With the explosion of cell phone popularity in last decade, my parents (and the rest of their generation) have been faced with a technological dilemma: either rebel entirely to technology and be an outcast, or conform, and be forever addicted to their mobile devices (like the rest of us). They chose the latter, although the magnitude of their cell phone attachment is not quite as impressive as my generation’s. About five years ago, my parents did what I never thought they would, and since then I have seen a change in their literacy habits: they actually use technology. They “facebook” and send emails, they even attempt to use text slang: “yo. seein if u 2 r available 4 breakfast.” It’s just so damn cute sometimes… Hey, they’re trying though, that’s the important part.

The first sponsor that comes to mind is my father. As hard as it is to admit, I have imitated most all of his writing practices. I even inherited his habit of writing notes on his hand with a ball point pen. Over the past five years or so, he has been writing a book. I’m not entirely sure what it is about, but I know it is centered on the problems with capitalism. He is a highly philosophical thinker and he is a constant note-taker, more practices I have acquired as well. I haven’t attempted to write a book yet, but I’m sure at some point I will.

As we continue our discussion about literacy, I find the opportunity to relate the topic to my own experiences. What we have read (and discussed) has had a lot to do with unveiling what literacy is, and if a true, single definition exists. As we continue this discussion, my question is: How should we teach it? Let’s take K-12 schooling for example. How should we teach literacy to our youth? Continue with the standard curriculum? Is it working best for everyone? I think we all know the answer to that one…

If we are basing our teaching on how we have defined literacy so far, then there should be more options for our youth, far beyond standardized teaching methods. In my younger days as a competitive junior golfer, I was exposed to a lot of golf instructors. After countless lessons with countless instructors, I have developed a cynical disposition to lessons in general. In my experience, I was told there were “right” and “wrong” ways to play the game, and if I didn’t learn the “right” way, I’d never be any good. It is too often that this happens, not just in golf, but in other learning environments. Instructors (or teachers) adopt what they think is a universal teaching method, and then assume that individuals will learn the same way, and at the same rate. We all know this isn’t true. Sure, I can buy the idea that there are certain fundamentals of learning that everyone should pay attention to, but I believe every lesson/teaching opportunity should adhere to the individual’s learning style. Sounds highly idealistic, I know. That being said, there is a need for more alternative learning opportunities.

Students have responsibility in this one as well. It is the student’s responsibility to take an active, not passive role in the learning process. It’s less about memorization, and more about making it your own. That is true learning.  This kinda, sorta goes along with what has been discussed as the social meaning of literacy. What is the utility of this literacy, and if it is worthwhile, how will I (the student) make use of it? How will I make it my own?

Hello, my name is Daniel Holmberg and I am a Chico native. Yes, I was born and raised here, and I can’t wait to leave. I plan on obtaining my bachelor’s in Organizational Communication this summer, and then, who knows? Maybe more schooling, we’ll see. I enjoy playing music, golfing, writing, and many other things. Family and friends are very important to me.

 

What is reading? When asked this question, I think the typical answer is somewhere along the lines of reading a book, or in this day in age, reading through the digital screen. Part of what Szwed is asking us to do is to challenge what is considered “proper” and “improper” forms of reading and writing. He is asking us to view literacy in more abstract terms, to the point of asking, what is not literacy? Does a poker player not “read” his opponents? Is a graffiti artist’s work not considered a form of writing? These are just a few examples of what we may dismiss as improper forms of literacy. Being literate involves communication and comprehension, in whatever realm you may find yourself in.  I am literate in many realms, but illiterate in many more. I am entirely illiterate when it comes to reading sheet music, but I am literate when it comes to “reading” the greens on a golf course. But it is our tendency to dismiss these forms of reading, and default to the standard forms of reading and writing because we live in a society that values standard forms of education (i.e. institutional education). It is imperative that we challenge this paradigm. Questioning what we consider as the standard or correct form of literacy is the first step in changing what we value as a society. Or is it the other way around?