The Wiki Effect

After reading Andrea’s earlier post on Literacy & Video Games, I began pondering on what other things in my life I do that I don’t really associate with learning and becoming more literate. One tool that has recently become of age is the use of some amateur online websites and databases, more specifically “Wikipedia”. Even though Wikipedia is an open forum that allows anyone to edit posts and make new pages, it is still very helpful in discovering and learning leads on new information. I even sometimes find myself wandering through pages and reading about topics that have interested me throughout the day or week. Ultimately, I feel I’ve learned a decent amount, some background information, some vocabulary, and other facts I didn’t know before. I’ve even wondered if I’m the only person who does this, specifically with Wikipedia. With that said, has anybody else ever wandered onto the same trend?

Furthermore, I do not feel that it is harmful to read information off of Wikipedia. Even though it’s not an academic article, it isn’t much different than a biased news article written by a journalist. Although, I do feel that, as the reader, you have to be aware of what you’re reading. Given the fact that anyone can adjust information, it is vital to check citations, if available, or often follow up on the information you’ve read.

With kids and teenagers having the internet at their disposal at such young ages, do you feel that databases like Wikipedia will have a positive or negative bearing on growing literacy and/or academic research?

Memoirs of a SPED Student

Many people have heard of the special education program known as SPED, but how many people really know what it is like? Throughout my elementary, middle, and high school career, I was a SPED student. As a child, I had terrible ADD. In fact, early elementary school is a blur. No matter how hard I tried to focus in class, the lessons would literally go through one ear and out the other. It was frustrating when my fellow classmates would understand the subject while I sat there trying to catch up. I was placed in math and English SPED classes and formed a bond with my fellow SPED students since there was about five of us. We were taught the same material, just at a slower pace. The program worked as I received A's on my tests and felt confident that I could possibly leave the SPED program. But when I attended a regular math class with the rest of my grade, I was completely lost and did not understand a word the teacher was saying. I would get called on to solve a problem and I would sit there begging for the teacher to call on someone else. With my luck, the teacher insisted I solve the problem, which resulted into embarrassment from getting every problem wrong.

It was the different style of teaching that made me far behind from the other regular classes. We were taught at a slower pace to fully understand the material. Teachers thought it would be best for me to remain in the program to continue getting good grades. Mainly, it would be better to be smarter in a smaller class rather than struggle in a larger class. I did not argue but I wished that I was treated the same as the rest of my grade. For instance, we would be taught from the same textbook but be several chapters behind. I'm a very impatient person and once I understood the lesson from a chapter, I wanted to move on to the next one; not wait for my fellow classmates to catch up.

From this alternative of teaching, I was embarrassed to say that I was a SPED student. I would be considered retarded by the students in my grade but be complimented on my intelligence from my SPED peers. I was stuck in the middle of two worlds that should have been one to begin with. While gaining a high GPA, I mainly used the program to find a way to manage my ADD. I wasn't placed in a SPED class for high school, but I was under watchful eyes from the teachers to see if I struggled at all. I ended up receiving honor roll for all four years of high school and am glad to say I've overcome my ADD. But what frustrated me the most from this whole experience was the treatment from the teachers.

Even though I would have considered myself a bright student, I was treated constantly like I was mentally retarded. Just because I had the status of being in the SPED program, my teachers would be sensitive to what I could possibly learn. For example, we were assigned to pick a book to write a report on. I chose "How To Kill A Mockingbird," but when I told this to my English teacher, she told me that she thought that book would be too difficult for me to understand. I was in seventh grade and ended up reading it anyway in eighth grade. It was almost like they spoke a different language that would be easier to understand, like talking slowly to a baby.

I mainly used this treatment as motivation to get into college to prove that breaking the SPED mold would not intimidate me, but the scars from the teasing of my peers and the lack of confidence from my teachers still linger. The SPED program in general is great for struggling students to be relieved from the stress and frustrations that I've dealt with. It's the different treatment from teachers and fellow peers I would consider the downfall. I cannot control on how people would perceive SPED students or the SPED program. When I was in elementary school, being called SPED was just as bad as being called retarded. Classmates and teachers need to know that SPED students are struggling students. We don't volunteer to be in it, we are placed in it. We don't get the easy way out by being given easier assignments, we feel inferior to everyone else by being offered easier assignments.

Phonetics or Sight reading?

So in an effort to start uncovering my childhood reading habits for the final project, I asked my Dad this weekend the technique I used the most to learn to read (since my memory fails me farther back than age 6.) His response was a little puzzling: "I think you were a combination phonetics and sight reader." Knowing that by sight reading he certainly couldn't have meant reading music, I asked him what he meant, and he responded with, "Reading by sight, memorizing words using pictures and flash cards and stuff like that."

My next question was one I didn't ask him, but I will ask all of you. How can you possibly learn to ready by simply memorizing words? I mean sure, I know we all had those flash cards with the letters C-A-T listed below the picture of the furry animal, but can this really be classified as "sight reading?" Isn't it more like associating the word with the animal, because at 2 or 3 we all knew what a cat was, we just didn't know that the letters C-A-T were the English language equivalent.

What makes the most sense, in teaching a child how to read, is phonetics. In fact, I was surprised to hear my Dad even mention memorizing as an option. What would happen if you effectively did memorize the meaning to every word you came across? That would be all well and fine until you came across a word that you didn't know: there would be no alternative way to figure out the meaning of something you hadn't seen before. The first instinct is for me is to sound out a word I don't know. When I was little I remember stuttering through a sentence, making sure to sound out the words aloud. Since I'm in college now this is much less noticeable because it happens within a fraction of a second, and internally. But it has never failed me. I might have mispronounced something when asked to read a passage aloud in grade school, but the teacher always corrected me right after I messed up, and then made me reread the word with the right pronunciation before I continued with the rest of the paragraph. I think the secret to fluid reading is also in the practice of learning to read phonetically. You may start out stumbling through a sentence in ten seconds but with the right amount of practice quick, fluid reading is bound to follow.

So do you think that phonetics is the most effective way to learn to read?

Literacy in the Education

With being from a small rural area in-between Baltimore City and Annapolis, Maryland, I have been exposed to the balancing affects of education and strong/weak literacy.

Foremost, I can safely say that while my elementary education was not the best, I still was able to learn the essential subjects and continue, as best as possible, through middle and high school. But during those middle and high school years, I significantly was reminded by my surrounding peers of which of us had a stronger will power to read and write. I had to teach myself the value of reading, studying and writing papers. While my parents were always there with open arms to help, I never wanted to disappoint them into thinking I was not as smart as I should be.

I should note that my parents were always there as a positive reinforcement. From an early age, they always encouraged me to read and even read to me as a child to instill this. Even though I am not a parent, I can see that my parents were doing everything possible to help me grow and succeed in school. I do not feel that it was the job of my parents to sit down and teach me study habits, how to actively read, or to write papers. I feel this was significantly the responsibility of the Anne Arundel County Public School system.

Upon looking back now, my elementary education consisted of nothing but lazy teachers passing out busy work and giving poor lessons the majority of the time. Ironically, those same teachers only put forth the effort to teach us students how to read & write effectively when the MSPAP (Maryland School Performance Assessment Program) test was given. By late middle and early high school, I had recuperated what I had not been taught in elementary school and continued my education more successfully than before. My teachers also dramatically changed. Instead of teachers who merely came to school for a paycheck, waiting for the bell to end school, I had teachers who cared. Caring individuals who knew what they were teaching and would take the time to understand I was not reaching my full potential and encourage me, help me, teach me.

Although I do not believe I benefited to the fullest degree with my early education, I could see I fell in the average around my area. With Baltimore City to the north and Annapolis to the south, I constantly had the reminder of what was wrong with the education system. If my elementary school let students "fall through the cracks" and did not properly teach them, then I could assume that schools in neighboring counties or areas had the same issue.

With that said, in previous years Baltimore City schools have had many instances of low testing scores, passing and graduations rates. Meanwhile, the Annapolis area have predominantly stayed on the higher end when it comes to each of these categories. It is best to point out, that here is where economics quite possibly play an underlying factor. Baltimore City households average $30,078 salaries, while Annapolis households average $49,243 salaries. (NOTE: It is approximately 29.10 miles from Baltimore City to Annapolis) Moreover, Annapolis offers many schooling options, more private than public. Baltimore City on the other hand offers more public than private school options. Given this data, and the inverse relationship based on each city, I do not feel Baltimore City children and teenagers receive an equal education that a student in Annapolis might be given. Not to mention, the opportunities for such an education as decreased because of available monetary resources per household. Aside from that, many who have read Keith Gilyard's "Voices of the Self" can realize the implications of being an inner-city student trying to obtain an education.

Given my own experience and also what I have seen through an economic standpoint, I can only believe there are very many short comings when it comes to students being educated fairly. I can assuredly say, I see and believe students in a more enriched economic level are given the opportunity for more successful rather than a inner-city student with low income. (Yes, social issues also play a key-role and were left out of this simply because of our exposure to Keith Gilyard's Voices of the Self)

I know this post does not have all the answers or relationships between inner-city and out of city schools, but it simply touches on some of issues I have seen throughout my life. I'm very interested to see if anybody has had the same issues or can relate anything like this.

----

Lastly, I recently discovered that in Baltimore City there is almost $15 million worth of budget towards education that is possibly going to be cut. To me, this is just another example of how inner-city education is being left behind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik4wo1hvB9E

-----

U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau. N.p., 2008. Web. 26 Feb. 2011. Path: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US2404000&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR2&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3307&-_lang=en&-redoLog=true&-format=.

U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau. N.p., 2008. Web. 26 Feb. 2011. Path: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US2401600&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR2&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3307&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=.

Literacy & Video Games

In one of my other classes, COMM 180, we were asked to do an assignment concerning video games and the amount of time Americans spend playing them. In an article in the CQ Researcher, author Sarah Glazer connected literacy with video gaming. I was initially shocked and unconvinced. How can playing fantastical games, with goals of slaying dragons, constitute as educational let alone a catalyst to higher literacy? The two just don't fit. However, upon reading further I could see certain persuasive points made. Glazer points out that by playing these complex games, which usually involve a unique language players must learn, gamers deal with complex languages, learn to decode them and apply them to real life.
Apparently, some colleges are even using games like "Second Life" to their advantage, having the alternate reality as the setting for their courses, with fun avatars teach the class, with the instructors voice of course. This seems enjoyable yes, by far more enjoyable than some lectures I've had, but educational? Still not so sure.
What really convinced me however was the connection made in gaming with failure and success. Gamers fail constantly, but keep trying. Students on the other hand can even be afraid to raise their hand to try and answer a question in fear of failure and consequential embarrassment. In this way gamers have the advantage.
What do you think, can video games be connected to higher literacy? Or is this idea totally garbage?
Glazer, S. (2006,November 10). Video games. CQ Researcher, 16, 937-960. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2006111000&type=hitlist&num=0

Dialects

A recent post by Kelsi earlier got me thinking about dialects. In my Linguistics class last semester we did a little study aside from class.We had to pick a family member or a friend to listen to recordings from people all over the United States. The family member or the friend then had to guess where the person was located. So for example, I had a friend do the study with me. He picked ten recordings and they ranged from both southern and northern regions. It was interesting to hear my friends guess after he was done listening to each recording. I have to admit that some of them were fairly hard and I would never have guessed the particular region. After the study I came to the conclusion that we only know of a few dialects that vary between each other. My friend picked a person from Brooklyn and within ten seconds he was able to distinguish where he/she was located. He also did the same with someone from the South. In all I just thought it was worth noting that we only are aware of just a few dialects. In turn, we are so quick to judge someone based on their dialect. We seem to stereotype based on different dialects as well.
Where or why do we come up with positive/negative outlooks on different dialects?
For example, Do you think someone that has a southern accent is less intelligent than other people from different regions?

Fox News and Black English - Ebonics

students in the cracks

I was talking to my boss at Tussey Mountain last night about becoming an English teacher. She asked me why I wanted to teach older kids and not the elementary age. I told her that I wanted my students to already know how to read and write by the time they got to my class so I could work on more challenging material and not so much the basics. She said to me, “Well, you are still going to have those kids that slip through the cracks. Then what?”

“Then what” is a great question. Whenever I picture myself teaching in a school, I always picture my students like how I was as a student-- smart and willing to do the work required to get smarter. But, thinking back, there were definitely people in my grade who “slipped through the cracks” and who never really had that solid foundation of how to read and write fluidly.

This scared me when my boss said this, and I didn’t really know how to respond. As I got on the lift to go back up the mountain, I started picturing myself working with students who struggle with the basics rather than the smart kids who are passing easily through school. It will be those slower students who will prove to be the most challenging and push my teaching abilities, but it is also those students who will benefit most from what I have to offer. Just as Keith Gilyard emphasized that it is important for African Americans to learn Standard English, it is also important that all students, no matter what dialect they speak, learn how to read and write with Standard English so as to “keep the possibility of upward mobility alive” (74).

As a future English teacher, I made a pact last night with myself that it would be my challenge to help those students. I want every student who steps into my class to have the opportunity of “upward mobility” no matter who they are. I don’t want any to “slip through the cracks” and get passed along until graduation. I know this seems naïve to help everyone, but I want to try my best, starting now. So, as I dream about the day when I’ll finally get my own classroom, I’m going to stop dreaming about how I can challenge smart kids; I’m going to dream about how I can give those students in the cracks the dream of upward mobility in their lives. I challenge all of you to do the same.

Education Reform

This is a pretty cool video I saw in another class but which applies to our class as well. Check it out.

Dialects aren't "bad"

One of the claims discussed in class that author Keith Gilyard writes about in his novel was that most people are bidialectal and can “code switch” with ease. Code switching is defined as “the ability to move back and forth among languages, dialects, and registers with ease, as demanded by the social situation” (31). I think that code switching is the key to success for teaching Standard English. I always had the idea that other “non-standard” English dialects were wrong or uneducated. After reading Voices of the Self and taking another ESL class this semester, I have begun to think much differently. I am actually jealous of those people who can speak with or without a dialect depending on the situation. It is almost like speaking another language in a sense.

In saying this, I think it is vital for children to learn in school that speaking with dialect is okay if in the right setting. Somewhere during my educational journey, I got the wrong idea that dialects were “bad.” I don’t want this to happen to children. I think they should be able to take pride in their ability to code switch so easily.

Back when my dad was growing up, it was looked down upon to speak a different language besides English. Because of this, my grandmother who is fluent in Polish never taught my dad to speak fluently in Polish and only used English around him. When my grandmother dies, the Polish language will die in my family as well. It is sad for me to think about this; I would have loved to be bilingual in Polish and English and would have brought me great pride in my cultural heritage.

With the emphasis of “Standard English” in today’s schools, I don’t ever want to see other dialects disappear. I think they are culturally linked and have strong ties to family that people can take pride in. Therefore, in my classroom, I want to encourage my students to use their dialect with their friends so as to never lose that unique part of who they are.

Do you think that dialect will ever go “out of style” like speaking a second language did during my Dad’s childhood?

Internet Literacy

A few times in class the problem of Internet Literacy has been addressed, mainly along the lines of whether or not internet literacy should be a part of the definition of literacy, or if the definition of literacy is changing so that email, facebook, twitter, etc. are the main types of literacy used today. In another class we were discussing verifying sources and this website came up: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
This is a website entitled Save The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. It provides pictures and information on the tree octopus and information on groups that are working to help save this endangered species. My professor informed the class that in a study 25 out of 25 students, after reading this article believed that the Tree Octopus is a real thing, despite references to Sasquatches and an organization for the ethical treatment of pumpkins, along with numerous other clues that the information is false.
This brings up an interesting problem. If internet literacy becomes part of formal literacy, how are students supposed to navigate through stories like this that present themselves as reliable? In the past students have used other books to support their papers and opinions. Books are peer edited, a scientist can't publish information that other scientists read and are able to prove false. On the internet, any Jim, Bob, Dick or Jane can publish whatever they want. They can even purchase degrees online to make themselves appear legitimate. Even more, I recently found out that one can purchase an .edu domain for $20. Many students (and teachers) assume that .edu sites give only reliable information.
It seems to me that teaching internet literacy and being able to navigate articles and reports on the internet presents a huge problem to future generations (and our generation).
Should internet literacy be tested to make sure that students can tell the difference between a phony story and a verifiable article?
With the technological advancements in our society it is almost impossible for literacy to stay in the books and out of the internet. How does society prepare for such a change?

Something to chew on...

Here's a strange little phenomena I've encountered...

When a new semester begins, I stop reading...period. I quit reading for pleasure (as I currently look at Robert Anton Wilson's "Prometheus Rising" sitting on my night stand with a book mark stuck only 47 pages into it), and I find myself struggling to read the assigned readings for class.

Last Spring semester I read (very painfully) 100 pages per night, covering 4 different English classes.

"Jesus," I asked myself, "Do other students have it this bad?"

I have since scoured the internet looking for statistics on the average amount read by college students in a week, and came up empty. However I did find some interesting facts:

- 1/3 of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.
- 42 percent of college graduates never read another book after college.
(A survey by the Jenkins Group: http://www.jenkinsgroupinc.com/)

Also, recently NPR released a list of the 100 books everyone should read (http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/books_music/top100.html), and after discussing it with another class I was startled by how few of the books were read by fellow students. After this discussion we spoke about how much they loathe reading what doesn't interest them.

My question is this: Do you feel that college does spoil one's inclination to read beyond the classroom? And if so, how could we remedy this dilemma?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::Interview with Cormac McCarthy:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Wall Street Journal:Does this issue of length apply to books, too? Is a 1,000-page book somehow too much?

CM:For modern readers, yeah. People apparently read only mystery stories of any length. With mysteries, the longer the better, and people will read any damn thing. But the indulgent, 800-page books that were written 100 years ago are just not going to be written any more and people need to get used to that. If you think you’re going to write something like The Brothers Karamazov or Moby-Dick, go ahead. Nobody will read it. I don’t care how good it is, or how smart the readers are. Their intentions, their brains are different.

Watson: IBM's Super Duper Jeopardy-Playing Computer

I had been seeing a few IBM commercials lately for their newest super computer, "Watson". Watson was designed to play against real people on Jeopardy! using advanced technology that allows it to interpret the complex word play and abstract questions that Jeopardy is known for.

It made me think about how technology will affect future generations of students and teachers. A few decades into the future, if student's laptops have the capability to do what Watson does, how can teachers assign homework (as we know it today) and expect their students to do the work themselves. Simply type in the question and it will give you the answer. What about when this technology is incorporated into mobile phones. How will teachers test their students knowing that any one of them could be checking their "Iphone 3,000" to get the right answer.

Also, with Watson's ability to interpret and find the actual meaning behind a question or sentence, how long will it be before all students essays are graded by computers?

I'm sure there will be an infinite amount of ramifications other than the above.

I know this might seem like science fiction but with the exponential growth of technology, I would say it is only a matter of time.

Check out this video of Watson: http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/13/ibms-watson-supercomputer-destroys-all-humans-in-jeopardy-pract/

Rubrics Drilled into my Head

After class on Thurday I thought about how my high school English classes were structured. The main thing I remember were the rubrics. I couldn't go a paragraph without referring back to it! It's sad that a lot of my creativity was taken away by rubrics. I got so worried about grammar and such that my papers lacked a certain style that I couldn't create. Now, I still worry about rubrics that when a teacher assigns a paper I met with them! I feel so lost because I don't have a rubric to follow! It's almost as if I'm too hesitant to be creative...when now is the time to be. Perhaps it's just me that reacts that way? I'm just so used to following a rubric for a paper because high school writing relied on them so much.

Another issue I had was actually reading what I was writing on paper. Again, I was so focused on the grammar that I didn't focus on getting my thoughts down correctly on paper. I think that's one of the major issues facing students today. It's hard to teach them how to get their ideas onto paper and make sense. Sometimes, I still struggle to do so even as a college student. I have all these ideas in my head and have to figure out a way to organize. I think that brings the rubric back into play. The rubric created this structure to which I followed. The plan was there and I followed it. So the question I have is:
Do you think rubrics help or hurt students?
How could they be changed in order to help students more if you think they hurt them?

Free Will and (not “or”) Determinism

In Soc119 Race Relations, we have been learning about the two different ways of viewing the inequalities found between different races in areas such as income, wealth, home-ownership, college graduation rates, etc. As we talked about in today’s class, there are two different ways of viewing the data.
1. Free Will: We make the choices that determine the outcome of our lives.
2. Determinism: We are largely dictated by circumstances outside of our control.
Obviously, both approaches coincide with one another and perpetuate a cycle of lower test scores and social and educational inequality for certain groups (for our discussion purposes). My Sociology professor could not stress enough that the two are not entirely different approaches and are actually intermingled (Hence the title of this post). On the first day of this semester I strongly believed that people have the power to control their lives, but if you asked me now I would say that people can only make the best out of the circumstances they have been given. What’s your opinion?

Making America Proud?

After reading "America At Risk" and the whole Sputnik buzz, the one question going through my mind was why would literacy ever be considered a trait of patriotism? What ever happened to contributing and loving your country? The whole pressure of becoming literate to make your country proud, let alone making your parents proud, just astonished me. Yes, literacy can be helpful for one's success, but as a form of serving your country? Leave politics with politics and leave education for educators to worry about.

Literacy can help a person make the better of him or herself and for a brighter future. But, to me, kids don't really understand that concept. They are told to learn to read and write because they need to, not why they should. Some compromise and do as they are told like I was for being required to write in cursive writing. In elementary school and middle school, my fellow classmates and I were told that there will be no other form of writing other than cursive in the future once we go off to high school and college. Let's just say my teachers were wrong. Instead of continuing to write in cursive, I incorporated my own style of writing which puts cursive and print writing together. I believe learning in general can be like that. If I don't understand the lesson my professor is giving me, I take the main point of the lecture and create my own lesson out of it to help me understand it better. Students need to find their own unique way of learning instead of following the formal structure and getting lost in the long run.

But more important, students need to find their motivation. I knew what I needed to do once I discovered what I wanted to do with my life. So my dream career is my motivation. People shouldn't be so consumed of what others think of them, like what American politics might think in regards to being viewed by the global eye. All in all, we should focus on our students as individuals, not as a whole nation. That's why illiteracy is such a national issue. If one student is having issues, it will only be that student. But if more than one are having issues, then it's the teaching system and if it's not alternated, the number in illiterate students would increase.

Teachers not to blame, but capable of solutions

One issue I don't think we've talked about yet in class is the ratio of students to teachers and how this has an effect on literacy. The assumption is that normally a smaller, private school with little or no "Franks" would offer a more quality education than a larger public school.

I found this article, and the story really surprised me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/education/28school.htm?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I think Brockton High School raises a few issues. First off, it is a stunning exception to the belief that big schools with a high student to teacher ratio will ultimately fail, simply because it is easy for students like "Frank" to fall through the cracks. It's no secret that a school responsible for educating thousands of students needs sufficient funding to survive, and probably places test scores, which usually translate into funding, at the top of the to do list. In order to obtain this funding, it is absolutely necessary for a unity of purpose to exist among the teachers to achieve the goal of higher test scores. This is the difference that allowed Brockton High School to rewrite their story of failure into one of success. All of the teachers met and agreed to institute some form of writing into all curriculums in the school, even math. Although not all of the teachers were on board at first, I think once the test scores rose it proved that not only was this a viable argument to solve the problem: it actually worked. Just another testimony to how literacy can, and should be incorporated to all aspects of education.

However, the story I read between the lines was of teachers who were not necessarily directly blamed for the low test scores, but took it upon themselves to identify what was important, essentially literacy, and incorporate it into their subjects. We talked about in class how teachers today don't really see 'literacy problem solving' as part of their job description, but the nature of teaching itself is a rewarding job. People don't go into teaching because they feel like they can't make a difference in students lives, or aren't responsible for it. So if teaching is supposed to be self-rewarding why don't all teachers think they are capable of solving the literacy crisis? Or, better yet, feel that it is their responsibility to do it without extra compensation? The Brockton High School teachers did it, each compromising a little bit of time from their individual curriculum to fit in the basics, and it is those basics that made the difference for their school.

I think that this puts the questions, "Who has the power of testing?" and "Who has the power to change literacy?" into perspective. It doesn't necessarily take an extreme switch in testing techniques or education to make a difference.

Hispanic Literacy

So, in class I brought up the idea of Hispanic literacy and/or multilingual literacy and there is a little more that I would like to say. First, morning announcements in my school were usually read in both English and Spanish. When Hispanics with non-proficient English skills had to take tests they went to the ESL classroom where there was a teacher to help them in case they had any questions. My school had a fairly high drop-out rate because of the the Hispanic population. One of the reasons the Spanish speaking students tended to drop was cultural reasons. Many of the female students were married when they were 15 or 16 years old, some ended up getting pregnant and found that they couldn't stay in school. Others dropped out because they didn't have a good understanding of what was going on in a mostly English speaking environment (there were only a few teachers that new enough Spanish to communicate effectively with those students whose English was almost non-existent). Either way, these students become part of the statistic of illiterates in the USA.
In groups today, when we were considering a different test format, I thought that one could start by administering an optional test in Spanish to the Spanish speakers in elementary school, and carefully ween the children off Spanish so that by High School they could take the English standardized tests with the other students. However, I now realize that this would only work for those students introduced into the school system at a young age. A large number of the Hispanic students did not come up through American school systems, but immigrated with their families to the USA during their high school years. Now, I don't know a lot (or really anything) about education systems in Latin America, but I'm positive that they do not teach in English. On top of that, the desire to learn English may not be that intense for many students. Their parents don't speak English fluently (they don't need it to communicate in school), they attend churches where services are in Spanish (don't need it to worship), and most of the stores around West Grove (my home town) had Hispanic employees or are run by Hispanics. In essence, within my community back home, the Latin American immigrants have established their own community where they can live well enough without English literacy.
This brings up the same question as Frank's situation. If they have established a situation where proficiency in English Literacy is unnecessary, do they need to work to achieve higher levels?
I would also like to say that a part of the Hispanic population (mainly adults) cannot read or write in Spanish. One would need to teach them reading/writing in their native language before they could become literate in English. So, given the situation above and this here, is it worth trying to teach reading/writing to such Hispanic populations within the USA?

Here is an article from 2005 about spanish literacy:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3528735.html

And this is a youtube video that claims that "poor education and poor health go hand and hand": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmkfYB2jACw

Who's To Blame???

Today in class we talked a lot about where to place the blame concerning unmotivated students like "Frank." If the student feels that literacy is not a necessity for their future it's extremely hard to convince them to continue in their studies. There's only so much a teacher can do to inspire his or her students, the rest is really up to them. What about individuals who do in fact need literary ability in their future yet still find themselves unmotivated? I was recently faced with this exact dilemma. My friend is a Junior in college studying journalism and wants to drop out. She receives a large amount of financial aid due to her background but it is this same background that makes her question school. Her father graduated from a prestigious university and did nothing with his life. My friend questions the impact her degree will hold. She asked me, "is the cost worth it?" I was quite frustrated with her at the time seeing as I will be drowning in debt when I graduate whereas she will have an extremely reasonable amount to pay off no problem. She then told me of her idea to quit school, apply for internships, and tell employers she didn't feel like finishing school, they'd understand money wise. If that didn't work she'd contact a relative living in Germany to help her find work, as a nanny most likely in Germany, how exciting! She was actually considering this! I responded by telling her that there was no way she would get a journalism job without a degree and that they would not be understanding of her financial "woes." I also told her she already put in three years to be a journalist did she really want to settle for a nanny? I tried my hardest but I knew at the end of our conversation she still wasn't sure staying in school was the right choice. When someone has their mind set in a certain direction it is almost impossible to alter it. THEY have to realize their mistakes and want to change THEMSELVES. As a future teacher, I hope that I can be more motivating to my students than I was to my friend but it will be one of the hardest tasks I will face.

Adult Illiteracy

A quick YouTube and Google search turned up these results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwghwsgZ5AY&feature=fvwrel

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-08-adult-literacy_N.htm

With such startling statistics and a harrowing testimonial, where did the system go wrong? Off the top of my head I can pick out two possible reasons, correctional institutions and the inadequacy/unwillingness of teachers. I do not think that education is stressed in places like juvenile halls (I don't have firsthand experience) but I am sure that prisons and jails do not stress education (Don't get me wrong I still don't have firsthand experience). Because of this it is simple for people to get lost in the cracks. The evidence supports this, as the illiteracy rates of prisoners are shockingly high. Some point to this as proof that illiteracy is correlated to crime, which may be correct, or perhaps the prisoners in the survey were repeat offenders who spent much of their life in correctional facilities and never received a proper education. Another cause could be inadequate/unwilling teachers. I watched a clip from a speech last year where a grown man discovered he is dyslexic in his 30's. He graduated from high school by behaving so badly that the teachers passed him so they didn't have to deal with him another year. A similar situation happened in my high school. A student was held back for several years, I am not sure if he didn't understand the material or was lazy, but he was graduated simply for the fact that he was nearing 21 and the administrators didn't want him buying other students alcohol. To remedy the problem of adult literacy in the future we must educate all of the children, regardless of their capabilities or behavior. But how can we go about fixing the epidemic of adult illiteracy?

The Fourth Wave

In the Yancey article, it characterized the assessment of writing in three different waves. The first wave is characterized by objective grading, the second, validity and reliability, and the third, personal portfolio interpretation. The article emphasizes that as we progress, each of the waves are meshed into what we use today to grade writing. At the end of the article, it makes a few suggestions for what the fourth wave could consist of. One of the interesting suggestions made was considering “non-canonical” texts such as e-mails, blog posts, etc. to include in assessing.

After reading this, I was shocked that schools of the future may teach computer literacy skills like writing e-mails. In a sense, computer blogs and e-mails are just typed short-hand verging on non-standard English, right? Why would schools ever want to teach this type of writing which could essentially add to the literacy crisis?

However, after second thought, other subjects are advancing with new technology like science, so why shouldn’t writing? Cursive isn’t taught in school anymore to leave more time to learn how to type. So why not go the extra step and teach kids what to type in certain literary situations on the web?
So, I ask you: Is writing focused on technology the “fourth wave” of assessment? Will the literacy of the future rely on how students can express themselves on the Web?

If the fourth wave does not include technology, than what is it?

Reading online

I stumbled upon an article pertaining to reading online (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html?_r=1) and it made me think about a topic I haven't given much thought to previously. Is reading a variety of online materials alone enough for children? With an infinite amount of possible things for kids to read, it would seem as though it is an appropriate replacement, but it this is debatable. Much of the text online is not formatted coherently, the thoughts are scrambled, with poor grammar, spelling and vocabulary. Since people emulate what they are exposed to, is the style of online writing one that children should learn and reproduce in everyday life? Also, people claim to be experts with no merit and provide faulty information to persuade people, it is a dangerous slope for children to be engrossed in online reading as opposed to traditional reading. This being said, there is plenty of information online that is useful and one could learn much from. However, it is highly unlikely that children are looking at these sites. I feel that books, both in the sense of the works themselves as well as the activity of reading a novel, are the best methods to read and should not be replaced by online text.

Irony

There's a certain irony to the fact that our entire conversation here, as well as all of the essays and criticism we've read in class about the uncertain value of literacy as it relates to social and economic standing, has required us to use both reading and writing skills.

I guess that's kind of the point of the class. Obviously, we're all highly literate. For me, the issue with literacy isn't necessarily how we measure it, but how we teach it. Students need to be made aware that while they may be highly literate when it comes to reading texts, emails, facebook and twitter feeds, essays, novels, poems, technical reports, etc, each genre has its own style and purpose. As a teacher, I need to teach my students not only how to write in a certain style, but when to use it.

One idea I've had for making literacy more salient for students is to encourage them (and by encourage, I mean "assign") to keep a writing journal in which they don't worry about grammar, style, or conventions. Rather, this journal will be solely devoted to helping students recognize their own unique voice. Once they have identified this voice, they will have an easier time expressing it within the parameters of a certain writing style or rhetorical mode.

NCLB

This is a little off the topic of literacy, but has more to do with education in general. As we all know, No Child Left Behind has made a huge impact on education. But the more I think about it, how much of a benefit does it really have? Think about it.. Sure it helps students who are struggling. But what about the ones who are right on track? Or, for that matter, the ones that are ahead of the curve? They may not be getting left behind, but is it possible that they're being held back from achieving their potential? Perhaps I'm wrong, but to me that's how it seems it could go. Did anyone ever feel that they were held back in school because of one or two students in their class? I had this experience in a few of my classes in high school where the class didn't move on because only a couple students didn't understand the material. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its right to move on and leave these students behind, but I also don't think it's right for the other students to be stopped in their learning process. This post may just seems like random rambling, but I'm curious as to what others have to say about this issue.

The "Self"

Yancey's article opened an interesting topic for me, the idea of the 'self' in literacy testing. For me, standardized testing has always been about giving the graders what they want to hear, a strategy that teachers have driven into my head over the years. Never has testing been in any way associated with the formation of a self (I would like to hope that my 'self' was not/is not created by answering in a way that will appease the grader). I'm also a little curious about the idea of identity formation through testing. Maybe someone can help? Do you agree with the idea that the 'self' is a part of testing?

Writing Across the Spectrum

In my LLED411 class our book, "Because Writing Matters", talks about the importance of writing and the benefits of utilizing writing skills in all subjects, not just English. Basically Chapter One of the book says that not enough schools encourage writing in multiple subjects.

I'm not sure what your high schools were like, but when I was in school I wrote in every subject. In my science classes I had to write lab reports, in my math classes I would write out explanations for open-ended word problems, and in my history classes I would write research papers. Writing was covered in every course. I believe that this greatly enhanced by writing skills and it would be beneficial for all schools to integrate writing into all subjects.

I think that a lot of the problem is that teachers in other subjects simply don't know how to teach writing. It's a difficult task. However, rather than ignoring this problem, teachers should work together to bring writing into all subjects.

Do you feel that integrating writing into other subjects would strengthen student's writing skills? What were your high school writing experiences like?

Literacy as a Race- Why?

So far in this class literacy has been associated quite frequently with a race. We need to race to catch up to other countries currently ahead of us, and then beat them once we finally catch up. Also, the idea of a race comes from wars, which always seem to renew interest in literacy. We end up racing not only to beat our enemies on the fields but also in academics. While I grasp the idea of wanting to be number one, having a certain reputation to uphold, I don't understand why we constantly need to connect literacy with racing. I also believe that part of the reason we seem to disregard our good fortune to have been given the opportunity to gain literacy is due to this racing aspect. Instead of finding ourselves lucky and feeling grateful for our knowledge we find it expected. Additionally we never seem content, always needing to push further. Maybe we should slow down, walk at our own pace and take the time to acknowledge the gift of literacy, take in the opportunities it affords us and expand on it as we see fit, not as society deems fit. If we focus too much on the racing aspect we lose the value of literacy. We start to learn, or teach, in a fast paced manner, not really understanding what we hear/speak but rather just tossing out ideas and hoping some stick. Is this really an appropriate means to win the "race?" Maybe this method can get us high standardized testing scores but in the end does that amount to the most literate students?

Video games and education

I know that this isn't exactly on topic with our most recent reading, but I came across an interesting article on CNN's website. It's called "How video games can make you smarter" and was written by Scott Steinberg. Steinberg says that video games are not a passive form of entertainment, like movies and television. Instead, the users are actively engaged by a video game. Certain games require strategy and the application of knowledge in particular situations.
He argues a few benefits of these games. First, Steinberg states that "interactive learning solutions" are used in some types of job training. For example, the Hilton Garden Inn actually trains their hospitality staff with a 3-D training game. This allows their employees to practice dealing with virtual guests before they are thrown into real-life situations. Second, he tells us about how video games are used to save lives. Health care providers sometimes use games as a form of practice. Without risking real human lives, they can apply their knowledge and work on making quick, correct decisions. Finally, Steinberg writes about how multiplayer games, such as World of Warcraft, encourage teamwork and collaboration.
While I agree with Steinberg that video games can be beneficial, I think it is worthy to note that video games need to be used in moderation. I don't think that Steinberg is encouraging video games to be the only way to teach and train. They are meant to be supplementary materials that further enhance the learning process. The transition from the video game practice to the real world scenarios is an important jump to make. If video games are not used sparingly, they can become too addictive and eventually detrimental to the educational goal.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/01/31/video.games.smarter.steinberg/index.html?iref=allsearch

The Literacy Imperative

Deborah Brandt’s article, “Drafting U.S. Literacy” explores the idea that literacy “was irrevocably transformed from a nineteenth-century moral imperative into a twentieth-century production imperative” as a result of World War II (Brandt, 485). One of the most intriguing questions that the article raised for me was, “how were students motivated to learn to read and write in a time before it was necessary to make a living and support a family?” Brandt argues that in “the early religious societies of New England…a belief in literacy as a knowledge of right behavior was promulgated” (488). Literacy in that time was not applicable in the way that it is today. It was used mainly as a “road to virtue and self-discipline” and “submitting to the process of becoming literate mattered more than the actual results” (488). I believe that this approach, although successful in creating a moral imperative for literacy in the nineteenth-century, would fail in today’s society. With our society bent on economic gain and stability, the focus of literacy is more on who’s reading and writing ability will make the most money in the least amount of time. Today, I am much more motivated to work if I know that it will result in a better paying job out of college, not because it is the morally right thing to do.

The other thing that never occurred to me, but which was brought up in the article, is how the standards for literacy rise and fall in relation to the needs of the contemporary society. According to Brandt, “the military’s growing reliance on aviation, surveillance tools, and weapons of mass destruction al contributed to a growing treatment of brainpower” (490). With the huge technological boom of our time, it is no wonder why literacy and schooling in general have become more competitive. According to the production imperative, it takes a more literate individual to operate efficiently in today’s fast-paced society.

Another student posed the question: “Does everyone need/should everyone strive for a high/proficient level of literacy?” This question can be answered differently depending on what literacy imperative we choose to believe. First, based on the moral imperative for literacy, the answer to the question would be “yes”. According to Brandt, under this approach, “Knowing how to read was synonymous with knowing what and how to believe. Literacy certified membership in a community of believers” (488). The answer under the production imperative is “yes” and “no”. Obviously, being a better reader and writer can never hurt one in life, but there are also many jobs vital to our society that do not require a high level of literacy. If one doesn’t want to strive for a high level of literacy, they will still be able to work for a living and be fine.

There is Hope-The Centre for Literacy-Newsweek

A worried mother was troubled when her 11 yr old son had a hard time reading. When, after two years, her son wasn't improving she became frantic. That all stopped when she heard about Virginia Wise Berninger, an educational psychologist at the University of Washington who studies dyslexia, a disorder that makes learning to read extremely difficult. The mother's son, Jason, was tested and attended a program with other dyslexic boys in the summer. What made this program different is moving beyond just the letter games. The kids learned to read words related to what they were studying. For example, they did science experiments and met with a geneticist. Berninger said the children she had were different but just because they were different doesn't mean they could not learn.
Jason made a dramatic change while attending the program. The important part that the article implies is that he maintained all the skills he gained from the program. This article gives insight into the fact that you don't have to be a great speller and be perfect to be an honor student or achieve something great. Even though Jason had trouble reading and spelling he was an honor student. In turn some of the teachers are learning from students like Jason. They learn new ways to be creative and really help their students.
An interesting focus point I found in the article included a study by Scientist Sally Shaywitz (from Yale) and Berninger: "According to the study, reading disorders are most likely the result of what is, in effect, faulty wiring in the brain-not laziness, stupidity or a poor home environment." I found this to be very important because teachers might not take into account that the student isn't learning the right way. There may be something the teacher is doing right they can change or help the student better understand.
Stepping aside from a child with dyslexia, educational researchers have come up with innovative teaching strategies for kids who are having trouble learning to read. There are screen tests that can pinpoint a child at risk before reading becomes an obstacle or cause of failure. They are also getting the parents involved and telling them to be alert of signs that their child is becoming frustrated when reading or trying to read.
Today being able to read helps you to earn a living. Mass literacy, according to the article, is a new social goal. I believe this to be very true but if people aren't getting the right education before the enter the world, who is to blame? This whole article focuses on how students with disabilities can learn to read. Well, shouldn't every individual that doesn't have a disability be able to read as well? It's amazing that a student with dyslexia can rise above and learn to read even though they struggle. If it's possible for that to happen then all students should be able to graduate from school knowing how to read and write the best way they can. The key focus for every student is teaching them the best skills one can at an early age. Then they can figure out what's working and what's not working and only expand as they get older. Is there a right way to teach someone to read and write? I think not. I think it comes from trial and error. People learn in different ways and at different paces on learning how to read. Now, is it hard for an educator to pick up on a strategy that would work for every student? I think yes. A teacher plays an important role in a student's life but at the same time they can't personalize everything. I think they try to incorporate as much as they can but it gets lost when students become older. I think the main goal is to help the student grow each and every step of the way. It's not a bad thing if there's a struggle because it can be overcome. The teachers today, I hope, can start focusing on the problems instead of pushing them away. I do not attest that to all teachers though perhaps some of them are falling short of expectations

importance of literacy

The high school I went to was fairly diverse. Our science olympiad, FFA, and football team all had a good shot at winning state. With a graduating class of 750 there are bound to be many levels of education too. I started thinking about some of the people I was acquainted with throughout high school and started wondering how important is literacy, or what level of literacy is important. I started to realize that, for a college English class, it is much more important for us to be literate at a higher level and we probably feel that literacy is more important than others.

I thought about a kid I wrestled with in high school,"Frank". Frank dropped out of high school junior year, and struggled throughout most of middle school and high school. He reached a point where he just didn't care anymore about school and felt he didn't need to know much more than he already did. He was from a rural area and his dad was a farmer, along with his uncles, and grandparents. Frank pretty much planned on being a farmer, or construction worker, or some other sort of manual labor job. Right now Frank has a house, and a four wheeler and is able to go hunting the Monday after Thanksgiving, pretty much all the things he wants and needs are taken care of without a high level of literacy.

Now don't get me wrong, Frank can read, and he can write, but he probably would have many misspellings and grammatical errors strewn throughout his writing, and probably doesn't have a wide range of vocabulary, but you would be able to understand anything he would need to say to you. He may be the text book example of a semi-literate from "Why Johnny Can't Read". SO while being a semi-literate, he is still able to do what makes him happy and live the life he planned without needing to know the difference between their, and there, or how to use a semicolon.

So some questions I have...

1. Does everyone need/should everyone strive for a high/proficient level of literacy ?

2. what constitutes literacy? is it being able to get your point across, and read a menu, and your bills? or is it being able to eloquently string together sentences free of errors, and use of different punctuations?

3. Should high schools hold everyone to the same standard when everyone doesn't have the same ideals, or educational plans?

Moral imperiative - - Production imperative - - Human Capital

In Brandt's "Drafting U.S. Literacy" we are taken on a voyage through a specific facet of learned literacy: The early U.S. struggle to compete as a global power.

She begins by documenting literacy's shift from the moral imperative of the nineteenth century societal hierarchy - - In particular, the role of literacy to provide morally "superior" individuals, suited to sustain the ruling class or power structures preexisting - - to the more "functional" views of literacy in context of the first World War. It is during the first period of conflict and contention we see literacy move towards a "function" label, mainly in terms of soldier comprehension which is imperative to the success of military campaigns. During this time we begin to see the rise in testing literacy cognizance, and the hideous results therein-of.

As we grind back into the gears of war in the 1940's our literacy rates are better, yet still lack compared to our allies (Britain, France, et cetera) and our enemies (Germany, Italy, et cetera). Advancing technologies and the need to stay on top of them marks a new era which Brandt deems the "production imperative" of the modern day, which states: as technologies compete to advance so does our education and understanding of literacy.

Herein lies my issue with Brandt's observations. Are these "phases" not all of the same order? Can the same truth be hiding behind different masks?

The morally "superior" echelons of the nineteenth century were mere patrons of the power structure. The "good" American soldier of WWI; was he not a vehicle of the new American power structure (Wilson, centralized banking [usury], taxation, et cetera)? In WWII we see competing technology, competing companies, the rise of the "production imperative" - - Human Capital for the powers to use.

Mass literacy does not correlate with mass "good" or "betterment". If every person has a hold of something, does it not depreciate in value?

Literacy is not hiding in some bunker or masonic hall. It has friends... maybe not your friends... remember, literacy is selective. ALWAYS.

“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.”

^{- Groucho Marx}

Brandt shifts her focus at one point to explain Cora Wilson Stewart's role in the bringing literacy to the masses, which does not concern my issue with the reading, but if you are interested in great women of the era (and since we just finished The Narrative of Freddy D) may I suggest a look at Mary Church Terell's speech to the United Women's Club in 1906. (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/marychurchterellcolored.htm)

Cora Wilson Stewart: A Woman on a Mission in the Early Twentieth Century

For another of my English classes this semester, I recently read a short story by Mary Wilkins Freeman called Old Woman Magoun which is about a particularly influential and strong willed elderly woman. After reading our recently assigned article, I have to say that while Cora Wilson Stewart might not have been as elderly as Old Woman Magoun, she certainly was as influential. This woman organized a late night schooling organization appropriately titled "Moonlight Schools" to increase the literacy in the state of Kentucky. What makes Cora Stewart so special is that she was a civilian woman responding to low levels of literacy in the military. Aiming to abolish illiteracy in her county, her program eventually helped 130,000 people become literate in Kentucky. Whatever gauge we use for what "literacy" is in this case, this is still an immensely impressive accomplishment for the time (before 1920).

Here is were it gets interesting for me, as a reader, "at Stewart'surging, several states in this period appointed illiteracy commissions and hired county agents to locate illiterates and or- ganize volunteer teacher corps." Essentially, Stewart led a witch-hunt for illiterates in the early 20th century. Except instead of being dragged out of your house and burnt at the stake, you were dragged out of your house and taught to read and write. Okay that's an exaggeration, and, as an English teacher, I don't want the process of learning to read and write to be compared to burning at the stake. But still, my jaw dropped when I read that sentence. It just goes to show the moral imperative that went behind being literate.

Could you imagine someone knocking on your door and giving you a reading and writing test? Apparently, Cora Stewart could as she thought it was her duty and the duty of every other literate person to help illiterates learn to read and write. For her time, Stewart was becoming a powerful woman in a world controlled by men. But just as Old Woman Magoun's authority is trumped, so too is Stewart's. "Despite her reputation as an effective orator and her personal friendship with Woodrow Wilson, Stewart failed to convince the federal government to legislate compulsory literacy instruction for inductees."

Looking back on Stewart (as a biased English teacher), I think her heart was really in the right place. But when I read that after World War I she said, "Next to the actual casualties, [illiteracy]was America's supreme tragedy," I think she might have been a little overzealous. Nonetheless, her zeal served to forward literacy as a moral imperative and not a economic imperative, which, as Deborah Brandt says, is a less desirable imperative for literacy.