adeboer – Page 2 – English 332

Social Literacy

By adeboer | September 22, 2013

As a future English teacher, I’m a little ashamed to admit that my view of literacy before this course was tragically shallow. I would’ve given a simple definition of what it is to be literate, somewhere along the lines of: the ability to read and write. Simple and accurate, right? I’m both excited and grateful that my eyes have been opened to literacy’s broader foundation. Although an exact definition is sure to elude us for the time being, there remains one necessity to its definition that can’t be disputed. Literacy is social. At the beginning of the class, even this concept was a little fuzzy for me, but as I look at it now, it seems a no-brainer. Of course literacy is social. Human beings are social. Among other uses, literacy is a nonverbal form of communication, and communication is social in nature. So literacy must be social.

From here, I could go on and write a fifty page blog on literacy and its social forms and purposes, but I think the experts already covered that…so I think I’ll just pull out some quotations I like and explain them a little bit:

“For one thing, the mass of American workers has had to shift from growing food to manufacturing goods to, principally, managing information” (Brandt, Accumulating…652). Although this quotation initially focuses on the development of literacy in a professional manner, I want to focus on the phrase, “managing information,” in a social manner. We live in an age often called the “Information Age,” where, essentially, we have mastered the art of managing information. Modern day Americans have limitless information available to them, simply and most profoundly because of the advent of the internet. This creates untold opportunities to learn, share, produce, and communicate in a way never before dreamed of in world history, all due to literacy’s broad foundation and its limitless capacity for information. Not to mention, it has completely transformed the workplace. America used to be 90% farmers; now it’s only 2%.

“If we want to serve students best in their literacy education we should not scare them with tales of the literacy crisis of their generation but instead teach them how to understand how language, culture, and identity work together. Then students can read and write in any context, making their language choices with knowledge and power” (Williams, 181). I absolutely loved William’s article; it was by far my favorite piece because of its simple, common sense approach to this idea of literacy crisis, and its specific focus on teachers. Williams claimed that teachers should reject “conventional” forms of teaching language and grammar, and instead focus on culture and context. It’s simple: know who you’re speaking to and for what purpose, and speak appropriately; similarly, know who you’re writing to and for what purpose, and write accordingly. There need not be this huge panic about waning literacy standards if we teach our students to know the social culture in which they must use it.

“The enterprise of defining literacy, therefore, becomes one of assessing what counts as literacy in the modern epoch in some given social context. If a nation-society is the context, this enterprise requires that consideration be given to the functions that the society in question has invented for literacy and their distribution throughout the populace” (Scribner, 14-15). In short, literacy is broad. From the necessary literacy skills need to interpret legal documents as a lawyer, to the baseball aficionado who reads sports catalog jargon, to grammar worksheets in middle schools, to reading the morning paper, literacy is a broad subject because its forms are innumerable. Society has invented interminable functions for literacy, and its distribution throughout the populace is immeasurably varied. I have not much to say on this matter but that nailing down an exact definition for literacy is almost impossible and literacy is a beautiful and varied thing of modern life.

“Literacy is not a necessity for personal survival. As far as we could determine, nonliteracy status does not exclude a person from full participation in economic activities or in town or society life (Szwed 22). This was taken from Szwed’s case study of the Vai community and therefore accounts for its seeming absurdity. I say absurdity because in modern day America, it seems almost certainly not true. I think that it is safe to say that a non literate person (in the simple sense of being able to read and write) could not participate fully in economic or societal activities. Not fully. Literacy has become such an important part of life in modern day America, that it is seen as a necessity for any sort of social acceptance or power, not to mention ability to retain professional job. There is always need for at least a little amount of literacy. However, this brings up my point. There are still communities out there where this is not true e.g. the Vai community. As Americans we are certainly considered in the upper scale of civilization; however, there are communities in the world, which fully function without the use of everyday literacy. Is a society where literacy dominates necessarily better than one who functions fully without it? The disparity is certainly thought-provoking, especially in terms of this larger picture of a world society. There are about 7,000 different languages spoken in the world. What a large and complicated society to be a part of as a human being!

“We mostly just worked.”

By adeboer | September 13, 2013

I interviewed my pops since I thought he would have some interesting things to say. He is one of the smartest, not to mention wisest men I know, with excellent diction and writing skills.

He grew up on a farm.

This is what he had to say about his childhood literary practices:

“Our family members did not do any reading for pleasure purposes, only from the Bible and what was done in school. There were really no other books in our household. We mostly just worked.”

It is amazing to me that someone who grew up on a farm in the Midwest with no real emphasis on reading or writing, could grow up to be the valedictorian of his college class (he went to Chico btw!). I guess the work ethic he gained from the farm transferred over to his studies.

One more interesting quotation I found was this:

“As opposed to learning facts and information common in my generation, current generations seem to only need skill in locating information available in electronic format somewhere on the internet.”

Sounds kind of like a concern for the younger generation, right? ;)

A Cultured Grace…Or A Waste of Time?

By adeboer | September 9, 2013

After my group’s discussion on literacy as a state of grace last Friday, I immediately thought of a scene from Pride and Prejudice. Sighh, yes, sometimes I’m a romantic girly girl; however, I think this scene holds true to an idea discussed in Scribner’s article.

Scribner states: “In the perspective of Western humanism, literateness has come to be considered synonymous with being ‘cultured,’ using the term in the old-fashioned sense to refer to a person who is knowledgeable about the content and techniques of the sciences, arts, and humanities as they have evolved historically. The term sounds elitist and archaic, but the notion that participation in a literate – that is, bookish – tradition enlarges and develops a person’s essential self is pervasive and still undergirds the concept of a liberal education (Steiner).”

And here’s the clip from Pride and Prejudice: An Accomplished Woman

Scribner claims that literateness has become synonymous with being “cultured.” A “cultured” person is one who is “knowledgeable about the content and techniques of the sciences, arts, and humanities.” In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy claims much the same thing. An “accomplished” woman must have a “thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages…and improve her mind by extensive reading.” Interestingly, they are much the same description. The idea of being literate, cultured, or accomplished is no modern idea. It is indeed “archaic” as Scribner put.

One of our classmates, Haley, called to attention that our modern day G.E. class are sort of an homage to this idea. It starts in kindergarten and leads all the way to college. Seven standard subjects are taught from the day we can read until we complete our infamously irritating college G.E. classes. Only after fifteen years of general subject learning can one finally begin to engage in specified major related classes. It’s a point of much disgust for me personally. I hate our mandatory seven subject learning system. I hate our education system. But it has been built this way from centuries past, and we continue to engage in it today. America, it seems, must create well-rounded students of broader knowledge for them to be truly college-literate. Scribner agrees when she says that this system is “pervasive and still undergirds the concept of a liberal education.”

And in theory it sounds like a great idea. Why not produce students, or college graduates rather, who are knowledgeable not just in their major area of study, but in all subjects? Would that not create a better society? I, however, cannot use strong enough terms to describe how much contempt and hate I have for this system of schooling. Instead of mass-producing students as if they come from a factory, why not utilize the individual’s talent more aggressively. Why demand two more years of college G.E. when one has just come from completing four years of basically the same thing in high school? Build trade schools to develop someone’s individual talent and interest rather than require two more years of redundant information.

I don’t mean to say that general education is a waste of time. On the contrary, I think the idea is founded in strong concepts. There is nothing wrong or bad with being “cultured,” “accomplished,” or knowledgeable. After all, “knowledge is power,” is it not? I would deign to say that the problem starts in high school. High school graduates are often condemned as not being prepared for college classes. Can we blame them with such sub-standard requirements held for high school? Make high school more effective. Make it harder. Make it on par with the standards held for the first two years of college and eliminate college G.E. There. I’ve just given you two more years of your life.

Unfortunately, by the time I was deemed ready to start my college higher education in my major studies, I was so sick of all the “learning” that was mandated beforehand, that I was no longer eager to start on my own individual path of desired learning. I had “learned” so much already that was tedious and boring to me, that I no longer really wanted to learn. School had killed my passion to learn. And I think that is a tragic side-effect of our literate culture. Thankfully, I’ve gained a lot of that passion back as I submerge myself in a subject that interests me. How ironic that it turned out to be teaching.

Introduction to me!

By adeboer | September 3, 2013

Hey everyone, my name is Anna DeBoer; I’m a 20-year-old transferring junior from Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill. My major is English Education (I know that’s really hard to believe in this class). I never knew exactly what I wanted to do with my life. When college rolled around, I decided to do English because I was half-way decent at writing and I like to read. Now, I’ve gained a little more passion for it and have a desire to teach overseas or ESL classes here. I really want to teach non-native English speakers how to speak everyday, conversational English…i wanna teach em how we really talk. Not just all the good and proper stuff that they might need if they were gonna become a highly successful businessman in america. i wanna teach em slang. i wanna teach em our phrases and our stupid acronyms and our swear words. i wanna teach them our english:)

because anyone can learn a language out of a book and think they’re smart and then go over to a different country and say all the proper words but still sound like an idiot. and i know half the time most of the american youth sound like idiots these days too because of our phrases and slang and whatnot, but if i teach the non-native english speakers how to speak that way, at least they’ll be the “right kind” of idiots. anyways…

A little more about me:

I love to play soccer and I love Christ. I was recently blessed enough to travel to Japan on a Christian mission trip. As a sports ministry, we used the medium of soccer to connect with the Japanese people and tell many of them about the Gospel of Christ for the first time.

I come from a big family. I’m the youngest of seven kids all from the same two parents. I have four brothers and two sisters, and we have a lot of fun. We also have a lot of drama. Being the youngest sucks. You’re not spoiled; you’re patronized.

You’re probably bored right now so I won’t tell you anymore about me. I’ll tell you my undeniably intriguing opinion about Szwed’s article. (Hah, right.) I thought it was a little pretentious and ridiculous. I also thought it had some good points. To explain the pretentious and ridiculous comment: the author of the article seemed to demand that studies be done to calculate the exact meaning of literacy in different populations and minutely examine their implications and whatnot. Maybe this comes from being a really laid back person, but studies like that drive me crazy. What’s the point? We already know there’s a huge disparity between communities’ literacy levels and exactly what that means. He’s pointed out that literacy is not a black and white subject that can be easily defined. It changes form culture to culture, generation to generation. So why do we need to try to define it so exactly? Let’s appreciate it for what it is, broaden our perspectives of literacy from his well-written depiction of the vastness of the subject, and let it be. No intense studies or years-long examinations need be created. I find there’s no point in having the results.

That being said, I love what he had to say about literacy. We often don’t think, for example, that a boy who fails his standard English exams, but who marvelously disentangles that weird bunch of numbers in a baseball catalog, is literate. But he is. He is literate in reading baseball results. I can write a five paragraph, well-researched, well-organized, and well-cited essay on Shakespeare and still not be literate in baseball records. Or the stock-exchange. Or cookbooks (I always mess something up -__- ). Literacy is different to each people and that was definitely eye-opening to me. Why do lawyers exist? They are proficient in their area of literacy, whereas I am much less than capable.

I often have a prejudice against people who cannot write well. then i realize that i go on fb everyday and write like this and i have absolutely no problem with it. in fact, i love it. because it’s not stressful. it gets the point across perfectly – everyone understands what i’m saying, and yet it has absolutely no resonance with standard, proper english. then i realize the absolute beauty of language. shakespeare added over 1500 words and phrases to the english language. he just made them up. now they’re common.

language evolves.

how we communicate evolves and who am i to condemn it when i enjoy doing it? that’s part of the reason i want to teach english. real english. there is definitely a place for proper, grammatically correct, “literate,” english. but there is also a place for this type too. think about the mom or dad who speak and write correctly but who aren’t literate in internet talk? they have no idea what we’re saying because they aren’t literate in how we communicate. it’s endlessly ironic.

Language is constantly changing, and I intend to change with it. I’m half-way decent at writing and I like to read. Mostly, though, I like people and how we communicate with each other. I like our vast differences and our amusing idiosyncrasies. I like how we’re so unique but share something so fundamentally common, like literacy. I like our words and our languages. I just don’t like our studies…

What Counts as Literacy?

Reading together

Calendar

Author: adeboer