya?" then it would be a correct (Gee, 5). But Gee tries to point out that it is not the language or grammar that is important but the combination of saying (writing), doing, being, valuing, believing–Discourses. Any time we use language, we must say or write the right thing in the right way while playing the right social role and (appearing) to hold the right values, beliefs, and attitudes. Therefore Discourses are ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs and because of that thought, Gee believes that we should capitalize "discourse." Gee makes a good point that a Discourse is not a body of knowledge such as physics or even linguistics. So that means someone cannot be taught to use a Discourse since we cannot teach them to be a linguist even though we can teach them the knowledge of linguistics. That is exactly what is happening throughout classrooms–teachers believe they can teach students a Discourse, when in reality they cannot. Like Gee said, the most a teacher can do is teach English, practicing to be a good reader and writer with you. Then Gee complicates the subject by adding to his theory about secondary Discourse. He says that we can learn the secondary Discourse just as if we were learning another language but if that does not work well, then we always have the primary Discourse we can fall back on. Therefore Gee defines literacy "as the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse" (Gee, 9). Which means, literacy is always plural–literacies. Frankly, Gee is right. We can see that for ourselves right in our English 329 class, when we discuss our perspectives and definition of literacies because we all come from different Discourses and some of us may be fluent in a secondary Discourse and some of us may not be fluent with a secondary Discourse.
Overall, Barton and Gee point out very good points about discourses, and shows us that we need to understand the bodies of literacy–which a discourse is not necessarily the body of literacy according to Gee. They point out that we need to understand what is and what isn’t part of language, linguistics, and literacy, and better yet, what exactly are those three? They are all part of our spoken and written language. But what we can do as teachers is work with the students with discourses they already have and teach them literacy. But even then, can literacy be taught? Gee mentions there are multiple literacies, if that is the case, then what literacy do we teach them? Going back to our previous readings, when we looked at formal and informal literacy, I believe we need to keep those in mind in terms of what to teach when it comes to being aware of multiple literacies. The informal literacy can be multiple in my perspective, but formal literacy, I cannot see how it can be multiple. There is only a certain way that can be considered formal literacy. I think that is where teachers come in–working with the discourses that are already established within students, and teaching them the formality of literacy. What I mean by the formality of discourse, I mean the formal discourse we are use among classrooms. To conclude to my views of Barton and Gee’s readings, I have been pondering with a question: can informal literacies be considered as a secondary Discourse, or is formal literacy at this point considered a secondary Discourse?

"Reading Texts, Literacy, And Textual Authority"

The article “Reading Texts, Literacy, and Textual Authority” the author Henry A. Giroux talks about how teachers have the power to give particular texts meaning and determine what needs to be learned. This power is referred to as textual authority. “Textual authority, in this case, refers to the power educators use to legitimate both the value of a particular text and the range of interpretations that can be brought to bear in understanding them” (Giroux 85). The way teachers present information determines how the students will understand it. Content of these texts that are considered “great books” is presented to the students as what they should take from what the author is saying. “Within dominant forms of curriculum theory, learning is generally perceived as either a body of content to be transmitted or a body of skills to be mastered (Giroux 87)”. There is no room left for the students to discuss the text or find a way to relate it back to their own lives. When the students have no connection to what they are being taught, they are just being taught the material as though it is something they need to memorize and then repeat. History of Western culture is taught through literature and the students feel no connection it because there is no connection being made. “Schools are seen as cultural sites and English departments become cultural fronts responsible for advancing the knowledge and values necessary to reproduce the historical virtues of Western culture (Giroux 87)”.
The English department uses its textual authority over students to prevent them from developing their own opinions about literature they are being taught. Curriculum was not only intended to teach skills, but it was also meant to silence students to reinforce social inequality by the “refusal to engage the voices and experiences that students might produce in order to give meaning to the relationship between their own lives and school knowledge (Giroux 90)”. This enables the students to conform to the curriculum’s intentions of maintaining an existing culture that keeps one group as dominant rather than learn how to change it. Students are silenced to keep them as passive learners opposed to being active in order to gain knowledge to reconstruct society to make it more diverse for all cultures. They will never be able to do this if they are ‘voiceless’. “To speak of voice within the discourse of difference as struggle and opposition is to raise questions about how textual authority can be used to validate student experiences and to give students the opportunity to read and write culture differently within a variety of subject meanings and subject positions that empower rather than disempower them (Giroux 94).
This article opened my eyes to why I felt like I didn’t know anything about other cultures and literature before I got to college. I had to develop my own desires to read other cultures’ literature instead of just reading what I was used to. The idea that students’ views are silenced in the classroom to keep the “great books” forum as the dominant genre seems underhanded. Why would the curriculum be designed to do that? My own literacy connects to this essay in the sense that I remember being in class and no one wanted to engage in the conversation about whatever literature we were discussing because it was so old and the way it was being taught was boring to us. We didn’t want to read Shakespeare, Of Mice and Men, The Great Gatsby, or Catcher in the Rye. They were all by old white people and about random white people. Now, I can appreciate the themes of these pieces, but back then I couldn’t care less. I think that if literature was discussed with students more openly and made more relevant to young students’ lives (which it can be quite easily), they would appreciate the literature for what it’s worth. As far as the curriculum keeping culture development at a standstill, it is up to the teachers to throw in the extra goodies to give their students a taste of outside culture. It should spark their interest more so than the Western culture they’ve been forced to memorize their whole scholastic careers.

Response to M and G's reading

Literacy and Minority Children

                  I found the article to be a little interesting, especially the different studies of how literacy is used in the households and school. First off, I feel it’s important for a person to have “street” smarts and “book” smarts. Street smarts is being educated in your home environment and from your neighborhood, which can be from family, friends, strangers, experiences, trials, tribulations, and many others. Book smarts is learning from school and books. To me, by having both you are able to deal with all kinds of life experiences and anything that can come your way because you will be able to adapt to the situation due to your well-rounded background. It makes you a more secure person and able to know how to handle a situation whether it’s dealing with something you learned about in school or in a different environment. For example, “ …Teachers have drawn on the insights gained from household visits and analysis in a number of ways” (162). Home life experiences help in shaping your life and you as a person, without these experiences you wont be able to understand life and your purpose in it. The teachers saw the importance of home life and how this contributes to their learning and work trades or experiences.

A good example of this transition from learning street smarts to book smarts is seen in the following quote: “As the children read the books and discussed them among themselves and with the teacher, they struggled in understanding…” (156). Even though the transition is difficult, learning and knowing both ways of smarts are vital to living a healthy life and being able to adapt in society.

                  The importance of both smarts can also be seen in the movie, The Freedom Writers. Majority of the kids from the classroom were from the ghetto and each had their own trials they had to overcome. By going to class and learning from books and lectures, majority of them were able to turn their negative experiences into positivity and turn their lives around. No one has a perfect life and I believe everything you go through is for a reason, whether negative or positive. They learned this by writing in their journals and using literacy as an outlet and a way to express themselves. This was difficult for them because many of them weren’t interested in reading, writing, and learning (i.e., book smarts). This was something they had to learn and adapt to, but realized it was good for them and will help in turning their life around. Thus, “…None of these innovations will last unless teachers are able to overcome the intellectual limits of traditional schooling for these children…” (168).  This stresses the importance of working with the children and their lifestyles instead of stripping away their culture. Teachers must be willing to experiment and test boundaries and go outside of the standards set for them, if they want to reach students and make a difference.

                  In conclusion, family life plays a critical role in the student’s learning. This is something that teachers should be willing to work around instead of trying to take it away from them. At the same account, parents must be willing and involved in their child’s learning and helping them with their schooling and educational learning. The child must also be open to accepting both forms of learning and being able to adapt to school and not forget their family values. It’s a three way street and everyone needs to take action for their roles. 

M&G

Lacreshia Meadows


English 329

Moll & Gonzalez

October 28, 2009

Learning in the Home

In the research of Luis Moll & Norma Gonzales on Language- Minority Children, they decided to start off in the home. They decided to start off in the homes of the children because they didn’t want to, “put the teachers world at the center of scrutiny and negotiation”(159). This research provided excellent information to the different types of literacy events that went on in minority homes. But realistically how many teachers have the opportunity to discover what life is like at home for their students.

The study does prove that all of the students are capable of learning. Just because they are a minority and may not do well in classroom settings they are capable of other learning activities. M &G did find that many of the minority students had families with their own businesses, musical backgrounds, and the ability to make their own money before adulthood. This did prove that the minorities were capable of learning outside the classroom which means they could learn in the classroom too.

While in the classrooms teachers used research processes to develop the skills of the students. The students themselves, “were reluctant to label themselves as researchers”(167). But they did learn, “ to come to understand that through their inquiries they have access to special information that others might lack and they are indeed capable of doing the intellectual work necessary to conduct an investigation and deal with the problems and frustrations of the work”(166). So the researchers work of starting in the homes did prove to be effective.

Realistically though how many teachers have the resources, time, effort, or energy to research the lives of their students? Though effective, the research does not realistically answer the teachers problems to understanding the literacy acts of minorities. Another question that this raises is what happens when classrooms contain more than one minority group? Just as in the freedom writers the school contained more then one minority group. Everybody in the classroom could not have the same issues or problems in the home. So this again proves to be unrealistic for teachers with minority groups in their classroom.

In conclusion M& G’s research proves to be effective but not for teachers of our time period and state standards.

Literacy Blog Project week !

Lacreshia Meadows


English 329

Blog Project

October 14, 2009

In the process of understanding literacy there are two articles the have been read that need to be taken into account. The first is Understanding Literacy as Social Practice, by Barton and Hamilton and En Los Idiomas, by Farr. These two articles cover literacy in different environments. And even though they cover different aspects of literacy they both explore issues that demonstrate literacy practices and how they affect the people who use them.

In Understanding Literacy, Barton and Hamilton explore literacy in a certain community. They start out by explaining how people use literacy. “Literary events are activities where literacy has a role” , “ the notion of events stresses the situated nature of literacy, that it always exist in a social context(7). This meaning that no matter how observers try to put a level on literacy is always exist because people communicate with each other which is a form of literacy. Barton and Hamilton also evaluated that the private at home literacy seems to be infiltrated by practices from many different places. As individuals , “ a persons practices can be located also in their own history of literacy” (12).

Proving that there are many sources to ones literacy, and people in the same community can have different literacy backgrounds. With individuals having different levels of literacy B & H found that “ If literacy is often located in unequal social relationships, this inequality is most apparent in the access to literacy resources which people have” (17).

In conclusion B& H consider that literacy as a whole has been and even more becoming ineffective. With society blaming teachers, B& H pointed out that literacy starts in a community and as a whole, “the dangers to children and the effects on education practice and on reading and book buying”(21), hold all parties accountable.

In En Los Idiomas,by Farr he explores the literacy in Chicago Mexicans which consist of three different back rounds. Farr chooses to focus on two groups which are the Mexican Americans whom are born in America and the “tejanos” which are the Mexicans who come from Texas to Chicago. Farr points out that many of these families don’t have the opportunity to learn because of family obligation, “older female siblings often had fewer years of school because they had to help their mothers in the home and older males had to help with the land to help support the family”. Farr also points out that people who speak English well still have problems with literacy because the way they talk is different then the standardized English that is taught in schools. Even though many of the Mexicans he studied did not get formal school training many of them self taught themselves how to read and write. After discovering a man who learned how to read English before speaking it Farr learns that, “neither learning reading first nor writing first is more natural, both can be acquired however without schooling as a part of everyday life”(22). In Farr’s observation being self taught or taught in a community is just as important in literacy as a school is.

Both of these articles hold valuable points in our learning literacy practices. With both articles in mind it holds the valid point that literacy is what you make it to be. If there is an opportunity for school then that’s fine but it still will not be as effective without help from the home, were as in Farr’s argument self taught literacy was just as valuable as an educational system. So it seems literacy is used in different areas according to what it is needed for.

This information is very helpful for educators because we have to know that even though teachers have a standard of literacy expected among its students, it will come in many different shapes and forms and it is up to the teacher how he or she deals with student who have unequal literary backgrounds.

These articles implicate that there will be many challenges in teaching literacy in a large groups.

This makes me wonder how as teachers will we deal with students who are not on the literacy level as to be expected in the grade in which is being taught.

These articles connect to my own literacy history because I got read to at home so when I got to school I already had an interest in books. I have seen kids that have only exposed to books at school who have a distant reaction to books. It also made me think that being self and school taught can make learning literacy an enriching experience for children.

A response to Mona's post

Lankshear and Ong are not necessarily on the same page about what literacy means, and that just proves that there is no one answer for what literacy is. Like Lankshear and Ong, we all will have our own perspective on literacy which may be similar to others and different from others. I agree and disagree with some aspects of what Lankshear and Ong speaks of about literacy. When Lankshear said that literacy cannot be an unitary, neutral, or an independent variable. Literacy cannot be a "thing" or a "skill" because literacy is not neutral. It is very much part of our society. Literacy is among every part of our society whether it is our education, our relationships, our religion, politically, and even during our entertainment. Literacy is not simply reading and writing, nor is it an independent variable. Literacy is much more complex than just that. Ong mentioned something about about "functional" literacy" and "dysfunctional" literacy. As Ong described the two types of literacy, I see there is a lack of functional literacy. There is such dictation over who can or cannot be functional at literacy. So once again, literacy cannot be considered neutral or an independent variable. Literacy is not only used as a door of opportunity to freedom but also to control the population as how they function in the society. Lankshear and Ong focuses on literacy in term of reading and writing, but I also see literacy as a tool, a technology, especially nowadays. It is different from the oral traditions and what Plato has argued about writing. Literacy goes a little bit further now. We need to begin to be more open minded about literacy, as the essentials broadens that links to literacy.

Response to Mona's post

I think literacy is concept that has no one set definition and that will continue to be interpreted differently by individuals. I do think there is a difference between being literate and illiterate. To me being literate, is knowing how to read, write, interpret and understand text and language. Being illiterate is not knowing how to do any of those things and not being able to comprehend what it entails. I do think by reading and understanding the different writers works, we can grasp a better understanding of what it means to be literate and what literacy is.

My Understanding of Literacy

The word "literacy" can be such a broad word, and have many different meanings depending on the individuals. A broad meaning of literacy as everyone would know it, the ability to read and write. A person like me who has an interest for literacy and not just literacy but what literacy can do for other people. For me, the meaning of literacy goes a little deeper than the broad meaning of the word, it also means the comprehension of formal literature and writing. But because I have a certain interest for literacy, I have appreciation for literature and studying the elegance of literature. Therefore literacy may mean having your own definition depending on how you view literacy based on your experience with literature. Everyone has their own relationship with literature and has their own personal likes of literature. The past few years as a student, and studying literature, there is literacy in each and every one of the literature I have encountered (obviously). I have seen different meanings of literacy every time I encounter a literature. Each author has their own definition of literacy as we can see closely in their beautiful writings. So I conclude that the definition of literacy varies and lies within the written or spoken words, and the words are the expression of a view. Those words and expressions is what makes up of what we would call it, literacy, and that is what makes it so complex for all of us to sit down together and try to conclude to only one definition for literacy.
Unfortunately, not everyone has a appreciation for literature, therefore they do not have their own definition of literacy which I think is one of the important accomplishments every student needs to have by the time they finish high school: to have a definition and a relationship with literacy. Not everyone will enjoy literacy/literature, but at least they should have a good amount of knowledge toknow enough they do not like literacy and to have the ability to have a perspective on it just like anyone else. It would definitely help them in their future especially when they go to college, not just in an English class but any class that consists of reading and writing. At age fifteen, I transferred to California School for the Deaf, Riverside, coming from a public high school with Honors and Advance Preparation classes, to classes with many students who are behind in their education. Especially in the area of literature. It saddened me to see that many of my peers did not have the amount of vocabulary they should have, or even at the reading level they should be at. I was the only one who was actually ahead in my education, and there were a few that were on track on theirs. After spending one year in the classrooms with these wonderful, intelligent, brilliant peers, I have grown a passion for literature and the comprehension of literacy. But this passion was not just for me, but when I had finally decided at age 15 I wanted to be a teacher, the passion was also for the deaf students I would teach one day. I want them to have an ability to read and write at a level that can allow them to stretch their opportunities in the future and not just two colleges: Gallaudet University and National Institution of Technology for the Deaf. I also want my students to have a relationship whether it is a positive or a negative one, with literacy. And most of all, I want to allow my students to explore their analytical skills and establish their own definition of literacy based on their experience of learning all about literacy rather than us telling them what to think about literacy. I believe by having them think of what they really think about literacy based on the given information about literacy, it will allow them to comprehend literacy much greater than us as teachers telling them what literacy means. Literacy is such a broad and/or complex word that I strongly believe there is no one true definition for literacy. I would prove that to anyone, including my students by looking closely to the authors that many of us study, the writings many of us studies and best of all, rereading all the papers we wrote over the years, it would definitely show a change in perspectives. Even simply looking over someone else’s paper based on the same topic as yours would be slightly different than yours because the perception is different. No individual is the same, therefore no definition of literacy would be the same just as no relationship with literacy would be the same. Just maybe, this method of teaching and encouragement will allow room for possibilities of young students to gain interest for literacy and if that happens, our education system would be in a much better place. After all, literacy, is in existence of every spoken or written word, and words lie in every subject, matter, relationship, and book.

The Self-Realization of Illiteracy

In a nutshell (a very small nutshell), having literacy means a person is capable of effectively communicating with another person. Back when I was in junior high, one of our assignments for writing proficiency was to write an essay on what it means to be literate. I was only about 12, or 13 so the topic of my paper was “People that know how to read are literate. People that can’t read will not be successful in life.”
Fast forward 10+ years, and literacy has taken all different kinds of meanings. It is no longer specifically applied to reading, but there can also be mathematical, computer, cultural, technological, as well as many other types of literacy. You’re computer literate if you know how to use the machine. Culturally literate means you know a little something about your and other’s cultures. Being mathematically literate is probably one of the most complex forms of literacy known to me. I’d say I’m a pretty “literate” individual. I haven’t encountered a person that I couldn’t communicate with. Nor have I been unable to accomplish a task because I didn’t have the proper literacy for whatever it was that I was doing. Mathematical literacy is another thing though.I thought I was smart until I had to take the same math class like 10 times.
With that being said, am I really literate? Am I really a whole literate person or am I just partially literate? I never thought about it until now and I must say that it is very disappointing. Before being posed the question of literacy, I thought I was at the top of the pyramid since I was on my way to be a college graduate as an English major. I may be literate in a few aspects of the word, but I am not nearly as literate as I could be. There are so many different areas to be literate or illiterate in and I bet most people in this class are on the same side of literacy as I am: the losing side.
Just because we know how to read and write and all of that, big deal? Don’t you want to know more than just that taught skill? I know I do. Literacy isn’t just limited to inside the classroom and reading words. Therefore I will publicly declare myself as an illiterate person in regard to the real and outside world. Will I ever become fully literate? I don’t know. I am going to try though.

P.S. Thank you, Dr. B for helping me realize just how much I don’t know. =)

What literacy means to me

The definition of literacy is a diffficult one to answer. When the word literacy comes to mind I think of it first in basic terms of just being able to read, but I know it contains more elements of being just able to read. In my mind literacy as a whole defines the relationship that people have with literature.

            Literacy as a whole means the relationship with different types of literture and how well people can comprehend them. There is the basic standard of literacy which would be reading. Then the next step  would be how well the reader could comprehend what is being read.Understanding the words writen and know most of their meaning. After that it would be how well the reader could analyze the text. The next step from there would be if the writer could then analye the text well enough to point out anomilies, binaries,patterns, strands, and any repitition that the literature being read may have. After the interpataion of readint and understading the literature one should be able to write about it.

            When writing on the literature the reader should be able to communicate clear deciseive thoughts about the text that isint already spelled out in the literature. With a sharp focused analytical claim. This shows that the reader understood the literature and is capable of translating it to others without retelling the literature that has already been read.

            When I become a teacher I would like to help my students understand literacy by first expossing them to different literature. Then I would like to teach them how to write different types of literature as well. In my senior year I had a teacher who took us outside and made us describe the clouds. This had an impact on my life as a student because it was unexpected, and then it was special because it tought me how to describe a physical object in text formation. After this experience I was deeply impressed wih my teacher and knew that I wanted to give my students positive learning experiences.  It didn’t cost her any money we didn’t have to leave the campus and we got out of the classroom away from the desk the chalkboards and set my mind free to look at the clouds and really describe them the way I needed to.

            In my own classroom I would like to take away some of the standard student teacher relationship. I always wonderd how the teachers got addressed as mr or ms so and so but the students always are called by first names. I know it has something to do with respect but I think that in a student eacher relationship it should go both ways. I see myself havin a very positve relationship with a majority of my students where they want to learn from me as well as having to. 

What literacy is to me

My definition of literacy is being able to read words and conjuring up an understanding and meaning for those words. By doing so, you are able to interpret a meaning and create your thoughts and ideas on that meaning. This helps you to be able to indulge in conversation with someone else. Being literate is very important, because without being able to read and understand what your reading, life is just too unbearable. Everything you encounter has to deal with being literate and able to understand. You also have to be able to recognize dialect and different forms of language, not just what your prone to.

I know the word literacy because it is a term that has been thrown around in conversation and associated with knowing how to read. I can’t remember if it was ever taught to me in school in depth or just understanding how it relates to being literate and knowing how to read. I do remember the context it is mainly used in, for instance “Are you illiterate or do you know how to read the paper?” It’s mainly used in a question or comical way, very seldom is it used for the topic of an in depth discussion. My use of literacy stems from using the word as a basis to explain someone who can read and understands what he or she’ve read. To be honest, I’ve never thought about the definition of literacy and the deeper concepts it could contain.

I can’t recall any experiences of literacy being taught to me, if it weren’t for this English 329 class it would’ve never crossed my mine and something I wouldn’t have tried to pursue further. So my learning experience about literacy is thin. I can’t say that it’s unsatisfying because I don’t know too much about it therefore I don’t know how much I’ve missed or don’t know. One thing is obvious; since I can’t recall or remember the experience it must have not played a large role in my education. If it had, I should be able to remember way more than what I presently do.