In the first article by Barton and Hamilton the authors discuss literacy as an activity within a social context as opposed to a tool that people use. “Like all human activity, literacy is essentially social, and it is located in the interaction between people” (Barton, 3). The article illustrates what people do with literacy: of the social activities, of the thoughts and meanings behind the activities, and of the texts utilized in such activities. It is about how a particular group of people use reading and writing in their day-today lives. Of necessity, the book is particular; it sets out from individual people's lives and particular literacy events at a certain point in history (Barton, 3). By doing so it illustrates to the reader literacy as a social event instead of a tool that we all use. These literacy events allows the reader to see society in that time that place, that location, that social context and see how literacy changes as time progresses.
The approach the article takes is “First [they] offer up a description and an investigation of literacy in one local community. Second, the book represents a contribution to the theoretical understanding of literacy, and more generally to the understanding of social practices and how people make sense of their lives through then everyday practices” (Barton, 4). By doing so the article focuses on the vernacular literacies and by doing so gives you an insight into everyday life and literacy in day to day use and how education affects the quality of life. This approach allows illiterates to be not be viewed as dumb because they do not possess the “tool” of literacy but to be seen as possessing another type of “tool” or another type of literacy a vernacular literacy which may not function outside of their region but inside their region is allows them to function in everyday life.
In the second article by Marsha Farr, she discusses literacy practices among the social network of Chicago Mexicans. Farr discusses “illiteracy” among a group of Mexicans living in the suburb of Chicago and by “illiteracy” it is what typical Americans would describe as reading and writing. Farr argues that by using this linguistic definition “can result in denigration or patronization, rather than a more egalitarian respect for differences that may exist. This is not to deny that literacy is used in particular ways of thinking, nor even to argue against instruction in Western literate behaviors, but to avoid labeling people who in fact have literacy skills as either ‘illiterate’ or ‘semi-literate’” (Farr, 7).
In this article Farr interviews men who did not learn how to formally read and write but taught themselves due to necessity and because they wanted to learn. Farr also illustrates that reading or writing does not come in any specific order. “These differing accounts tell us that neither learning reading first nor writing first is more "natural" Both, however, can be acquired without schooling as a spontaneous part of daily life, when people perceive a need for these skills” (Farr, 14). The method that these men used Farr describes as lirico or “is to learn informally, without books, and purely with spoken language” (Farr, 16). These men had the motivation to want to learn therefore they developed a method to learn what they needed. The factors that motivated these men, as Farr describes, are “first, those with whom they wanted to communicate were in another country; second, they felt a personal obligation to maintain these relationships and to maintain them personally; third, a cultural tool, writing, was available for this purpose; and fourth, others were able and willing to share their knowledge of this cultural too!” (Farr, 20).
Both these articles argue that one may be considered illiterate in one context and literate in another. While the men in Farr’s article where literate because they could not read and write according to Americas standards they were literate in that they were able to communicate with their families. As Barton explained these men had vernacular literacies, which functions in their region but not outside of it. These men used their form literacy in day to day life thus showing that one may be illiterate by one standard but still have some form of literacy. This knowledge in valuable to the future educator in that it will free the mind of the educator to try and understand the literacy of their student and their parents to better communicate with them. By one being more accepting of various types of literacies one can adapt their teaching methods to try and “reach out” to these various literacies and educate the child thought their type of literacy. However this does propose a problem because now education is more child specific causing more trouble for the teacher but if you consider that most schools are located in regions where most of the students share the same regional vernacular literacy the job now falls on the educator to learn the vernacular literacy which would be easier than the other way around.
Now based on these articles I invite to consider this: Should we have a universal literacy or should we try and adapt to the need of the students and adapt out methods to their literacies? Do you consider vernacular literacy a literacy at all? Or is it just “slang” and has no value. If you do is “slang” a vernacular literacy, why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Farr's "En Los Dos Idiomas" considered many social aspects of literacy that pertain to different levels learned and shared by the communities. The commercial, religious, political, and educational domains of literacy are influential to a person's abilities and motivations to learn. Motivation is also a key aspect. You can't drive without a key. These motivations revolve around the desire to communicate with friends and families at a great distance. Farr discusses that motivation comes from a person's setting, who is participating, how the text is functioning, and what the text is. I agree that literacy is all in the context of power and who has the authority to define literacy. It is obvious that the "lirico" learners are capable of surviving in society with the bare minimum of literacy so doesn't that make them literate? Because they were not formally taught does not mean that they are not formally literate. To your question of whether there should be a universal literacy I cannot answer because I don't know which is better. While I think there should be a "standard," literacy is too complicated and has too many factors to consider. It involves an entire community to define what literacy actually is. So, what it is to U.S. Americans can differ from Mexican Americans because of how they perceive it. It's formal consideration stemming from education in schools holds literacy to a higher standard, but informal education defines it through the contexts in which it functions. There is great value in vernacular literacy. If there weren't it wouldn't be studied. It is still a subcategory regardless of its relationship with the people who use it. It is yet considered a tool like "lirico" uses the voice as a technology, a means of communication.
ReplyDeleteI thought this statement from Farr is interesting so I want to include it in my comment. Farr states, "When children are being taught 'basic skills' such as language structure, readin, and mathematics, they should be taught the relevant underlying concepts, both to learn the material and to progress to more difficult material" (41-42). For many of us who are going into teaching, this is such an important idea. The focus on concepts rather than "memorization or rote learning" is a great skill to give to children so that they can critically think about issues for themselves regardless of whether it is new or old. My friends niece is twelve years old and she has trouble with school because perhaps her teachers are not recognizing the communication barriers (not language to language but domain related vocabulary), adequately inroducing them to new concepts, or she is just simply sick of school. There are so many factors that are involved with teaching children the basic reading, writing, and math skills and teaching them motivation. When a child is called "stupid" or "inadequate” according to tests, they are less motivated to even try to learn. It could be something as simple as misunderstanding what they were being asked, like some mentioned in Farr’s essay, that could be easily accommodated for.
We all know Southern Cali is a melting pot and the standards that are placed on teachers often allow little wiggle room for instruction. I remember when I was in high school my classes were extremely diverse and teachers often found it difficult for some students to see how certain material was relateable to them. I remember when I observed classes for Eng 312 and about 98% of the students were Hispanic. I remember the teacher informing me that the lower level students found it difficult to write in English. On a day when I was observing the class, the students were presenting powerpoint presentations in which they had written poems in English about their heritage. What I noticed and discussed with the teacher was that these poems were extremely heartfelt and flaws were minimal. She told me that she often had assignments that related to who the students are and their background. This allows for the students to protect their identity ego and allows for them to feel comfortable learning their second language.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to your question about whether a "universal literacy" should be implemented into the school system is a definite no. But it seems that is the direction the educational system is headed. The state is so focused on making sure districts are enforcing their schools to meet certain test requirements that schools are not receiving funding if they "miss the marks." Obviously these STANDARDS ARE NOT WORKING. But then the flipside of it is how are we as future teachers going to manipulate the standards into our own style of teaching? We will not have the standards change our teaching methods, but will rather find ways to adapt the standards into our own lesson plans.