Listen Linda,

Let me just say, this has been a tremendously informative class. I have learned things I didn’t know were out there to learn (if that makes sense). One of the things that struck me as the greatest shift in mindset I made throughout this semester was the idea that people aren’t becoming more illiterate. We have simply developed new and, at times, more concise ways of saying things. This was a key issue in Bronwyn Williams’s writing as well as John Szwed’s piece, and I think this is the first time I started to have a perspective shift. “Little Johnny” is doing just fine even though every generation seems to have a literacy crisis according to the preceding generations. Literacy doesn’t mean knowing the difference between using the Oxford comma or not, it’s generally just a form of written expression. Szwed described how literacy goes beyond the academic setting, and I think that was really powerful. We tend to think about literacy as something strictly confined to essays and academic texts or novels. Szwed countered that we experience literacy in an abundance of other things in our daily lives from reading a sign to passing a note in class. Literacy cannot be restricted to the academic environment. This is something that the Hip Hop article group highlighted in their presentation; hip hop and poetry are distinctly related. That’s something I had maybe considered once or twice, but never really took an in depth look at how closely related they are. I’m so glad that the hip hop group asked us to examine it since they really expanded my perspective.

Are you listening, Linda?!

I really liked the idea of sponsorship in literacy. I didn’t so much enjoy the implications of sponsorship as much as the lens it provided through which to view literacy. Sponsorship developed the questions of “who gets sponsored” and “how.” Privilege has been a theme we have been playing with throughout the semester, and it’s something that Maggie has really brought to the forefront and helped me to think about in new and different ways. I had never really thought about how lucky I was that I had parents who encouraged reading and writing, as well as that I was exposed to computers and Microsoft Word from a young age. Not everyone gets these opportunities, and yet we are held to the same standards of the highest common denominator rather than the lowest. Sponsor programs like Common Core try to equalize student abilities, but result instead in restricted and cookie cutter curriculums (which is driving my mom, a fourth grade teacher, absolutely insane).

But Linda, honey, honey.

I think one of the most eye-opening things I’ve learned is the incredible benefits of low risk learning, and how that relates to gaming theory. I have never played video games, so I never saw their use until this class. The principles they are founded on are excellent models for the classroom, displayed not only by the gaming group, but by Kim’s entire class layout. I had wondered why it was that this class never seemed to be stressing me out while I was still learning twice as much information than in my other classes. It finally dawned on me (it was a slow dawn) after listening to the gaming group’s presentation that Kim’s class was so easy to be in because of the complete sense of security and pure learning environment that she had created. If I ever get into the teaching field (which isn’t really on my horizon), I hope I can develop an atmosphere like the one in this class.

 

 

All of the groups were extremely informative, and raised some really interesting points. The first group was the Adolescent Identity and Literacy group. They talked a lot about how our identities form at a young age, and we spend most of that time in school. Therefore, school is an integral part of shaping our identities. They also talked about devaluing the individual by disallowing some forms of expression in school. Franzo, however, asked a really quite interesting and thought-provoking question about when it is appropriate to stop seeing school simply for the sake of education. He questioned whether school was really the place for allowing freedom of individualism in children (i.e. wearing clothing outside of the dress code). I have to say, I was wondering the same thing (much less eloquently than the way he phrased it), but I was glad that he raised that point. The group did an excellent job of addressing it with the point that children spend most of their time in school and in school functions, so it’s the bulk of their lives. They have to develop individually there. I also thought their activity was creative, though I didn’t have any social media of my own to look at.

Following the Adolescent Identity group was the Hip Hop and Literacy group. Their presentation was exciting and nuanced. They talked about the perception that hip hop doesn’t have a real place in the “literary world.” This group did a fantastic job of keeping our attention and explaining how hip hop and rap are just as rich in content as poetry. I really liked the deconstructing of rap lyrics to identify poetic forms and terminologies. They kept us thoroughly entertained with their musical interjections, all the while explaining how each song utilized various literary conventions. That was an eye-opening experience!

The gaming group was also really interesting. Having zero experience with video games, I was interested in learning how they would apply it to literacy. I really enjoyed the mission they sent the groups on, as well as watching people play games while it was explained that games create a space for low risk learning. This was something that my own group (make/hack/play) found to be beneficial for learning. I also liked that they explained the opportunity for creativity and problem solving as well as maintaining levels of focus and attention. It was a great presentation, and I can’t wait to see how it is integrated into Maker/Ignite Night!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16h_t-vpDzY_VnbDjv9PjP2pJH32choQNO571nhl99IE/edit

Maker culture was a completely new subject to me when I first heard about it a couple of weeks ago. However, once I began reading more about it and trying to understand how it functions, I realized that it’s something that is usually inherently (to some extent) built into certain types of classes like woodshop or art. While these classes are considered “elective” and are typically deemed as unnecessary, maker culture argues that it is necessary for learning. This is especially true when we view it as super low risk learning. People, especially younger people, are much more prone to experiment and step outside of restrictions in creating with this type of low risk learning.

Maker culture encourages people to build, make, and hack things. One of the most interesting sites I read was www.makered.com. It explicitly explained how maker culture is sponsoring interest in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) in younger generations. These students use making as a way to learn not only how, but why, things work. It is simply fantastic that they have the opportunity to learn how engines and motors function and what they can do with them. Additionally, making is made low risk by having everyone act as teachers. When one student discovers something interesting, that student tells his/her fellow students about it and acts as a teacher. In this way, there is no hierarchy in which the students await instruction and guidelines from a particular directing individual (i.e. the traditional teacher).

While I think making is an extremely interesting and engaging form of learning, I am still on the fence as to whether it should be fully incorporated into pre-college curriculum in core classes. I like the idea of having it as an elective, but I’m not positive as to whether it should direct all teaching. Incorporating aspects of it into certain core classes might be an extremely positive move to make, however.

Overall, I think “making” and “playing” are exceptional movements that can bring people fundamental understandings of how and why things work as well as new ways of looking at things. This in turn enhances problem solving skills. Perhaps if I had engaged more frequently in making, hacking, and playing as a child, I wouldn’t be struggling so much with the logic games section of the LSAT.

This Book “Just Girls” has really helped me learn something about myself. I clearly have some rage issues. While reading this book, especially in the chapter about the “social queens,” I found myself encountering feelings of disgust and resentment to the point where my annoyed grumblings were making my roommates feel their own disgust and resentment…toward me.

The point is, I had a really hard time relating to the “social queens.” Their idea of literacy is reading hypersexualized, materialistic, devaluing magazines written specifically for teens as well as passing demeaning or ridiculous notes about who likes whom etc. In addition to this, the girls actively try to deindividualize themselves and become known only through their group. The magazines and notes only help the girls achieve these goals by setting fashion standards and identities for them. Moreover, the girls use magazines as a social act rather than more of a literate act. Reading magazines is something they do together as an activity and then talk about the “woman things” they’re learning in them.

Personally, I don’t recall every having gone through this phase, though I wasn’t one of the “social queens.” The problem is, however, that these girls are seen as popular, and by that right set the standard for the rest of the girls who want to be like them. That just perpetuates the materialism and shallow ideas of what’s important.

The “tough cookies,” on the other hand, appear to have a much more confident and positive presence in the world. They read books, are focused on their schooling since their goal is higher education, and are generally more responsible. What this says about their literacy practices is not all that clear other than the fact that they probably stay away from the consumerist, fake magazines being pedaled to girls their age. These girls seem more “put together” in the sense that they are self-assured, disinterested in superficial things, and more focused on family.

Sadly, I realize I cannot completely blame the “social queens” for their behavior. Whether a product of nurture or the society in which they grew up, someone or something told them at some point that being popular, being trendy, and belittling their own “friends” was the way to succeed or be on top. Unfortunately, it seems to have worked out for them which just reinforces that idea. Where this begins to fall apart, however, is when they get into the higher grades and need to start thinking about their futures. Having never really been focused or oriented on their larger futures, this will probably be an extremely difficult time for them. But, I digress.

This book is quite interesting, and it certainly has an emotional impact on me. I’m looking forward to creating the trailer for it with my group and seeing what happens.