How do the readings assigned for this week argue for different conceptions of what it means to be a "literate" or "educated" person in American society? On one hand, most of the readings seem to suggest that the literate individual is someone who is preoccupied with trying to figure out how best to use knowledge to work on behalf of the public good. On the other hand, Stanley Fish seems to be arguing something quite different: the literate individual is someone who can demonstrate a capacity to effectively analyze, assess, and comment on things without the goal of attempting to improve the world or make it any better.
What are your thoughts on these two distinct understandings of the "literate" individual? And, in your view, what role should higher education play in working to make a more literate society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I thought the articles that suggest the literate individual is someone who is preoccupied with trying to figure out how best to use knowledge to work on behalf of the public good, while well written and passionate, were fraught with language that was trying to goad the reader into seeing America as a failing, robotic, illiterate society unless readers rise up and join in movements to better the world. Port Huron’s use of paradoxical situations made points that an educated person would contemplate but many of those questions are still being posed today. So if the University is such a great place to institute social change, why do things stay the same? In the section The University and Social Change, the four reasons given for being the ideal place for social change are viable but also manipulative. I thought the listings under the “facts” were arguable and put too many conditions on the “new left” to apply to the masses. In order for change to take place they would need those masses. Savio’s parallel of the struggle for civil rights with that of due process indicated that both were fighting bureaucracy. Neither was getting through the red tape, no one was making a case because it went against certain rules and procedures that the predetermined literate, well-educated person is supposed to use, so it’s a kind of circular reasoning, conform or go away-catch 22, similar to our robot-like existence in the Huron article. According to these authors, the literate or educated individual cannot exist because society or government bureacracy quells the individual’s ability to think and act in a manner outside of what is acceptable. But what happens if there are no policy-making bureaucrats?
Fish is the other side of the coin. His point that “classroom imperatives are not moral or philosophical” and that an instructor’s purpose is to introduce and equip students, could be a teaching mantra. I’ve been in discussions where the topic has come up and it was debated whether or not an instructor should even correct a paper, that is, write on it to make a suggestion or comment, because in doing so it is no longer the work of the student but then becomes a collaboration of student and instructor. That may be extreme but depending on why you’re attending an institute of higher education, it could be the best method for teaching because if there are no comments, it leads the student to keep asking, “why?” It would drive most students crazy though because they want those comments so they know what they did right (feel good, intelligent, justified) or know the reason they didn’t get the “A” (what was wrong). For this to work we would have to do away with grades and then what would the measure of success be and how would the overachievers cope?
Fish just wants to do the job as he feels it is defined, but the other authors, while talking about how people are being “manipulated” by bureaucracy, etc. are also attempting to manipulate the reader. Their use of language and scenarios, (to me anyway) are trying to persuade the reader to believe as they believe, and act as they would have them act. For me, that is not the purpose of education. If you ask most people why they’re in college the response wouldn’t be “To make the world a better place or adopt my instructor’s ideals,” most have their eye on a monetary end. In reading the comments to Fish, everyone has an interpretation and opinion - some agree, others disagree and that’s what makes for educational exchange. The role that education should take to make a more literate society today is to help students figure things out for themselves, accept alternative ways of thinking, let them know it’s okay to ask questions and that you don’t need to know all the answers right now. Help them realize the importance of listening to others (no matter if they agree or disagree, like or don’t like what they’re saying, or have something to say too), and give them time to actually think. After they’ve thought about it, let them know that it is their responsibility to act, not complain and hope someone else does something if there is something they don’t like. Then let them express their answers/ideas/opinions in an accepting environment free from ridicule and warn them that persistence is sometimes more valuable than talent.
Fish or cut bait: An analysis of week 2 readings
Higher education should play a role in creating a more literate society. Fully describing what that role might be goes beyond what I can describe in this blog post. Based on the texts, much of what was true in the 1960s still rings true today. Students (and humanity as a whole, really) want to find a “purpose” for their lives and it is quite natural for their search to take shape during the formidable college years. If this wasn’t so, the “20+ million students in service and service-learning” described on the Campus Contact website wouldn't be actively engaged outside the campus.
The Port Huron manifesto by Students for a Democratic Society applies to modern-day U.S., despite the fact it was written in the 1960s. The examination of politics and the call for participatory democracy is very appropriate with the upcoming election. Nearly the entire country is undertaking the difficult task of reading beneath the “reassuring tones of politicians.” And I don't have to look far to see “contemporary malaise” in this economy.
In addition, the description of students “breaking crust of apathy” and “overcoming inner alienation” could be a noble charge for universities. However, putting full responsibility in the hands of academia may not be the solution. After all, although not to the same degree, there is a level of bureaucracy involved in academia (as described by Savo in the 1960s) that may never be completely removed.
Fish makes an eloquent assessment on the purpose of academia, but as some of the comments/responses to his blog entries indicated, he takes a simplified stance on the matter, mainly addressing the advice for teachers: to remember that they are at a podium and not a pulpit .
Cushman’s literary study/service learning touches on the balance of in- and out-of-class learning. I am a huge advocate of internships and believe that gaining that type of experience is crucial to finding a job. However, I don’t think the hands-on experience can take the place of what Fish describes as “introducing students to areas of knowledge they were not acquainted with before… equipping [them] with the analytic skills that will enable them to assess and evaluate.”
When reading through the first blog posted by Stanley Fish, I thought it was tongue-in-cheek post. It did not occur to me that a professor would not feel at least slightly responsible for the social education of his students. Admittedly, I do not believe one view on any political argument should be taught; however, looking at social issues helps students have a better understanding of the way their world works. As I read the remaining two blogs by Mr. Fish, it occurred to me that maybe he did have a point about wanting to only give his students the basics to do well in their career choice. Taking responsibility for shaping the next generation is a great undertaking and if they prove not to have the social get up and go that the previous generation is known for then it falls on the more experienced generation for not instilling the same values. And who wants to be responsible for the failure of a generation?
The Port Huron Statement had good points on the need for social education, but I was more distracted by the 60s “the government is holding us down” feel. It overtook its message.
I enjoyed the Service Learning as the New English Studies piece. I agree that community literacy programs are an excellent “alternative to knowledge making practices in English Studies.” When students are passionate about their work they take more away from the experience.
Overall, the articles were a good source of information to learn the varying viewpoints on what appears to be a touchy subject. The traditional educators want to keep the higher education experience “pure” with no disruption of social issues. More forward thinkers want to bring the next generation into the real world with a socially conscious group that will help effect change versus being ignorant of the need for change & compounding the problems or creating new ones. Both sides have their pros and cons personally I enjoy discussions of social issues with my peers.
Though I did not totally agree with all that Stanely Fish wrote, I have to admit I side more with what he deemed as “literate.” I disagreed with what he suggested were the two duties of a teacher: to introduce the students to new texts/materials and then to provide them with the analytical skills to interpret them. I think that the first duty should be the skills and the second the provision of the texts/materials. However, besides that issue, I did agree with Fish.
The role of education should be to provide its students with the skills necessary to improve the world – but the actual “improvement” of the world is not an academic function. When the “improvements” of the world, or society, are pushed, I think it becomes more of a social (or sometimes political) event than an academic one. Teaching and learning should be about thinking – open thinking, free thinking and doing. When students are pushed into a general direction “to do good” then the freedom to think is lost. The claimed “father of education” John Dewey was a supporter for inquiry and independent thinking – allowing the educated to think of how to best use their skills.
However, that does not mean that I would discourage or protest students using their “literate” skills and abilities to improve the social conditions of the world, if they so choose.
The blogs posted have given a good gist of the readings. Regardless of which is more attractive to any of us, I think the various authors (going back to the mention of Dewey) might agree that the common denominator is the teaching of critical thinking skills. From the Port Huron Statement to Stanley Fish, they differentiate themselves only by the degree to which the professor (the university) pushes students to action beyond the acquisition of critical thinking skills. I align with Fish in believing that intellectual ability to analyze is of paramount importance. Whether a student’s primary aim is to make the world a better place for everyone or to join the corporate-greedheads in making the world better for him/herself, the ability to think critically is essential.
I’ve seen the best and worst of community literacy and service learning programs. The best tend to be associated with a particular class and worst tend to be part of a basic university requirement for graduation. I’ve seen student experience ranging from worldview-expanding and life-changing to culture-shock repulsion at having to “associate” with others not like themselves. I’ve judged the former experience more likely to happen with “thinking” students and the latter more likely to take place with those who’d rather not think too hard.
It’s all part of the social/political trend to embrace ideology without having to go to the trouble to think about larger (and smaller) issues.
At my BA graduation, the Univ. president asked each senior that had been involved in the school’s community outreach programs to stand (and remain standing), then the university service learning program, and then the community literacy projects to stand. His aim was that every graduating senior would be standing after which he would ask the proud parents to applaud. I was remarkably conspicuous—the only one sitting (and on the end of a row).
Since I had transferred to that school, was a much older student, and came in under a much earlier academic catalog year, I had not been required (like EVERYONE else) to take part in these university service requirements. Mind you, I had volunteered to teach ESL, led writing workshops, and spent an accumulated two months of my life volunteering to rebuild homes after hurricanes and general neglect. I was prepared to stand when the Pres said, “And anyone else who has volunteered…” but had to stop myself as he ended with “in university sponsored outreach programs.”
As I sat in my chair, the crowd gave a standing ovation to those on their feet. I thought of the ways I had reached out and yet, was excluded from recognition. The aim of that university’s service-learning requirement seemed to be rhetorically simple: Isn’t the UNIVERSITY noble in the ways it reaches into the community for the greater good?
Don’t get me wrong, there are a large number of these programs that help students become more literate, or, become critical thinkers. To many students, these experiences are the first chance they get to expand their worldview and to some of those, the experience is life-changing and leads to efforts to improve the greater good. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink (especially if he doesn’t know how). Without the ability to think critically, one remains and “unthinker” and the best way to find meaning to simply align with an ideology. (In our current polarized society that means generally democrat or republican.)
Don’t take Stanley Fish too seriously on his resistance to advocate position. He is advocating the primary responsibility: teach critical thinking. I strongly believe that more students (and not just college students) had greater skills of analysis, broader social change would more effectively take place because ideology would be pushed where it belongs—to the margins. The bickering would slow to a crawl and we’d actually begin to make meaningful progress.
Having read the texts for this week, my working definition for a “literate” individual is “someone who has the skills necessary to navigate any specific situation or topic.” For instance, someone could be literate in computers, but not literate in video gaming. Or possibly someone could be literate in 18th Century French literature or in Mongolian geographic formations. Whatever - it doesn’t really matter. My only point here is that my understanding of literacy is specifically socio-cultural and contextual. I’m not sure that there is such a thing as “literacy” unless it is preceded by some specific type of literacy.
In the case of Stanley Fish, I think Academicize is arguing for a very, very specific type of literacy: the literacy of traditional academia and academic discourse. I do not want to sound like I’m undervaluing what he is arguing for though. I think the work of traditional academia is important, though I do think it is dangerous to make generalized assumptions about how higher education should function based on the specific socio-economic privilege from which he is speaking.
Thinking about N.K.U., I consider our school to be a community college at heart. Most students come here to “get a degree” with the desired endpoint being to enter the workforce and attain economic security and status. So, for me, N.K.U.’s method of literacy should be community-minded and deal with real local issues as often as possible so as to create citizens who are capable of reasoning from the general arguments of texts down to the community level and be capable of using their education to discourse productively across the forums provided in the Greater Cincinnati / Northern Kentucky region. This obviously would not and should not be the focus of other research-minded institutions though, like Miami University for instance.
I think the challenge is to create literacy programs which teach skills that allow the learner to be as productive as possible within whatever limits are set for that specific context. So for instance, a literate American should not simply be able to read and write but should also be able to thrive in contemporary America. I think that the day is quickly approaching (if it hasn’t happened already) where having basic computer skills should be a contributing factor to assessments of “literacy” in contemporary America as well.
All of the articles have strong ideas of what it means to be ‘literate’ and ‘educated.’ Although some contradictory of the other, they all bring about good points. I am leaning more toward the side of freedom for open issue discussion; I’ve never been big on censorship. Weighing all sides, of course, is the first step. I think what it means to be ‘literate’ is knowledge of important issues and the application of this knowledge to some greater good. An example of doing so, I believe, is education. Teaching is about promoting ideas, growth, and strong opinions. Not one uniform idea of opinion, but an array of thought.
I don’t agree that trying to harness knowledge and apply it to bettering the world is a distraction to what it means to be literate. If anything it makes more sense, then gaining a wealth of knowledge about important, political issues and then doing nothing with it. And by nothing I don’t mean absolutely nothing, I mean not spreading the passion for the knowledge and opinion. Not motivating others to want to gain understanding and to take a stance on the issues. This does not mean forcing your personal belief onto someone else, or trying to recruit others to be on ‘your side.’ It simply means motivate thought, and the progression of forward-thinking. Where the real argument lies is where this is done most appropriately.
Stanly Fish agrees that strong ideas and positions should be developed. However, his opinion is that the multiple sides of many issues should not be openly discussed in classroom settings. Nor should specific opinions be ‘allowed,’ especially stemming from the instructor.
It is a widely shared opinion that any classroom is supposed to be almost a safe haven. The classroom is a place where ideas and opinions can be shared openly and without inhibition. Associations automatically made with school environments are ones of growth and sharing. If we as students, teachers, and administrators cannot feel comfortable sharing specific ideas here, then where? The idea of standing on a street corner voicing opinion on taboo-like subject matter seems a bit more threatening than doing it in a controlled, open-minded environment, such as the classroom.
Fish presents a strong argument as to why he believes it is against teaching moral code to express or ‘preach’ to students a certain idea. But he gives no basis for where it would be more appropriate. Presenting a problem with no solution is one sided, and does nothing but give us ideas of ‘no’ and ‘can’t’ and ‘that’s wrong,’ none of which are forward thinking based, at all.
Fundamentally, I do agree with Stanley Fish’s argument about the role and responsibilities of teachers – that they should leave all political bias at the door before entering the classroom. It is the teacher’s responsibility to act as a facilitator – to give students the tools and the platforms they need in order to form their own opinions about what is truth and foster their own discussion around how they should ethically apply that truth to the world. It is a teacher’s job to teach the facts and then step aside as students analyze these facts and form their own conclusions.
However, it is the university setting where students should discover how they can best use their knowledge and skills to improve society and prepare themselves to implement their ideas once out of the university setting. To say that the university as a whole has no role or responsibility in the formation of a literate society is dysfunctional. Fish’s argument applies to the fundamentals of teaching, but the university should still offer opportunities to students to apply these teachings in the outside world. One of the things about Northern Kentucky University that is so attractive to me is the fact that it is such a community-oriented university and the administration recognizes the powerful impact it can have on improving the quality of life in our region. In order for students to be successful in work and life once they graduate from college, they have to have had practice in implementing their skills and knowledge gained from the classroom in the real world. NKU consistently provides, whether through service-learning, internships, co-ops, etc., opportunities to apply knowledge gained in the classroom in real-life situations.
I think Ellen Cushman’s article on English Studies and Service Learning is an important one. Being an English major as an undergraduate, never did I think throughout the course of my college career that an understanding of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet or Herman Melville’s Moby Dick would be of any use to me in the workplace. However, I did fully realize that the critical thinking, writing, and communication skills that I gained by analyzing and discussing these texts would be very useful in any career that I pursued. These skills can be gained in other disciplines; it is just through literature that I personally chose to pursue them. Community literacy programs or service learning programs within the study of English provide a practical application of these skills – going back to my previous point about having the opportunity to apply knowledge gained in the classroom in real-life situations. According to Cushman, “students often come away from these applied learning situations with an understanding of how to change institutions from working within and against them.” Through service learning, students have the opportunity to apply their skills outside the university setting, as well as time to reflect on impact of this application within the community.
Jen,
The notion that the literate person is “preoccupied” with using their knowledge for the common good is, I think, a bit strong and not what I gleaned. The argument(s) make the general point that the “literate person” should use his/her knowledge to improve society (social conditions). If one agrees the aim of literacy is solely self-improvement or self-enrichment, then what is the point of teaching critical thinking (literacy) in public education? Should public funds support navel contemplation?
We are still contemplating the issues put forth in The Port Huron Statement (manifesto) today because the University is still battling itself over its role. The University has embraced the role of job-training to specific trades, once the realm of apprenticeships. Of what use is Shakespeare to the Informatics program? Of what use is violin and visual art to Chase Law?
Things have stayed the same (as the 60s) precisely because the University has not moved away from its job-training programs. Kids don’t go to school to become literate. They choose majors and programs to land a decent-paying job and support themselves. Universities offer programs that people want (and industry needs) to support the money economy. Business, Nursing & Informatics programs are in demand and are money-makers. History & English programs are not.
The idea of gaining literacy for its own sake is seen as a selfish notion because it has little financial benefit for the individual and no quantitative economic return for the larger society. It doesn’t fit into an economic model. And if it has no visible return, it will be disdained. Some things are simply more important than money.
As to the notion that we've become an illiterate society, I'm beginning to think it's true. Look at the electorate-- polarized, clinging to ideologies and NOT making progress.
I agree with Melissa’s comments about the classroom should be a safe haven for students to freely discuss their ideas and opinions. In my college experience I cannot recall a time where I felt prohibited from sharing my own thoughts about a particular topic. I think for the most part the college classroom is an environment where social, political, and ethical problems are discussed and if solutions are formed then it is important to apply this knowledge to the greater good. Whether or not English studies has a social responsibility can be debated, but I feel it could be a great avenue to discuss and address issues in our community.
Emily is very lucky to have never have felt prohibited from sharing her thoughts about a particular topic in her classes. My college career has been steeped mostly in the types of academics that are considered the traditional. There was that barrier between student/ instructor that made me (and many of my classmates) feel inferior since we were just the learners being fed information and expected, in many cases, to regurgitate it back. Things were starting to change (90’s) but for the most part my classes were strictly lecture. Last week’s class cleared up many things that were bouncing around inside my head. I found the context that Professor Wilkey put to the readings to be very valuable. When I read them initially, I was looking at content, and I guess I should have been looking more at style and where they were coming from on a level of discourse. I have never participated in a course that required “service” learning. The short films shown in class made me think of how often I felt like questioning something that was being taught but, at that time, was so intimidated, I kept quiet. Now that I’m older, I usually speak up.
I think Jill hit the nail on the head when she said higher education should play a role in pushing for a more literate society. Having the priviladge of gaining knowledge-as much of it as we please-is something not everyone has. Therefore it is our duty to spread this wealth of knowledge and help wherever possible.
I think it is important to keep the classroom a place of open learning. A place where freedom of expression is encouraged, and people willing to listen without judgement. I think a part of higher education is learning from all aspects, all viewpoints. Without open discussion of ideas, thoughts, and feelings this is not possible. We need to be encouraging diversity in the classroom!!
Scott:
You brought up some great points in your response. And I agree with your summation:
"… [If] more students (and not just college students) had greater skills of analysis, broader social change would more effectively take place because ideology would be pushed where it belongs—to the margins. The bickering would slow to a crawl and we’d actually begin to make meaningful progress."
“Bickering” is a great way to put it. That’s what politics in America has come to – not just slowed to a crawl, but standing still, in many ways. And your comments are along the lines of the quote by Chomsky at the beginning of Chapter 1 in the Weisser book about “enabling students to figure out things for themselves,” to “critically analyze and inquire and be creative.”
In addition, I like that you brought up the concept of the “unthinker.” It reminded me of the movie “Idiocracy.” It’s not high art (Mike Judge the mind behind “Beavis and Butthead”), or even “good” really, but the dystopian future in the movie seems to hit the mark in a lot of (scary) ways. How can we stop the entire population from becoming “unthinkers”?
If we didn’t know it already, the sheer breadth of this week’s readings confirms the immensity of the subject of literacy. The term “literate” is described in Webster’s dictionary as: “well educated; having or showing extensive knowledge, learning or culture.” The different texts illustrate that literate people are like diamonds – many-faceted with many goals. The readings focus more on the “why” than the “who.” At its most basic, literacy is driven by, and fundamentally connected to, survival. For the Western District students, it is the shortest route to improved personal circumstances, while the Okemos and East Lansing initiatives promote social and cultural values. And then there is Stanley Fish! Fish believes knowledge is its own reward, an end in itself, undertaken “for the long-lasting pleasure of learning something.” Therefore, literacy can be a conduit to be more successfully engaged in the world, or to withdraw from it (as the popularity of libraries and bookstores attest to the numbers who use literature as an escape), and ties in with Fish’s pleasure principle. Literate people have as many disguises as they have agendas. That being said, it is the challenge of an enlightened society and its’ educational institutions to find ways to accommodate the myriad reasons people strive to be literate. No easy task with ever-changing technology defining and re-defining our lives, notwithstanding the challenge of agreeing the Canon and broader literacy needs, as well as the function and obligations of learning institutions to both. Higher education already plays a pivotal role in moving us toward a more literate society – one student, one classroom session at a time. The question is always – where to next?
Fishy Ideas ... (also posted at Rabe's entry - still in the learning phase here folks!).
I too agree with many of the things Fish says. I admire his passion on the subject of learning and role of the teacher. Considering he cautions against politicizing, he's pretty political himself! That being said, we have to create strong foundations and an unwavering comitment to the pursuit of knowledge before we send students into the community. Then they will be at their most effective. At the same time, I can't discount Cushman entirely. Ethical and social obligations keep us grounded and make for good citizens. I haven't figured out how to reconcile the two. Until we get further into the semester I'm going to settle for Freire's suggestion that we allow students fully realize their own humanity. It's ambiguous ... but a great starting point! Anna O'Brien
“I don’t agree that trying to harness knowledge and apply it to bettering the world is a distraction to what it means to be literate.” - melissabb
Though it may not necessarily be a distraction, I would question: Where does the responsibility of the English teacher/professor stop? What are the parameters for such courses and subjects? Although I do believe that “bettering the world” is a worthy and noble cause – isn’t that what sociology is for or about? Why should “bettering the world” now be included within the English composition curriculum? Are sociologist professors now teaching their pupils the finer points of reading and writing critically? Are they covering the true arts of language?
And sure, I do think that many places could use “help” and assistance – but I also think we need to be careful not to overstep some of our own morals and values. What one person deems as good and right and “better” – another may not. We need to remember that we often think and act with that ethnocentric lens in place. We tend to see that only our beliefs are right and assume that they would naturally be helpful to others. However, I think more caution is needed. I think there are many “literate” people across the globe that would not share that same viewpoint and don’t want to be “bettered” by us.
“The University has embraced the role of job-training to specific trades, once the realm of apprenticeships.” – scottgx
If the universities have now “embraced” this role, couldn’t it be argued that the standards of the university have been lowered over such time? Couldn’t it be looked at as a political move, or maybe a smart economic move, I suppose, to make “college” more appealing to the larger masses? How can it not be questioned as a strategic marketing ploy from the universities? By offering these courses, subjects, and diplomas – many more people are now going to “college” or are now “college educated.”
So, in the end, have these open-door enrollments lessened the merit once behind the college degree? Doesn’t it seem like an undergrad degree is simply a glorified high school diploma since everyone now has one? I know that it sounds great that a college education is available to anyone and everyone…but what was sacrificed to make it such?
A few people have touched on the topic of the classroom being a safe place for students to express their ideas. In most cases I would agree; however, when I took Speech 101 (@ NKU) I was told we were not allowed to do our speeches on a list of subjects. Mostly it was the highly controversial subjects like abortion. But the reasoning was that they were too controversial and they’d been done to death. Not that anyone ran into the problem of finding a speech topic, but isn’t the point to grow a speaker’s skills? Debating is an important skill and nothing gets a good debate going like an extremely touchy subject that everyone has their strong opinion. Since that was 12 years or so ago, I imagine this could have changed.
I’m really interested in this idea that the classroom is “a safe place for students to express their ideas” (Aimem), though honestly, I’m not sure I agree with it. I would argue that students are TOO encouraged to be nice to one another. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not calling for open antagonism between students here, but I do think that students should be encouraged to (and taught how to) respond to issues in such a way that they are true to the spirit of their education as well as to their own moral identity.
To depict an example here, I think that a classroom where a student who has delivered a pro-life or pro-choice topic paper and is met by only a polite applause for their effort is not at all realistic and only furthers the idea that the paper was an academic exercise all along. I would argue that possibly the supreme learning experience of that particular project should be in the fair and ‘public’ representation of their beliefs in the paper in a forum of their peers who may or may not agree with the speaker’s point of view and who are themselves able to respond fairly and publicly to the speaker.
The first class I ever took in college was History of Christianity at NKU. The professor was brilliant. On her first day of class, she told the room that she would explain to us all in no uncertain terms whatsoever that the Gospels were written as Early Christian propaganda explicitly intended to bring more followers into the Jesus movement. It polarized the class. Our papers were encouraged in large part to take a position on these types of topic and support it thoroughly. Because of the composition of the class, it was impossible not to offend someone in the room. It was the hardest class I’ve ever taken, but I also think I learned more in her room than in any other because it taught me that it was all right to take a stand and defend it. I think classrooms should be like that. You should be able to acknowledge the person across the aisle from you as your equal despite being able to openly disagree with them. I think this type of argumentation in any class helps teach students the real context of the topic they are discussing.
Jason’s working definition of literacy really helped me to put week one’s readings into perspective. I agree that a person’s level of literacy should be viewed in a specific socio-cultural and contextual manner. I also agree that the aim of literacy programs should be to teach learners to the maximum extent of a given context. While this is a challenge in itself, teaching the basic skills deemed critical to “thrive” within a given context, perhaps even more challenging is the task of moving students to a level of literacy beyond their specific socio-cultural/contextual area of literacy. Shouldn’t the goal of literacy programs also be to push the learner outside of their literacy comfort zone and reach to broaden their horizons toward a level of literacy they may not have considered before?
Jill believes that higher education should play a bigger role in spreading literacy in society and I agree. The SDS' Port Huron Manifesto calls for educational institutions to respond in a humane and socially conscious manner.
This is all well and good. Perhaps the Port Huron Manifesto is even more relevant in the New Millennium than in the previous century. Yet and still, the clear vision and strategic processes required to effectively implement the higher evolution of literacy in the United States requires definition.
For example, the foreign language speaker who arrives in the United States with a full command of his or her native speech, culture, and writing is not illiterate in his land of origin. However, he or she must become literate in the speech, culture, and writing of his or her new culture in order to become functional.
In other words, there may be more than one definition for literacy. The relevance of each type of literacy must be prioritized according to the survival tasks facing the individual. For example, I am an educated person who remains totally illiterate when it comes to the terminology and concepts of the engineering or computer language fields. Fortunately, for everyone, I do not work in those fields (smile).
Scottgx's blog is valuable because it addresses the practical application of service learning and community literacy programs. The service learning experience is a great idea that should be encouraged, but never forced.
Post a Comment