As I read this weeks articles, specifically Resnick & Resnick, I realized that through most of the articles we’ve read so far, the only type of literacy we’ve been addressing is that which serves an infomation-gathering purpose: people are taught to read so that they can retain information about a subject or task, to further their educations/careers/lives, etc. In fact, the only article that comes to mind that expressed a need for literacy, purely for the joys of reading, is Rose’s article. Resnick & Resnick really focused on the movement in schools to get children to read so that they retain more information in school, and later can gather information from newspapers, manuals, etc. But where is the importance of reading simply because you love it, or for knowledge expansion?
That being said, which literacy is more valuable, in society’s opinion and in yours? While clearly people need to be able to read things to gain information, I also think that there is a huge emphasis on the “connection”, if there is one, between reading for fun and higher intelligence. I think it is interesting that so far we have only discussed reading as a necessity, and not as a fun activity.
This is an excellent point that you bring up. I agree whole heartedly that we should discuss reading for recreation and to gain knowledge and not just the practical side of reading and writing. While there are many practical sides to writing and reading that should not be overlooked, it is important to remember that reading for recreation was a big driving force in learning to read. Like Elysse said in class she almost felt neglected by her mom for overlooking her for a book, this is a perfect example of reading for fun being a driving force for Elysse’s literacy.
I think society definitely values the practical side of reading more than the other functions of literacy, because society as a whole is driven by what everyone can get out of things, but i personally prefer reading for pleasure then reading for purpose.