Brandt and Clinton- “Limits of the Local: Expanding Perspectives on Literacy as a Social Practice”

In the introduction to this piece an important quote stood out as defining the goals of Brandt and Clinton. “To open new directions for literacy research we suggest more attention be paid to the material dimensions of literacy. Drawing on the work of Bruno LaTour (1993, 1996), we seek to theorize the transcontextualized and transcontextualizing potentials of literacy – particularly its ability to travel, integrate, and endure. Finally, we propose a set of analytical constructs that treat literacy not solely as an outcome or accomplishment of local practices, but also as a participant in them. By restoring a ‘thing status’ to literacy, we can attend to the role of literacy in human action. The logic of such a perspective suggests that understanding what literacy is doing with people in a setting is as important as understanding what people are doing with literacy in a setting” (337). This perfectly introduces and summarizes what they set out to do in their research on literacy. They go on to discuss how they want to push against the “great Divide” or “autonomous model” which treats literacy as decontextualized and a decontextualizing technology.

They deal with looking at the local contexts of literacy aside from just local practice. Literacy itself participates in social practices as an object or technology, but studying it in this context has been an undertheorized practice. Brandt and Clinton, in response to this, set out to dissolve the dichotomies of the local and global, agency and social structure, and literacy and its technology by treating it as a participant in local practices rather than just an outcome. In other words, literacy, as LaTour would say, is an actant (actor) not just a result.

Moving into a discussion of preceding literacy theorists, they critique Jack Goody, Walter Ong, and David Olson for the oral literate dichotomies produced from their work such as oral cultures being primitive and writing and reading cultures being civilized. Brandt and Clinton criticize this way of thinking about literacy, bringing up the fact that there are many other studies that have been performed which push against that sort of dichotomy. Scribner and Cole, for example, claim that what literacy does to you depends on what you do with it. Another critic of those scholars, Brian Street, whose work in the New Literacy Studies has been important to the field of literacy studies, felt their theories were methodologically overreaching and ideologically suspect. According to Street’s perspective, social context organizes literacy, rather than the other way around. Context is important to revisionist thinking because it illuminates the agency involved in literacy use. Agency itself ties heavily into the social practice perspective, and this is evident when local readers and writers are observed making meaning of literacy on their own terms.

The oral societies that have received so much criticism and been viewed as lacking civility, among other things, upon reexamination, reveal that without technology of literacy oral people exhibit logical reasoning, historical consciousness, skepticism, differentiation, and complex organization- all of which had been reserved for describing literate societies from the “Great Divide” theory. Now, orality has emerged as a powerful technology, and talking is the primary form of teaching reading and writing, as well as in negotiating understanding of written language. With that in mind, it is easy to realize that Goody, Ong, and Olson had too much stock in reading and writing, and not enough in the importance of orality as coming alongside the two. Instead, they were feeding the dichotomies which have so often positioned the West against the East or Other. This reversal shows that we need to move from text to context and unify orality and literacy, which can also be described as the literacy event and literacy practice.

What is the difference between a literacy event and a literacy practice? According to Brandt and Clinton, literacy events are seen as discrete and observable happenings and practices are abstract, enduring, and not completely observable. Out of this concept came ethnographic studies which paid attention to what individuals read and write, when, where, how, and why. In other words, their focus shifted to the flow of literacy in and around daily activity and its relationship to other social practices. Much of these studies countered the claims about literacy that came out of the autonomous model. At the same time though, Brandt and Clinton are concerned with if it is possible to recognize and theorize the transcontextual aspects of literacy without calling it decontextualized. They ask, “Can we not approach literacy as a technology – and as an agent – without falling back into the autonomous model?” To wrestle with these questions they move on to discuss expanding perspectives on social practice. However, I am not quite sure that this question is fully answered.

Through studying local contexts to understand local literacy we can also look to the local literacy practices to understand what organizes local life. An example of this is seen in Besnier’s ethnography, “Literacy, Emotion, and Authority: Reading and Writing on a Polynesian Atoll”, on the Nukulaelae people who wear American t-shirts with slogans they don’t understand, some of which are offensive or risque. The print on the shirts fell outside local relevance, and they had no interest in what the shirts say because they didn’t play a part in any recognizable literacy events. At the same time, these t-shirts entered into the cultural and historical facts of the island without a local literacy event mediating permission. The slogans themselves demonstrate the reach of a global market economy into family gift-giving and personal possessions. The Nukulaelae ignore the print, but the print also ignores them while incorporating them into Western commercialism, thus demonstrating that the technologies of literacy have the capacity to travel, stay intact, be visible and animate outside the interactions of immediate literacy events.

This is where LaTour truly enters the picture, and we end up seeing that a huge problem with literacy events, as defined by the social practice perspective, is that it comes across as overwhelmingly particular and situated under the ethnographic gaze. The issue we often fail to consider is that the objects in literacy events are contextually active participants, and we generally think of them only in terms of their function locally and interactively. The social practice perspective asserts that human agents, whether individually or collectively, mediate literacy practices whenever they take them up and use them to fulfill the needs at hand. Additionally, objects as active mediators imbue, resist, and recraft. At the same time, LaTour emphasizes that everything is local and made of local interactions, but local events can have globalizing tendencies and globalizing effects, accomplished through the mediation of globalizing technologies (347). The point he is getting at is that we need to take on a perspective that acknowledges how extensively literacy plays into building networks across time and space with de-localizing and re-framing social life, and with its centralizing power in which the social world is organized and connected, all of which can be accomplished by investigating local life.

As was mentioned in the introduction to this piece, Brandt and Clinton suggest that understanding what literacy is doing with people in a setting is as important as understanding what people are doing with literacy in a setting. They add to this by discussing how LaTour states that things are actors themselves– they can serve as “comrades, colleagues, partners, accomplices or associates in the weaving of social life” (348).By taking on this view, it becomes possible to explore many other important questions. By replacing the literacy event, which privileges human actors of non-human actors, with the “literacy-in-action” concept we can look analytically at the objective trace of literacy in a setting whether or not they are taken up by local actors. An example of this would be the Nukulaelae with the t-shirts in which residents do not act to incorporate the slogans messages into their immediate interpretation, while at the same time the print communicates the incorporation into the global market system of the Nukulaelae.

Brandt and Clinton then go on to discuss sponsors of literacy, the ideas which we read about in week 3 of our course. In this section, they discuss how identifying sponsors at scenes of reading and writing links humans and things in two important ways: It allows us to always ask about the literacy materials in a setting and it helps to clarify the multiple interests or agents that are usually active when writing and reading are taken up. Attention to sponsors provides insight into how literate practices can be shaped out of the struggle of competing agents and interests, and also how multiple interests can be satisfied by one literacy event. More importantly, in my opinion, it allows us to see the correlation between the literacy practice and social relationships while answering distant demands demonstrating the agency is oftentimes multisourced.

In the subsequent section they introduce a series of LaTour’s terms that bring new perspective to literacy as a social practice. The first term: Localizing moves encompasses actions of humans and things in framing or partitioning particular interactions. Since literacy objects in action often localize a context by framing it or holding it in place, they can also perform other localizing moves like the sharing of cultural habits or by mediating a local social structure. The second term: Globalizing Connects, which can be accomplished by human and nonhuman actors, is identified as the shift out of individuals and the knitting together of interactions. We look to the technologies of literacy to accomplish globalizing connects as they carry reading and writing actions in and out of local contexts or consolidate them in one place (352). The third term: Folding expresses ontological relationships between people and things. In other words, a person can fold an act of doing into an object. The example used for this was the ability of the journal to travel and endure in one pieced and its ability to interact across space and time. The authors fold themselves into the Journal of Literacy Research which disseminates their article to readers while they are doing other things. By folding into the non-human, the sponsors of literacy indirectly interact with other humans.

To conclude their theoretical work, the point Brandt and Clinton are getting at from establishing these aspects of the social practice perspective is that, they can help us to consider how and how much local literacies involve importing and exporting literacy across contexts and the role of managing these movements. This leads us into questions about which contexts import and export and from where, which maintain a balance of trade, what sponsorship patterns exist across contexts, comparing differences in sponsoring power and costs, and changes in patterns of sponsorship. We can begin mapping these relationships and networks to better examine which processes sustain diversity and iniquity in literacy. Additionally, we can examine how more localized literacy networks may have less agency or power than those whose networks are more expansive. From understanding and applying these concepts, we can begin to address how forms of literacy disrupt, tear up, and destabilize patterns of social life. They believe it is necessary to focus on the material dimensions of literacy, it’s durability, capacity to connect, mediate, represent, and hold together multiple interests to accomplish these complex ways of analyzing literacies function in the world and approach the ideological struggles that accompany it.

One interesting way to look at the material dimensions of literacy and its capacity to connect, mediate, represent, and hold together multiple interests is that of the hashtag example we discussed in class. Twitter, in particular, took up the hashtag, and it now acts as a representation of different things like the black lives matter movement. It mediates multiple interests in that movement, represents multiply-configured meanings, and holds together the interests of various intersections of human identities and interests. Through the literacy object of the hashtag one can analyze these various literacy functions and visibly see the connections between what localized literacies move through time and space, and across the contexts in which it is globally situated. The hashtag is acted upon and is an actant, mediating literacies for humans, acting with globalizing tendencies, and connecting and sharing localized practices.

 

New Literacy Studies in Practice

Street’s argument is positioned in direct conversation with Brandt & Clinton’s (2002) “Limits of the Local,” in that it illuminates the divide between local and global literacies. Street (2003) acknowledges that Brandt and Clinton (2002) create a “helpful way of characterizing the local / global debate in which literacy practices play a central role” (80). He notes that their qualms about the difficulty of making generalizations based on small analyses of local literacies is a valid concern. However, he argues that Brandt & Clinton’s (2002) attempt to label “distant” literacies as “autonomous” adds too much neutrality to the theory. Street’s piece is essentially an attempt to continue to see literacy, both locally and globally, as being embedded in social practices. He resists Brandt & Clinton’s attempts to neutralize the literacy practices that occur outside of local contexts.

One of Street’s more convincing and relatable examples of the socially embedded natures of both global and local literacies is actually a small example that he mentions, almost in passing. Street briefly explains Kulick & Stroud’s (1993) research of a New Guinea tribe that adapted literacy received from missionaries to fit their local circumstances. He points out that such an example shows how a mesh of local and global literacies usually results in a hybrid practice rather than a pure form of either version. There is no clear delineation between what is local and what is global in such a circumstance.

This is a concept that we can see play out in our own experiences. When new technologies enter schools, for example, they get repurposed to fit the literacy needs of that social group. Academic literacy practices such as the Twitter essay (Stommel, 2012) or writing with blogs are examples of global literacies (social media) being repurposed and hybridized to fit the literacy needs of a local group (a classroom). This makes me question whether social media (or any literacy platform) can truly ever be classified as “global?” After all, isn’t New Literacy Studies all about arguing that literacy is always localized and embedded in social practices because individuals who infuse their literacy practices with the social values of their local context?

If one is to argue that literacy can be “global,” one must also argue that there are practices that transcend local contexts and can be generalized. This is what Brandt and Clinton (2002) attempt to do when they say that global literacies are “any things associated with unified communication systems”  (p. 352). However, at best, it seems to me that so-called “global” literacy is actually hybrid of local literacies. Let’s use the example of the missionaries who brought literacy to New Guinea. In this example, the literacy of the missionaries is the “global” literacy while the practices of the New Guineans localize the literacy to fit their needs. However, Bartlett & Holland (2002) would argue that, the missionaries’ literacy was sponsored and shaped by historical and social forces that influenced their “linguistic habitus” and practices (p.6 as cited in Street, 2003, p. 81). Therefore, although the literacy of the missionaries was certainly “distant” to the practices of the New Guineans, wouldn’t it be quite a leap (and quite colonial) to say that the literacy of the missionaries was “global,” not only because the word “global” has amorphous, universalist connotations, but because the literacy practices of the missionaries were also embedded in their own unique, local context. Similar to Street, I would argue that a hybrid literacy did form, but that it was the result of a local literacy melding with another local literacy rather than global literacy transforming a local literacy.

Before I digress too much further, let’s return to another interesting point in Street’s argument. After establishing his position in relation to that of Brandt & Clinton (2002) and several other scholars, he moves on to “develop positive proposals for interventions in teaching, curriculum, measurement criteria, and teacher education” (p. 82). To Street, this sort of practical application is the true test of the viability of New Literacy Studies as a theory that can accomplish  real work in the world. One point of conflict that Street addresses is the divide between the diversity of local needs and the broader demands of policy makers and funding agencies. He points out that rigorous, scientific research is one way to bridge this gap, which brings me to a discussion of the fascinating research presented by Dr. Erin Whitney in class.

Whitney’s research is a beautiful example of certain generalizations that can be made about how junior high students express their literacies. Her research showed that, even though some students are diagnosed with learning disabilities because of low reading and writing test scores, these students can be very capable when using literacy in different genres and purposes than those that are tested in school. A student who struggled with the essay format was adept at expressing her knowledge by writing and performing plays and poems. Just as the New Guineans were able to adapt literacy to fit their community’s needs, the students that Dr. Whitney studied were able to adapt the literacies of their classrooms to fit the needs of their social groups and contexts. As Streets (2003) notes, unfortunately, the relationship between academic and lived literacies are quite strained, which could be a contributing factor to students’ difficulty with academic routes to success (p. 83).

So how does Dr. Whitney’s research fit in with New Literacy Studies? Her data and interpretations show that multimodal projects, collaboration, and digital pedagogies give students, particularly those with disabilities, the chance to demonstrate their knowledge using a wide array of available literacy practices that carry weight in their worlds outside of school.In the experiences of her students, literacy is not an autonomous set of skills that is neutrally given and received; literacy is instead an ideology that is embedded in local cultural and social practices of their community. Therefore, literacy pedagogy must be kept as open and fluid and possible in order to allow for the wide variety of interpretations and demands that are placed upon it by different contexts and communities.

 

Collins & Blot – “The Literacy Thesis”

(A review of an old theory)

“The Great Divide” — Literacy, the ability to read and write, is purported to be the catalyst of cognitive, cultural, and social reformation into “modernity.”

On one side of this debate, literacy is seen as the defining aspect that allows for the construct and advancement of complex social structures, including economic and political. It is a dichotomy of literacy marking the line between the primitive and the civilized and has been the backbone of Western intellectual culture for a significant period, and still persists to this day to some degree. Collins and Blot point out that many of its claims range from incorrect to inconclusive, and this chapter takes many stabs at the insinuations of the argument that literate cultures are somehow inherently “better” than those maintained in oral tradition. The argument of literacy being the driving force of civilized society is somewhat more politically correct than the previous view: some people are simply, cognitively inferior. However, the question regarding the validity of these claims still remains.

Colonial powers forcing the adoption of language and written scripts is a real-world example of literacy used as a cultural weapon and part of a common theme placing literacy among the tools of power and domination. The ultimate goal was meant to change the mindset of target populations to a more European one politically, but also often religiously. That intended purpose was based off the assumption that literacy can act as a revolutionizing element of society on a fundamental level.

In contrast to forced adoption, one topic the authors bring up involves the preservation of disappearing languages, particularly those with no orthography. The goal is to leave a recorded format of the language for others to use in the contemporary world. The questions raised here are what is the “correct” way? and who is the effort for? The answers to these questions are significant in choosing the most appropriate writing system. In the presented case of the Tolowa, they chose a system against the wishes of linguists because not only did it perform well, but it did not look like English or a European script, something a native American tribe would likely find pleasing. This example situation speaks to the identity involved in written language and what significant changes may occur to a cultural identity during forced adoption.

In contrast with much of the previously mentioned notions of literacy as some sort of benevolent savior, the authors state that both Goody and Levi-Strauss emphasize the power of literacy asserting that it has a vast history of being used more for “enslavement than improvement” (19). Much of that domination is purported by Goody and others to be through economic, and religious functions. On religion, rituals are kept static, written and unaltered in time to control the actions of others from afar; this basically gives literacy the status of “epoch-defining” and depicts its relevance as drastically more significant than non-literacy. Collins and Blot take issue with this stance on the grounds that oral traditions are not fairly looked into in the same detailed manner as literate ones, and the issue is left inconclusive on those charges. In fact, most of the issues with Goody’s work in particular have to do with the lack of details on one side of the argument making it imbalanced.

Through the “literacy boosts cognition” issue comes another more troubling one, the connection between literacy and morality. The idea that those who could not read or write were somehow less virtuous, even criminal, sprung from the growing adoption of public education in North America and England.

Perhaps Olson’s main contribution to the debate was to say that having an alphabet led to a greater explicitness to language leading the reader to a more literal meaning. In this thinking, the understanding of that literal meaning is supposedly what allows the literate mind the capability of modern scientific thought: “logical, skeptical, and concerned with counterfactuals” (24). This would seem to state the contentious view that non-literate people cannot comprehend the literal; thus, Olson majorly revised the argument some years later softening its stance and allowing for a more nuanced appreciation for interpretation of meaning.

Some equations of non-literates to adults are made in reference to the ability to understand speakers’ intentions. The crux of the argument is that children cannot discern the difference until around the age of four to seven. Again, these are unfair characterizations as it is not said whether the adult subjects are not expressing the target behavior because it is not in their cultural traditions to do so. They certainly have the capability, and Olson eventually acknowledged that this is something we learn very early (29). Collins and Blot have less of an issue agreeing that certain literacy practices can help build a sense of self-reflection; the problem they have is overgeneralizing claims without substantial evidence.

After considering Collins and Blot’s presentation of the issue, many questions remain unchanged and in the end unanswered. Is a writing really as unalterable as some of the authors would suggest? Words can be written in stone but read in a different era with new context revising the meaning. This happens all the time, even with the knowledge of the original meaning. It would seem as if we use previous writings to fit our current purposes, not because we are unable to decipher them correctly, but because they are sometimes inconvenient to our modern sensitivities.

Or what about the effect literacy has on our cognition? Does it make us smarter? Better people? I can only think of a few readings that are likely to make one dumber… but “better people” is a completely subjective judgement call. I would imagine if some say being literate makes you a better person, then some would also say it makes you a worse person. One thing we can say is that there are documentable effects on our behavior related to literacy. So, is literacy the thing allowing us self-reflection without which we would be reduced to warring savages? I’m afraid we’ll have to find other reasons to blame for that.

Link to our notes for Collins & Blot

 

Deborah Brandt – “Sponsors of Literacy”

A sponsor of literacy is a broad term that applies to the resources and conditions that influence literacy practices. Sponsors are similar to the patron in a patron-client relationship, meaning a sponsor gives a writer the means to write for the sponsor’s implicit or explicit interests. There are two main kinds of sponsors that Brandt mentions. The first, who primarily shape the literacy practices of children and young adults, are other people (older relatives, teachers, priests, supervisors, military officers, editors, and influential authors). While people will always affect literacy learning in other people, Brandt goes on to mention institutional sponsors, which are sponsors that need more attention to explain.

The case example of Dwayne Lowery is given to explain institutional sponsors. Lowery worked at an assembly line of an automobile manufacture until he decided he could do more, so he went on to work at a municipal utility department. Being active in an employee union, he was able to travel to Washington, D.C. on a union-sponsored grant for union training. As his job and participation with his union continued, he observed that his literacy practices would have to shift in order to fit into the changing world, which required him to talk less and write more. His work became more competitive, reflecting the shifts in literacy at his work. This competition is an aspect I noticed in most of the points Brandt discussed with her idea of sponsors.

It can be argued that the idea of sponsors are deeply entwined with ideals of capitalism–at least that’s my take on them. Sponsors (especially those that are institutional) are constantly emerging at different levels and compete to shape what literacy looks like in the world. They give people materials and motivation to read and write for a variety of applications. For example, universities act as sponsors for faculty and students. The resources supplied (computer labs, printing services, the books at the library, and the technology used [like Blackboard] are some examples of resources), the administration’s allocation of funds, the ideals of faculty in certain departments, and the diversity of the student population are all kinds of sponsorships that impress a student and shape their reading and writing habits for a purpose. I’m sure you wouldn’t find one student who has earned a degree from Chico State who could claim that the university, its faculty, and its resources have failed to shape their literacy practices. Whether they shaped their literacy practices with affordances or constraints is another matter to research, but the idea that the university shapes literacy practices should be undeniable. The sponsors that led people to attend Chico State are other factors that influence literacy. At every level, institutions and individuals compete in some way to make their literacy sponsorships seem desirable to make more people use them. Every family likely has its own opinion of what literacy is and how it should be practiced. Each professor likely has an idea of what functional literacy is as well as their own definition and value of literacy, which they willingly or unwillingly impose upon their students. Every university tries to attract certain kinds of students by advertising their specific sponsors. At every level, there is a certain competitive aspect because literacy is influenced by opinions that are assumed right and shared often. Everyone has an idea of literacy that they think everyone else should take up to be successful; affordances and constraints for those ideas are constantly given by people in power. Literacy is based on supply and demand and shifts by the influence of those in power. It’s a commodity competing in a capitalist economy.

In contrast to the resources and ideas offered at a university like Chico State, I went to Lassen Community College (LCC), where the classroom practices and resources differed greatly. My favorite example was in a survey course for late British literature. The English degree at LCC was a brand new offering at the time (I was one of the first students to complete the program), so the first surprise was classroom size. None of the literature courses I took at LCC had more than 10 students–most had 5 or 6. The next surprise was how the professor taught the class. Initially, I thought we’d discuss literature in a literature course. I was wrong. For the majority of class, we read assigned texts aloud to each other. We never had to read anything at home. If we had time, at the end of class we had a 10-minute discussion about what we just read. Most of us in the class weren’t talkative and didn’t have the vocabulary and tools to talk about texts in college, so these discussions were usually quiet. The professor never asked us to annotate texts, never encouraged us to have complicated discussions, and never offered strategies for approaching texts (aside from modeling how to read texts aloud to each other). Somehow, I still got out of community college wanting to study English (specifically British literature). I’m guessing I didn’t know any better until I got to Chico State and realized what strategies and resources the faculty and staff at this university sponsored (collaboration, Google Docs, classroom discussions, and the library to name a few). No longer am I writing only for the professor and shaping my papers to exist only in a course; instead, I’m imagining how each paper might exist outside of the class. Specifically, I’m considering creating a portfolio (it’s a shame I haven’t made one already) as well as how I can make my academic work more accessible with digital platforms and tools. These considerations have been made because of what is sponsored at Chico State and by the faculty I’ve worked with. I’d never have thought about portfolios without my work as a mentor with freshmen; I’d never have considered writing my notes in a Google Doc with the intent to collaborate on them for a study guide if it weren’t for a class where the professor said she wouldn’t provide a study guide, but we could still work together and make one ourselves; I’d never have considered showcasing my work in multimodal formats without classes giving me the freedom and strategies to work on multimodal projects. This is all to say sponsors have influenced all of my literacy practices, though I hadn’t realized it until now.

Notes from Class

• What is Brandt up to?

People’s literacies are dependent on the sponsors they decide to value. The responsibility relies on people providing access to literacies; they shouldn’t be secretive or kept close. Sharing is important for success.

Being a sponsor and being aware of being a sponsor is important; sponsors have influence and decide what other people care about; sponsors have a lot of responsibility and authority.

Literacy is commodity you can trade for other goods and services.

Every class/community has unique literacies that are unique to them.

• Sponsorship and access (Raymond and Dora)

There are more layers to literacy for people who aren’t properly sponsored.

Socioeconomic factors matter

Students who aren’t sponsored well and are new to universities don’t understand their boundaries. They also don’t understand the resources available to them.

• Sponsorship and the rise in literacy standards (Dwayne)

People who grew up with new technologies might have an advantage over those who were born without those technologies and had to learn them.

Constant job switching and learning new writing strategies is a new concept.

Staying in a field and changing literacy practices to remain in the field—is there a point when people can’t stay in the field due to literacy practices being too different from what they know?

• Sponsorship and appropriation in literacy learning (Carol and Sarah)

Do skills in work/public life transfer to other areas of our lives? Or do we create a place in other areas in our lives to transfer the skills we learned?

There is overlap, but the question of appropriating a literacy practice to other areas of life may or may not be conscious. It happens, but how does it?

Models are important in learning new literacies.

Class passages and questions here

Friendly reminder that you have a paper/text due Wednesday (2/8): a write-up of your pilot literacy day. I would expect to see the various reading and writing practices you used throughout the day, some ideas about the purpose of those reading and writing practices, and maybe even some insights using readings or conversations we’ve had in class. What can you say about the function of your literacies? What do they do for you? What value is placed on them? How might the authors we’ve read talk about your literacies?

You can write this as a narrative, you can create a visual representation (perhaps an infographic), a short film with voice over, other ideas? Share the link with me before Wednesday’s class. If you’re writing a paper, my preferred sharing format would be in Google Docs. For sharing Google Docs, please use kjaxon@mail.csuchico.edu (just like student email).

We’re also reading Deborah Brandt’s “Sponsors of Literacy” for Wednesday. The link to the reading is on the calendar. I’ve set the viewing for “anyone with a Chico State address…” so you may need to log in to your portal. I might click on the link soon, so you make sure you can see it. Wednesdays are really busy for me and I fear I’ll hold up your reading if you wait to request access then.

Here is the link to the google doc to share our notes/passages/questions.

See you Wednesday!

Kim