Reflecting on this past semester

I have to say that this has been one of the most enlightening classes that I have had throughout my college career. When I walked into this class, I had a very basic idea of what literacy was. Like many others in the class, I defined literacy into the linear category of “reading and writing”. As the weeks progress, I realized that literacy is a multi-dimensional concept that includes social aspects, economic aspects, cultural aspects, and even aspects of individual preference. Literacy also isn’t something that is solely developed from individual efforts, but, as Brandt stated, requires the “sponsorship” of others.

Our literacy skills are a direct result of the societal interactions that we encounter every day. Scribner describes this as “functional literacy”, or “the level of proficiency necessary for effective performance in a range of settings and customary activities” (16). Whether you are filling out a form at the DMV, reading a street sign, or even updating your status on facebook (what Szwed describes as “public and private literacy” (425)), all of these aspects of literacy are a direct result of an individual’s needs to navigate through everyday life. Before becoming part of this community of practice, I never would have thought that literacy had any relation to filling out a form, or reading a road sign. But the more and more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Literacy isn’t limited to simply “reading and writing”, but is an ideal that pertains to comprehending and processing information in order to achieve an overall goal. For example, when I fill out a job application, I have to process how I am answering each question so that I can achieve the overall goal of getting the job.

As time goes on, literacy trends and necessity alters based on our ever evolving social norm’s. While I believe that the fact that literacy is constantly being altered and refined like an evolving organism, some people fear these changes will result in what Williams refers to as a “literacy crisis”. Yet based on the research of Williams and Lundsford, the so called “literacy crisis” is not being caused from younger generations using “lol” or “gr8” (Lundsford argues that younger generations actually can filter between academic and non-formal writing practices), but it is a direct reaction from the middle class based on the economic strains and “anxieties about status and privilege” (Williams, 179).

The two concepts that have really altered my perception of literacy have been the ideas of autonomous literacy and sponsorship. From these concepts, as well as my experience in Kim’s ENGL 130 Jumbo, teaching workshops, and being in Peter Kittle’s ENGL 534 class, I have developed a mindset that teachers should not just be shells standing in front of blank faces reciting a text at students. Teachers must facilitate learning, not dictate it. A teacher should act as a resource, not an answer sheet. This is why I have fully come to embrace this idea of autonomous learning and (self)sponsorship. Learning should be a process that students take ownership over. It should be a trial and error based process. If a student approaches a teacher with a book that the student that they want to read that is “too advanced”, instead of pushing the student to read something else, the teacher should encourage the student to try, and if they find that it is too difficult, then the teachers should encourage them to find something else that interests them. And exploring these interests doesn’t necessarily mean that a student has to read a book. Aren’t students who enjoy reading sports magazines, a playbook, a script, or even a newspaper article engaging in literacy practices in a manner as someone reading To Kill a Mockingbird? Based on Brandt’s article, literacy is a multidimensional aspect that expands across an array of “literacy communities”, and we, as teachers, should be mindful of this multitude of “literacy communities” when engaging our students in literacy practices.

One of the quotes that really stuck out to me in Brandt’s article was:

“Like Little Leaguers who wear the logo of the local insurance agency on their uniforms, not out of concern for enhancing the agency’s image but as a means for getting to play ball, people throughout history have acquired literacy pragmatically under the banner of others’ cause”(168).

The reason why I liked this quote so much is because it has a baseball reference, but the other reason why I thought that it was so intriguing because it made me question why we choose to associate in certain “literacy communities”. It’s clear that we must engage in certain sponsors of literacy in order to socially navigate through life. But what about the sponsors that we choose to engage with in order to enhance our literacy? For example, I feel that it was my choice to attend college. My parents didn’t force me; sure I felt societal pressure that I had to get a college degree in order to climb up the ladder of social power, but I still would say that it was ultimately my decision. Five years in the English Education program has given me the opportunity to interact with a wide variety of literacy sponsors, whether it was because of a job, or a class, or an instructor, or even one of my workshop students. Engaging in a variety of “literacy communities” not only helps me develop  individually and as a professional, but it also helps me become more aware of the different values and norms of these literacy communities.

While I believe that autonomous learning and self-sponsorship are key components to a student’s academic development, this does not mean that teachers have any less responsibilities when the take on a facilitation role. In fact, I would say that teachers have more responsibilities. Instead of handing out the answers, a teacher must hand out the tools for their students and act as a resource to guide students through challenges. While students are encouraged to take ownership and responsibility for their learning, it is up to the teacher to make sure that the learning environment is engaging and positive so that students don’t become discouraged. Instead of thinking “I failed”, students should be able to think “well that didn’t work, so how can revise it to make it better”. Even though teachers act as facilitators of learning, they are still sponsors for a student’s literacy practices.

One of my favorite TED talks to watch is presented by Sir Ken Robinson, and is entitled “How Schools Kill Creativity”. During this talk, he discusses how students have this notion in their head that being wrong about something is bad. Instead, students should be looking at the notion of “wrongness” as an opportunity for revision and rethinking, not as an endpoint that results in self doubt. I believe that by reforming education so that it embraces a multitude of literacy practices (i.e blogging, scholarly articles, Wikipedia, tweeting, creating videos, interpreting signs, etc.), we will give future generations of students the opportunities to become more well-rounded, creative academic individuals that aren’t afraid to take chances with their literacy practices.