In this class we read a lot of papers related to how reading and writing is taught in schools. Since this is a required class for a School of Education program, that makes sense obviously. I think these readings had the greatest impact on me. I’ve mentioned before how learning American Standard English was a struggle for me, and I found these readings eye-opening (also they made me feel better and a little less at fault about struggling). I realize that schools sometimes are unable to accommodate the needs of all children. However, as mentioned in a couple of articles, the way reading and writing is taught in schools should change. If we want all students to achieve a certain amount of literacy, we should try to change how it is taught because whatever methods schools are currently using, are not working as well as hoped. I think another way of having students attain a particular amount of literacy is to lower the bar that is set by society to define who is literate. But this forces us to ask “what is literacy” which we all know is a highly debatable topic (recall the first and last class). How can we achieve universal literacy? Is the goal realistic enough to be achievable?

I know a lot of you want to be teachers in the future. What do you think about how literacy is taught in schools? How were you taught to read and write in schools? How do you think this class or the readings in this class have influenced how you may teach in the future? Have they actually changed anything about how you planned on teaching?

This is the second class for which I’ve had to read “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The first class I had to read this article for was my freshman composition class, Growing Up Electronic. In that class we discussed what it meant to grow up in the information age and how it was affecting the ways in which we perceived the world. In that class, I recall being highly skeptical about Carr’s argument about Google making us stupid and how it was changing the ways in which we read, but I was eventually convinced to believe that maybe his arguments did have some substance to them after all. Now, I not only remain just as skeptical about Carr’s argument, but I also don’t agree with his views at all.

I feel like his sensational article was written to probably drum up some form of public support or interest in a very dramatic manner. In fact, I think it relates very closely to the article “Why Jonny Can’t Write” because of how theatrical it sounded. I think because I perceived it as being over dramatic, I honestly felt like his argument didn’t really have very steady legs to stand on. There is no reason why Google should affect the way we read or think. Maybe it’s because I’ve grown up with the internet always being there, but I don’t think I think of a long piece of text any differently from short articles. In fact, I’m pretty sure I prefer longer texts to several short articles because I feel like articles don’t really explore topics in depth as much, leading to the shallow understanding that Carr was talking about. I think short articles are useful when one is specifically looking for a shallow understanding of a topic – why should it be necessary to always want a deep and involved understanding? However, if a more profound meaning is desired, why is it that reading a book or even a longer article is considered such a momentous task? Carr’s exaggerations really irritated me and I wanted more than anything to give him examples countering his arguments. (By the way, does anyone know what study of online research habits he was referring to?) Even his example about the writer Friedrich Nietzsche who used a typewriter to continue writing, which changed his writing to become shorter and concise is only from one person. I disagree with this because I feel I am the exact opposite. When I physically write papers, I am far more concise with my words than when I am typing simply because of the differences in the amount of effort that is exerted.

I agree with him on only two topics in the entire paper and those are 1) that sometimes Google can detract from truly understanding a topic because it is easy to search for the answer, especially when it comes to science and math questions and 2) that the way we read and write can definitely change based on our experiences. I know from experience unfortunately that it is definitely easier to search for answers on how to solve certain problems or even to Sparknotes summaries of books, but people who choose to use those resources do not have a changed way of thinking; I interpret it as they simply have no interest in the topic at hand and want to save themselves time for activities that they do wish to invest time into. Additionally, our ways of reading and writing can certainly change, but I don’t think that Google or the internet is harming or modifying them in any critical way that is forcing us to become more economical with either writing or reading. Even if I were to believe that the internet has taken away a part of us that Carr finds so incredibly important, I will argue to my last breath that it has done us so much more good than harm.

TL;DR: I just don’t agree with Carr and don’t find his argument very convincing.

What do you think? Do you agree with Carr about the internet changing how we think, read, and/ or write? Is Google actually making us stupid?

I found the “Living and Learning with New Media” paper really interesting because of how it attempts to connect literacy with media specifically to our age group. While I was aware that this article was about my generation, it didn’t really register for me until I read the few sentences about the “Harry Potter fandom,” at which point the realization that this article was trying to talk about my age group suddenly hit me. I had to go back and reread it so I could see if their findings related to any of my experiences with “new media”. At the time of this article’s publication, I was a sophomore in high school. I felt that their findings correlated strongly with what I encountered with new media in high school, ranging from parental restrictions on internet activities pertaining to social media to attempting to conceal my internet footprint from my parents to trying to always be online to talk to my friends. The article draws a parallel to my experiences with new media as far back as middle school when I had my Neopets account and made my first email account (the password to which I promptly forgot).

However, my new media practices now feel vastly different from my practices in high school. While this could just be a result of certain technologies becoming obsolete (MySpace), I think that it might also have to do with getting used to the technology available to me. I find this to be most prevalent in my usage of social media. In high school, I was on Facebook 24/7. Now, I’ll go weeks without checking Facebook and not feel some sort of obligation to see what my friends are up to. The same applies to Tumblr; at the end of high school, Tumblr was this fun website on which you could share ideas, drawings, music, etc. Now I don’t even remember the password for my Tumblr account and am far too lazy to reset it. Maybe my initial fervor was because using a website like Facebook or Tumblr was so unique and gave me so much access to the people around me, but now it has become boring and old. I’ve begun to notice that new technology or media will make me scoff. For example, I remember thinking Twitter was one of the most pointless social media sites, and I was convinced all the hype over it wouldn’t last for more than a month or two. Even though I was nowhere close with my prediction of Twitter’s success, I still find it to be a really pointless concept. This relates to other new technology like Tinder, Snapchat, etc. Maybe this is a result of me growing old and becoming more like my parents who find Facebook useless. I feel like I am using more new media than ever before, but I feel like there’s a certain point past which I just don’t seem to jump on the bandwagon with everyone else.

As the first generation that is growing up with this sort of technology around us, do you think we will evolve as technology does? Or will we be stuck in a certain time period like some of our parents and grandparents and distrust or be extremely cautious about any new forms of technology because it differs too greatly from what we are accustomed to?

The struggle that slaves and free colored people faced in the south to obtain literacy was awesome. They faced the constant threat of persecution, mutilation, and even death in their quest to learn reading and writing. By achieving reading, they were able to obtain their own knowledge by their own means without relying on their masters; the black community was able to transmit ideas amongst themselves without potential lies that have the potential of being leeched in. By achieving writing, they were able to gain liberties that were barred for most slaves, and in extreme cases, some were able to attain freedom. Schooling and teaching slaves to read and write was prevented as much as possible by the majority of slave owners from fear that having too literate slaves would lead to rebellion and an upheaval in the status quo. To repress even freed slaves, schooling and learning was not encouraged.

The importance that literacy was given during the 1800s has permeated society today. Today those that are literate have greater job opportunities and are considered a valuable part of society, while those that are not as literate are thought of as lazy or unintelligent. To this day, students of different races have lower literacy rates than white children. This leads me to believe that we have somehow failed to include all children hailing from various backgrounds in promoting literacy. Perhaps we are not catering to all the problems that children sometimes face with literacy, such as poor home situations. While I realize it is impossible to try to help all students with every single problem they encounter, maybe different teaching techniques would help some students unable to learn from the most common methods used.

What challenges have you faced with obtaining literacy, either reading or writing? Did anyone or anything stand in your way? Has this achievement of literacy changed you in any way for the better or even for the worse?

Resnick and Resnick bring to attention the changing standards of literacy by focusing on three major historical changes in literacy. The standard form of literacy during the first historical change (Protestant-religious education) focused on “reading, reviewing, memorizing, and recalling familiar material,” which was usually a prayer book or other religious materials (373). The second historical change was the elite-technical school, which included the development of higher education for the elite (374). The standard of literacy expected from the elite few now included “the development of problem solving capacities” as well as learning “theoretical knowledge” (375). The final historical change was the civic-national schooling. In this change, literacy and education began to be secularized, public schools were established, and teachers were adequately trained to be in teaching positions (378). Unlike the higher education schools, these public schools provided basic instructions in reading, but they mostly promoted “a love of the familiar,” or patriotism (379). America followed a similar trend by beginning with focusing on oral reading and recitation (380). However, the development of standardized testing lead to a supposed scientific method of analyzing literacy (381). The standard of literacy that is expected of today is one that requires being able to read new material and extracting information from that material, which is higher than any standard that literacy was held to before (371).

I do agree with Resnick and Resnick’s final conclusion that returning “back to the basics” will not be a suitable method of teaching literacy to children because of the lack of comprehension and critical problem solving that was missing from the “basics.” But would it be a bad idea to simply change our standards of literacy? For example, would considering “functional literacy” to be a suitable form of literacy to reach instead of a literacy which requires critical thinking and potentially higher education necessarily be detrimental to society or education? Resnick and Resnick agree that applying functional literacy as a standard for literacy would increase literacy in the population. Since literacy higher than a functional form is generally not used in the daily lives of the majority of the population, why should everyone be held to such a high standard of literacy? I think this might be a possible method of diminishing the “illiteracy crisis” that America is facing. If changing the definition of what it means to be literate is out of the question, then how do we ensure the entire population attains this higher standard of literacy and what would be the purpose of reaching mass literacy amongst the population? Furthermore, should people that don’t attain this high literacy level be considered not as beneficial to society?

I felt Delpit’s article on “Language Diversity and Learning” hit home for me because while in first grade, I was placed in ESL to help me “catch up” to the literacy level of other students in my class. Before I had moved here, I was fluent in several different languages, including English. However, English in India and Singapore differed substantially from English used in America, especially in grammar, spelling, and syntax. While I would have otherwise considered myself literate, I was suddenly faced with the daunting task of unlearning everything I had believed was accurate and proper and forced to consider myself as illiterate or on a lesser level of literacy than my fellow classmates. I became very quiet and immersed myself in books, very rarely speaking in class in order to prevent myself from further embarrassing myself (since it was bad enough that I had to go to ESL). While I excelled in other subjects, I rapidly fell behind in English and would avoid studying for it altogether. It wasn’t until middle school when I finally realized that to succeed anywhere here I had to learn to use English as a tool to my advantage.

I definitely agree with Delpit’s statement that students should be exposed to and allowed to practice alternative forms of English in a nonthreatening environment (54). Unfortunately, teachers often pick on students who require constant correcting to give them more practice with Standard English. This would almost certainly have the opposite effect than intended and would only bring forth silence (51). Do you agree with this conclusion or do you think students practicing Standard English more would be able to converse in it more efficiently?

What I found most fascinating were the differences in discourse style and language use that Delpit discusses. Delpit states the following: “When differences in narrative style produce differences in interpretation of competence, the pedagogical implications are evident” (55). White adults uniformly agreed that “episodic narratives” were wrong for some reason, and predicted that children who told such stories would do poorly in academic settings (55). The children who told “topic-centered narratives” were right and predicted that these particular children would do better in academic settings (55). Black adults, on the other hand, did not associate episodic narratives with low school success whatsoever (55). Why would a “topic-centered narrative” be considered the main form of discourse in an elementary school while an “episodic narrative” be considered incorrect when the later are explored in creative writing classes in high school or college? Why are these narratives not considered to be creative in elementary school, and what makes them wrong?

I have no memories of ever learning to read; I only ever remember reading. As a child I was an avid reader. Other children my age would consider reading a chore or would only read to gain points from the reading program the school offered. Because of my genuine love of reading and books, I was often labeled as the “weird, quiet kid.” I would visit the library every day after school and spend hours reading entire shelves in the children’s section. One day when I was six, the librarian suggested I try a book from the teen section of the library titled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. Soon after, I had read all the Harry Potter books that had been published by then. However, this experience led me away from the children’s section and into the rest of the library where more books awaited to be discovered. This transition out of the children’s books was an important milestone for me because it introduced me to a greater variety of writing and new authors. I read different styles of literature ranging from Shakespearean tragedies to Jules Verne’s fictional adventures. With books I was able to travel anywhere without leaving my house, and I absolutely loved that. Literacy for me then became a way of exploring new worlds. As I grew older, literacy became a way to learn about and understand new ideas and views as well.