In the article tiled MMDU: Left Behind written by Sean Morris, he talks about his frustration with the MOOC talks regarding the future of higher education. His frustration is that he, along with others, seem to be left out of the conversation because of his level of education. Just as we have discussed earlier in the semester, having a higher perceived literacy by means of a degree title appear to dictate ones status in life as well as one’s appropriateness to speak about the future of higher education. He goes on to state that just as we have seen, different means of literacy practices can potentially pave the way for conversations that will lead to the reshaping of our education system, literary outlets such as Twitter and simple face-to-face conversations and not just from MOOC discussions. People such as Morris feel as if they don’t have the same right in discussing such matters because the degree that he has earned is in some way sub-par to those in the MOOC meetings and therefore is not really heard during these talks or is intimidated to speak up. It is interesting to see that even educations of such caliber described by Morris exclude those who they perceive as lee-literate as they discuss how to reform education.

http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/page-two/mmdu-left-behind/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HybridPed+%28Hybrid+Pedagogy%3A+A+Digital+Journal+of+Teaching+%26+Technology%29

While watching The Hobart Shakespeareans, what seemed to be most apparent in Rafe Esquith’s classroom was the level of engagement the students had in each of the activities they performed. From one of the very first scenes, it is quite clear that Esquith uses certain teaching practices that hold the students attention and keeps them actively involved. For example, instead of giving the students paper assignments or packets for them to practice their math skills, a form teaching that is easy for a student to get distracted from and therefore is less likely to retain/comprehend, he reads to them math problems that use more than just one unit of counting. He gives them problems that don’t use strictly numbers, but different units of counting, such as yards, a bakers dozen, a fortnight, etc., and keeps the students attention by reading to them the different units and giving them certain mathematical processes to carry out for each unit given. By using this method, Esquith is retaining the focus of his students while simultaneously having them recall the amounts of the counting units he gives them in the problem all while sharpening their math skills. Not only does he use this type of approach while teaching his students math, he uses it in just about every lesson he gives.
A big emphasis in Esquith’s class, at least what was portrayed in the film, is reading. Just as he does in math, Rafe carries out his reading assignments in a such a way where the learning exercise actively involves the students participation. One important aspect of the books the students read is that they are books the students can relate to, which has a large impact on the success of the students reading ability. Simply put, if the student isn’t interested in the book then most likely they won’t read it or they won’t be interested in exploring the message of what they read which stimulates their thinking. When the students read these books, it is done in the classroom with everyone taking turns reading aloud as everyone else follows along. Reading in this way not only has each student actively participating, it also allows the students to hear how certain words are pronounced which they might not be familiar with, furthering their vocabulary and reading ability, and providing them with the sense of flow when reading.
Perhaps one of the biggest displays of Esquith’s ability to get his students to participate in the learning process is the plays the students perform. The plays are not apart of the academic curriculum, but an activity the students willingly volunteer for that takes place after school. When the student are involved in the plays, they get a better understanding of the work than they would by simply just reading it. Seeing and participating in the play brings the work to life, providing the students with more depth of the work and allowing them to further comprehend the actions of the characters. Having plays performed with the active participation of the students gives the kids many different means of making sense of the work by watching, listening, and acting out the story.
After having watched The Hobart Shakespeareans, it is clear that Rafe Esquith uses a multitude of different literacy practices that are very effective in teaching his students in many different areas of learning. By using learning experiences that have the students actively participate, he is able to teach these students in a way which they retain the lessons being taught and providing them with a better understanding of the material.

The book our group read was The Brothers and Sisters Learn to Write which focused on inner-city kinder-gardeners from the Bay Area and studied how they learned to write. One of the main points the book highlighted was the many different literacy skills the kids used and how they applied them in their overall goal to present an idea and get that idea across to the intended audience. As noted in the book, a major problem the kids were having was establishing a speakers voice of their own in their writing. For instance, the kids would take information from one literacy practice and apply it to another type of practice but in the process wouldn’t adjust the speaker’s voice to the new form of the information. An example of this was seen when Marcel was taking sports news broadcasts and reformatting the information to be presented on paper. When he did this, he still used the same speaker’s voice that was used in the broadcast, which was meant to be spoken not read, and delivered in a familiar sports broadcast tone, in his paper when he wrote the information down. However, it was interesting to note that Marcel was using a technique called remixing in his approach to writing. He was taking information from a literacy source that was intended to be spoken and delivered to a television audience in a short and concise manner, and apply that information in a new format, in his case a written format, with a new intended audience. Although he didn’t establish an appropriate speaker’s voice for the audience he would be delivery the information to, he was still able to get the main idea across in the new format.
Throughout the book, the kids were taking information from all sorts of different literacy sources and applying them in different areas in new ways. It found that kids are constantly taking information or ideas from different sources, such as the radio, television, video games, magazines, maps, etc., and taking the what they know from that source and then applying it to new forms to express that idea or sometimes a different idea all together. The helpful part about understanding this concept for me was to provide clarity to the objectives of teaching people of all ages to write, which is to take an idea and get the point across of that idea to the intended audience in whichever genre the person chooses. By teaching the students this concept, it provides them with problem solving tools that they can use in the future while at the same time gives them the flexibility to be creative instead of simply teaching them a format for how things should be done.

When I think of sponsorship in terms of digital literacy, I don’t think of it in the traditional sense that society tends to associate with the way we think of teaching someone to read and write. The traditional way, like those involving printed literacies, are usually taught be someone who has a degree in that particular field or from someone who has studied and developed their skills from the works of those in said field. For digital literacies it seems that sponsors can come from a more vast variety of sources, whether it is from someone who is familiar with the format, performing Google searches, and even forums and blogs can provide clarity to certain questions you might have about the digital literature. For instance, if I need help figuring out how to use Twitter I can ask my friend Spencer who is a Twitter whiz. But, if I need help writing a novel or putting together a free verse poem, I most likely would have to turn to someone with a degree in writing for advice.
As far as the comparison between the access to sponsorships of print literacy and digital literacy, I think they are compatible. Now with the easy accessibility to a computer, if you wanted someone to help you with a printed form of literacy you can simply send it to someone in a digital form to have them review it, provide feedback, and send the work back to you. The only difference I would say between the two is that with printed literacies, they still require a sponsor who is, for lack of a better term, an “authority” in that certain area of writing. Conversely, digital literacies such as Twitter, Facebook, and other writing/sharing websites you can ask a friend that is well versed in the site’s function for help.
It seems that because the structure and forms of printed literacies were constructed by those with a scholar background, you need a sponsor who has a degree on that field to provide you with insight. The digital literacies, on the other hand, don’t require validation from these scholars and therefore those who are familiar with how they work can help you. I am in no way trying to discredit digital literacies; they are amazing breakthroughs in the way we communicate. I am simply stating my thoughts on the way I interpret the differences in which sponsorship works with these two types of format.