Thank you for the amazing set of projects, talks, and reflective papers. In case you missed seeing some of the projects, here they are below. Hope you do yourself a favor, take a break from finals, and watch, listen, or read. Some stunning work here. You. Rule.

Olivia’s Defend DACA Now site

Richard Mata’s Hip Hop Reflection

Sabrina’s Vine Dictionary (hilarious)

Cecilia’s Literacy podcast

Lydia’s Facebook Literacy Discussion Group

A Taste of Literacy website (with recipes!) from Cristina, Kasey, and Sarah

Tiana’s use of Twitter to explain the literacies of micro blogging.

John Szwed’s “Ethnography of Literacy” (1980) poses an interesting take on the idea of literacy, suggesting that it may be a more flexible term than many think at first. He states, “Conventional thinking about reading and writing far too often uses a much-out-dated model of literacy…” (425). He means that we are excluding so many types of literacy by condemning society to putting extreme emphasis on being able to read, write, and comprehend writing at a high level. This narrows down drastically the wide channel of literacy into such a small stream. For kids being taught in schools, there are often three types of learning that categorize the children: visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. A student could be strong in any or all of these categories, but how and what they are taught can affect the way in which they are most literate. For example, a mechanic could function very highly in his work environment as someone who learns well using their hands and watching their progress, but he might encounter difficulties when it comes to spelling or using a computer. People’s strengths vary across the board and everyone has different innate abilities.

Another conventional way of thinking about literacy that is perpetuated is to view one as either literate or not, with no in between. But perhaps it is the environment and situation that determine one’s literacy. In a auto body shop the mechanic might be very adept at understanding what is in front of him and able to comprehend at a high level the graphs and diagrams he reads, whereas a librarian might struggle in the mechanic’s shoes.  Due to his experiences and knowledge, the mechanic is able to function at a higher level of literacy. Szwed reveals that he is enticed by the idea of “literacy-cycles,” which are “variations in abilities and activities that are conditioned by one’s stage and position in life.” He promotes the concept of many literacies existing for many people all at the same time, even if raised in the same place, or if they are the same age, or the same ethnicity. He dubs it a “plurality of literacies” that exist in the modern world. Literacy is not black and white, it would seem.

It can be argued that literacy cannot be measured to any direct degree, and also that there is no true standard rate for how literacy is developed. A Spanish speaker is literate in places a speaker of Chinese would not be. And people learn at different rates but might be on the same level later in life. Even countries define what it means to be literate in different ways. According to UNESCO’s article “Defining Literacy,” India defines the idea as one’s ability to read and write at all regardless of ability beyond the most rudimentary. Israel interprets it as “the ability to acquire the essential knowledge and skill to be able to participate.” Here it is not even thought of as necessary to actually read and write, but you must possess the ability to learn.

The answer to the question “what does it mean to be literate?” is best answered by more questions. It is not easy to answer and requires much thought about the world we live in today. Where would we be most literate and where would our skills be reduced to the point that we were unable to function? Literacy isn’t just this thing you can get and never lose once you have. It comes with some situations easily for one person but harder for the next. There are many languages we comprehend and communicate through everyday without realizing it: using body language  to convey a mood or by reading code on a computer. Perhaps it is time that we lend both ears to Szwed’s call to action from over 25 years ago, a call for a more refined and in depth  look into the way we define literacy. Then, maybe we can start to alter the ways we think about being literate in this world.

Author Bio: Lee Verrall is an English major at Chico State. 

 

 

In our literacy studies class, we formed small groups to discuss John Szwed’s “Ethnography of Literacy” and UNESCO, Defining Literacy. While sharing as a class we discussed questions like: 1) What exactly is literacy? 2) How do you define reading and writing in a classroom? 3) What would a school define as successful or helpful reading/writing? 4) How can you test literacy successfully as a future teacher?

UNESCO makes the point that literacy is a skill that can be measured, while Szwed’s piece discusses that schools may wrongfully put too strict of a term on “literacy.” My classmates and I discussed that literacy is not just knowing how to read or write: literacy is something much deeper than that. Literacy is a difficult term to measure and we debated the range on this seemingly simple term. Literacy is something that connects human beings universally. It is one of the many steps of communication. The ability to read, write, comprehend, analyze, and imagine is a tool the mind needs to feel confidence, safety, and stability. This is the value of education: it attempts to furthers people’s minds.

My classmates and I debated over the necessity of being literate, what literate means, and what normal citizens really need in terms of their literate ability in everyday life. Szwed suggests a new way of thinking about how we might study literacy. He disagrees with strict surveys and harsh standardized testings, and my classmates agree with most of Szwed’s ideas. Szwed states, “It is not only the single standard that we must question, but also the assumption of a single learning progression” (426). In our class we believe there should be a different way of testing our students. Szwed and my classmates believe we should test people’s literacy in their everyday lives, not sitting in a classroom, bubbling in silence. More observational studies should be done to test literacy. For example, a plumber does not need a doctorate degree to fix a toilet, but neither person is lesser than the other. It seemed as though my classmates agreed that being “book smart” does have value, because it creates more educated and well rounded citizens, but the term “literate” in schools is held in too strict of standards. My classmates and I agreed that literacy should be tested differently in our education system.  We learned there is not a “literacy crisis” – because most everyone that graduated high school can read, write, and basically function with their abilities to understand street signs and other basic common knowledge.

Szwed’s article is a part of the literacy research “canon,” which  my classmates unanimously agreed was a waste is today’s classrooms, when it comes to showing kids the same books as their parents read. My classmates and I agreed that new novels and different types of literary work should be offered in classrooms. We agreed that it is not fair to hold all classrooms to the same novel. We agreed as future teachers we do not want our students to read the exact same things we read and their grandparents read. Szwed is a huge part in how people view literacy research today. Szwed and my classmates agree that there needs to be different ways to test a person’s literacy abilities.

UNESCO seemed to describe literacy as a measurement of knowledge and accumulated skills that benefit the culture that someone belongs to. UNESCO’s views on literacy was more concrete and strict than Szwed’s views and that is why I believe my classmates and I agreed with Szwed’s piece more. He, and my classmates agreed with his idea that literacy is changing, and the ways we used to see it are becoming outdated. In class we discussed the canon and agreed that it was an outdated way of teaching. Overall, we discussed how we felt about literacy testing as children, and what we want for our future classrooms. We discussed the value or lack of value of different kinds of literacy testing in the classrooms. My take away from our class discussion is that students in school today need different ways of being tested for their literacy abilities. I value novels in the classroom, but do not agree with having similar novels in every school in America (like the canon). Each child is different and should be pushed to read, just seriously read anything.

Author: Sydney Swain is a junior, hoping to become an elementary school teacher. She works in the Office of Admissions at Chico State as the Assistant to the Office Manager and Director. She enjoys her job because it is challenging. She is an outgoing, happy woman.