Example weekly response

From Lisa:

Summary of Szwed’s “The Ethnography of Literacy”

Szwed begins by discussing the importance of literacy in today’s society. We hold literacy as a necessary tool of the modern day. It is viewed as being necessary in reaching for “success” or creating social mobility. In fact, many people perceive illiteracy as a “root of poverty.” Szwed then goes on to describe the contradicting reality. While this society holds literacy as such an ideal for success the reality is that “literacy as an ideal is failing.” Szwed says that even in the wealthiest nations literacy rates are dropping dramatically. He says that professional’s in the field say they know proper methods for teaching literacy. Therefore, they attribute drop in literacy rates to: “poor teaching, overcrowded schools, family background, the competition with the new media” (421-422) and more. Szwed challenges these professionals and states that we still don’t know what literacy really is let alone how to properly teach it. He points out various questions and points to consider about what literacy is:

-What is the function of literacy to an individual and to a society?

-What is the social meaning of literacy? Or what are the roles that these abilities play in social life?

-How is literacy defined within “social context and functional use” (433).

-How does motivation vary in relationship to context, function, and text/genre?

-How do individuals and students use literacy and how is it important to them?

Szwed then mentions that while these questions are under consideration it is also important to remember what he calls “Plurality of Literacy” (423). This means that literacy varies and changes based on stages in a person’s life and their position. “Plurality of literacy” is a term Szwed uses to remind researchers that literacy, its uses, and its meaning will never have one definition because of its variation in each individual’s life.

Szwed then goes on to discuss a few elements that should be considered in literacy studes: text, context, function, participants, and motivation.

Text: Szwed writes that there is no agreement on “What is literature?” Text can include anything from novels, to comics, to street signs, to labels on a cereal box. Text covers pretty much anything and everything that makes use of words or letters even.

Function: There is no solid information about the various and endless functions of literacy. Szwed mentions a few examples that aren’t always considered including; “status, symbols, gifts, [and] investments” (425). Usually literacy’s function is seen and just providing knowledge and fun, but there is an endless array of functions.

Context: There is also little known about the various “contexts of reading and writing and how these contexts affect these skills.” People read in all sorts of situations. There is morning newspaper reading, bed time reading, church reading, reading while waiting, being forced to read in school, and more. There needs to be more studies about the affects of context on the ability to apply literacy skills. Szwed also mentions “public” vs. “private” literacy. The skills used for both often don’t transfer over. Therefore in teaching literacy Szwed suggests that we bridge the gap between students school life and their home or private life.

Participants: Literacy is not an individual act according to Szwed. He says that literacy is often an act reliant on a group of people. An example he uses is that when an author writes a book he/she works in collaboration with the editor and a whole group of people to arrange the book. It is a collective act. Therefore, literacy becomes a larger activity and no longer an individual action.

Motivation: Szwed mentions that we need to bridge the gap between students‘ real lives and their education at school. He argues to give students the skills that will directly aid them in their everyday life.

Lastly, he argues that when studying literacy age, class, ethnic group, and various other factors must be taken into consideration in order to be accurate. He argues that we should focus on individual cases of literacy in order to get the most accurate information, because literacy varies so much from person to person. Szwed’s last point is that during research on literacy “the focus should be on the school and its relation to the community’s needs and wishes” (429). We should be trying to integrate school with real social needs.

Key Phrases/Terms:

-“Social meaning of literacy”: the roles these abilities play in social life. (422)

-“Plurality of literacy’s:” Variation of literacy ability based on a number of factors including age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, ethnic group, and more.

-ethnographic studies: a holistic approach that relies on field work to provide a descriptive account of human societies.

Field Notes:

-On Tuesday the class decided to go outside for consultations. We did not need the computer screen or the board so we made a group decision to go outside. I was shocked at the amount of participation that day. Most of the students seemed more comfortable and relaxed. The conversation seemed more informal even though it was very productive. The consultation student was very grateful that day and thanked everyone for helping him out.

This aspect of class on Tuesday reminded me of Szwed talking about motivation. He says that motivation can vary according to context, text, function and drama. In the case of Tuesday’s class I saw this as very true. The consultation student has been taking a long time to decide on his topic. He didn’t seem very interested and seemed “stuck” until class on Tuesday. At first he didn’t see how to put his ideas together until he got advice from the class. Afterwards, he expressed that he was feeling more motivated now that he had a stronger sense of direction. Sometimes all it takes is giving a student a little attention and help. It shows that literacy skills benefit from discourse about literacy.

-Another aspect of Tuesday that I was reminded of while reading Szwed was student lateness. One student in 30 said that it wasn’t fair when everyone else was late or didn’t come. She said that it holds the rest of them back. I was happy to hear her say this. Many students don’t care if peers don’t show up, but she realized that literacy is a social activity.

This comment goes back to Szwed’s example of participants. In the 30 group it is not only one student working on a paper, but it is rather a collaboration. It is just like how an article goes through various people at the newspaper before being published. How is one individual expected to do their part when no one else will do their part? Without everyone doing their part it makes one individual’s work seem almost useless. The student in 30 didn’t like that she was always there to help others in their consultation but they weren’t there for hers.

-On Thursday we went to see a sociology professor who could perhaps help the 30 students to see their projects in a slightly different way. He was great and helpful and helped them see their topics in a more broad way. He even helped them with how to go about understanding the assignment and all its requirements. He had fun with us. He mapped our ideas on the board. He made sure to make a connection with each student and learn everyone’s name. He used everyone’s name when he called on us. He wanted to know not only what the student’s topics were, but why the topics mattered to them. He made the experience human and he made it personal. I think making everyone feel important made them realize that they are capable and intelligent students. Their ideas seemed to come together for each their papers while he also guided them in making connections between each others topics.

Szwed believes that literacy is not an individual act but a social act. There are many participants in each individuals literacy. In the case the 30 students they seem to be greatly benefitting from working with each other and different teachers and professors. The whole process of discourse where everyone is included seems to help students remember that we are all human and here to just enjoy learning and the sharing our knowledge.