CHICO: Collaborative, Hybrid, Innovative, Creative, & Open Learning Resources

In looking at literacy based upon the texts “Unpackaging Literacy” by Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole and “Literacy in Three Metaphors” by Sylvia Scribner there is an over arching theme or idea based around the individual. Literacy is something that is difficult to measure empirically because it is based upon individual experience as well as individual cultures and communities. Therefore to create an over arching definition for literacy can perhaps leave one wanting, there is not way to define something that spans across contents, history, time, and culture there are simply to many variables. If we look at the idea of the individual their literacy is based upon gender, age, culture, country, economic situation, and perhaps their career goals and aspirations. First this is seen in “Unpackaging Literacy” where Scribner and Cole discuss this idea that literacy is determined on a social or cultural level. When they look at differing theories about the cognitive consequences of literacy they determine that while the theories are interesting they based in general perspective of the norms of society stating that “Inference about cognitive changes in individuals are shaky if they rest only on the analysis of cultural phenomena.” (125). And this idea continues over to “Literacy in Three Metaphors” where they address many of the ares in which we link the idea of literacy too. Literacy as adaption discusses the aspects of functional literacy, what we need and use literacy for in our day to day activities and it is important to notice that Scribner makes a point to say that she is talking about this nation, the United States, because if we were in a different culture or country the literacy required could be different and once again we would see yet another definition for literacy. And, this pulls us back again to the idea of the individual, that a working definition of literacy is based upon an individual experiences. Next is literacy as power which pulls on another idea for our nation and that is that literacy is required to work with in the system. If you want to be part of the productive aspects of society, or at minimum what is deemed the productive parts of society, than you must have literacy to be an effective part “in our country’s economic and educational institutions.”(19). However, as we reader further on this idea the theme of the individual comes in again, because Scribner states “…literacy has different meanings for members of different groups.” (19). What this shows us is that even either the United States literacy acting as or working as power once again is contingent upon the different communities and their value of literacy. Last the reader sees literacy as a state of grace, which draws on the idea of someone being cultured and/or spiritually enlightened. This means that there is a greater intellectual depth because of a persons literate success, however, how can we or do we gage this success. Literacy supplies knowledge but discernment wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom are two very different things and while one may have knowledge if they do not know how to apply it, it is useless and the most literate person can fail in application, while someone who is deemed illiterate can perhaps be the key to unlocking that knowledge and turn it into wisdom.

Both of these readings prompted the same questions in my mind based around a problems with standards. Where do we draw the line in literacy? If there is no line how can we begin to discuss its effects with society?

In Sylvia Scribner’s Literacy in Three Metaphors, we gain an insight into the struggles between practical literacy and academic literacy. She also includes issues of regional standards versus universal standards. Scribner describes that, “…public discussions fluctuate between narrow definitions of functional skills pegged to immediate vocational and personal needs, and sweeping definitions that virtually reinstate the ability to cope with college subject matter as the hallmark of literacy. On the other hand, adopting different regions or communities would ensure the perpetuation of educational inequalities and the differential access to life opportunities with which these are associated” (Scribner 17). My immediate understanding of this struggle stems from my own experience with students entering into “academic” composition classes with “regional” literacy. One of my students wanted me to help him with his project because he was ashamed of the way he spoke. He also claimed that he knew his speaking and writing sounded “ghetto” and that this was not acceptable for an academic course. My response to this student was to assure him that the quality of work expected from this course was contextual. I wanted him to be able to derive meaning from, and added discourse to, his sources found in his research. His “ghetto” manner of speaking should have nothing to do with the results or the process of writing. And yet, he still felt ashamed to finish his voice over (a requirement of the particular RSA style format he had chosen for the assignment).

I witness this struggle with my students on a day to day basis. Their confidence in their own authority, and self confidence in their intelligence, is diminished by their particular vernacular. Why do we hold them to particular standards? Are these standards fair?

These questions took shape within the second reading for this week.

Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole’s Unpacking Literacy, the authors compare writing practices of the Vai language of northwestern Liberia. One particular section of the literacy that was called into question was the rarity of formal poetic and rhetorical writing practices.  “There are two types of text rarely found thus far, Britton’s (1975) two polar – the poetic, concerned with exploring personal experiences and feelings, and the transaction or expository, basically concerned with examining ideas of presenting a persuasive argument” (LaCS: Scribner and Cole 132). I found this compelling due to the fact that there was no indication of what constituted a poetic or argumentative form of writing. This once again brings me to my understanding universality of standards within genres of literacy. This may be explained in more detail with further research, but it leads me to believe that we may be too concerned with what defines literacy instead of how does literacy function? The ability to read and write has organized thoughts into a cohesive and complex act of sharing. At the center of this wonderful thing called literacy there is a light within its ideals. The sharing and spreading of knowledge. So far, this is the only universal claim that I feel safe asserting.

While reading through the readings this week, I found myself gravitating towards the Sylvia Scribner article and it’s ability to show the messiness that is literacy. The function of literacy and literacy practices not only depends on the social norms of a given culture, but also embodies various power structures and stages of “intellectual development” (21). However, as I was sifting through these ideas, I couldn’t help but questioning how these concepts could be reflected into the classroom. Based on our reedings, where the majority of my questions stem from is finding the differentiation between “institutional literacy” (meaning the basic literacy skills and need to know practices that will help our students advance academically and professionally) and “social literacy” (meaning all of the other literacy practices that allow our students to develop socially and culturally). In my mind, it’s becoming more and more difficult to envision a perfect union between these two ideas, especially in the classroom. I keep asking question like: how would this curriculum be made to suit the needs of the community and society overall? Would personalized classroom curriculum need to be created for each community? How would that work demographically? As our schools become more and more diverse, how do we support the cultures of all of our students? Is there a way for teachers to embody the cultural and social importance of literacy while still giving them the “how to” skills that they will need when applying for a job? Should we even have “literacy standards” that students need to meet every year? Should teachers go through K-12 with the same group of students to build that community of practice?

The more and more I read and observe, the more questions I have. My biggest internal struggle is finding a balance between the needs of the student and the needs of society. Since literacy is social, then how do we help the individual?

However, as I start to look into my thesis and explore the notion of digital literacy, I can’t help but wonder how important the platform in which literacy is shown through is? As our generation pushes further and further into the digital age, and technologies like pen and paper are used less and less, and people are expected to be able to navigate a multitude of digital platforms at a high functioning level, how is this evolving our literary needs/practices/functionality? I’m of course thinking about gaming when I ask these questions. In a virtual world that utilizes visual, written, and spoken literacy techniques, while also engaging players in critical thinking scenarios that embody social and cultural interpretations and identity projection (meaning you are taking on the role of yourself and an ‘other’) while still having the ability to interact in real time with other players, is this method the balance that we are searching for? Could this be a link between “institutional literacy” and “social literacy”?