This week’s reading discusses how using technology has become a factor in the way that youth today form their identities. I was really interested in this, as I have grown up with technology very heavily interwoven into my interactions with my peers as well as my schoolwork. I have had the luxury of typing all short and long essays that I needed to hand in, owning online transcripts of textbooks, and emailing people when I’m too afraid to call them. I was against e-readers, but I eventually submitted to their majesty when I realized how much cheaper books are and the ease of borrowing e-books from the library via Kindle. I would be lost without my laptop or cellphone, and I grew up with much less technology than my brother who is three years younger than me or my nieces who are ten, sixteen, and nineteen years younger than me. I pride myself on knowing what a phone with a cord, a floppy disk, and wired Internet connections are. They will never know this, or if they do it will be from movies and television shows that seem archaic to them.

I worry that their exposure to technology will have a negative effect on their social interactions. As easy as technology makes tons of things, it also makes it really easy to avoid people. Why go outside when you can sit and play games or browse the Internet? Birthday parties and sleepovers took on a different theme once computers were introduced. Cyber bullying is a huge problem that will probably never be tackled as long as face-to-face bullying is still a thing.

I do not think having technology will hinder their learning. I have played educational games on laptops and iPads with my nieces. I know that my stepsister and her husband limit the amount of time their girls spend on the Internet and watch what websites they visit. Unfortunately not all children have this protection. Not all children have someone looking over their shoulder or looking at their browser history to make sure that they’re not wasting their time or being exposed to something they shouldn’t be.

I know there are tons of arguments about the Internet making things too easy or dumbing things down or making too much information available. I don’t know if I agree with these things or not. I think I am not in the position to choose a side as I have grown up surrounded by this technology and therefore would probably be biased. I do, however, think that when children under the age of 15 are on the Internet, measures need to be taken to limit and monitor their usage. They should not have free range.

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?

I wanted to take this time to talk a bit more about the other article that we read for class on Thursday, but didn’t get to, Beverly Moss’s study of “alternative ‘sista’ spaces”. I really enjoyed this article, and thought that it tied in nicely to Becky’s talk about clients at the GPLC who were American-born, focusing on their literacy for a variety of reasons. While the women in PW, Inc. are by no means illiterate, it’s really interesting to see how a women’s club has plenty of literacy exercises, whether on purpose or not, for the benefit of learning about one’s cultural history. What I mean by that is, the readings of Obama’s book and the passages about important Blacks in history weren’t intended for literacy purposes, but it still became a literate “safe space” where people can gather and talk about their culture while exploring it through various texts and forms of literacy. Additionally, PW, Inc., is very involved with the literacy community in Columbus, doing a lot of volunteer work for the Columbus Metropolitan Library and its other urban branches, so not only do they foster literacy within their club, they spread it out into the community as well. I just found this mesh of literacy and culture really interesting, partially because it seemed serendipitous and partially because it’s one of the first texts that deals with literacy in minorities that aren’t immigrants.

My question is, what are some non-obvious literate safe spaces that you know of? PW, Inc.’s goal has nothing to do with literacy, yet through their exploration of texts they not only become more literate, but they delve further into their culture. The safe spaces you know of don’t have to deal with certain minorities or cultures, I’m just interested in places that foster literacy without initially intending to.

After reading Purcell-Gates’s article “A World Without Print,” I spent some time reflecting on how much reading is taken for granted in my life.  Just contemplating how different my life would be if I wasn’t able to read is a daunting task in and of itself.  When you really think about it, our society revolves around being able to read.  Even things like texting (something that I spend hours of my day doing without even realizing it) require the ability to formulate communication through the act of reading.

On a whole, our society has become far more dependent on the ability to read in order to be able to function.  When I really think about it, I can’t name a single action that I perform on a daily basis that doesn’t require any type of reading.  Even simple acts like listening to music require the baseline reading literacy in order to be able to find the artist or song that I am looking for.  I know that the family in the article developed processes to get around reading:  for example Jenny would memorize most things instead of writing them down.  The family also had some functional level of reading, to the point that Jenny knew what some words represented and could piece together concepts when she really needed to.  But, for them, reading wasn’t a integral part of life; reading was a fringe actions at best to their family.

Personally, I can hardly fathom life without reading.  Reading was such a fundamental part of my life from such an early age that the idea of not having it would completely change the trajectory of my life.  For one thing, I would be writing this.  In fact, I almost definitely wouldn’t be an English major (or even in college, for that matter) if I couldn’t read.  All of my hobbies would have to be completely different.  I feel like, without reading, I would be only living half a life.  Now for some questions.   Can you think of some things that you do during your daily life that don’t require any reading whatsoever?  How would your life change if reading wasn’t an integral part of your daily functioning?  If you weren’t able to read outside of a very baseline functional level, what are some of the actions that you would have to take in order to compensate?

While Wolf’s approach to literacy development reminded me of why I study English–I love it and it makes me feel loved–it’s troubling how she glosses over the unfortunate situation of those who don’t have the warm, cuddly early experience with literature that produces the emotional attachment that encourages a positive association with reading and writing.

It’s clear that children who don’t experience reading early, and ideally with loved ones, are at a profound disadvantage to those who do, but solutions aren’t offered to make up the deficit.

Does this mean that there is no strategy to get these particular children at pace with children that have literacy exposure? What can educators do to balance this extreme lack?

Four hours of every one of my weekdays is wasted. I have to commute by bus from the South Hills because I’m unable to drive. It’s two hours in to Oakland, and two hours back at night. The bus is stalled twice on it’s way into town by construction, so this time often stretches into 4 and half, 4 and three quarter hours. It’s inconvenient. It’s annoying. It makes me want a driver’s license more than a degree.

This lack of a relatively common and increasingly necessary ability parallels the difficulties experienced by Purcell-Gates’ observed mother-son pair of Jenny and Donny. Like Jenny, I’m often dependent on other people to provide their skills for me to complete basic tasks–going to the grocery store, seeing a doctor, going anywhere in less than 2 hours.

Perhaps it’s youthful impatience or naivete, but I can’t understand why the daily inconveniences of not being able to read or write weren’t enough of an incentive for either Jenny to seek literacy instruction sooner or for her to at least make sure Donny received better instruction.

Donny Sr.’s decision to rescue books from construction sites and the collection of children’s literature in the attic suggest that the family sees literacy as important. Even though the parents had low literacy, they exposed the children to books and reading (or at least storytelling). It seems like in this household positive associations were made with literacy, but for some reason the children still didn’t gravitate toward these skills.

A supportive environment wasn’t beneficial. Purcell-Gates emphasized the importance of both access to literary material as well as a positive attitude toward reading in a child’s environment to spur achievement in literacy skills, but those don’t seem to be the only factors that could encourage literacy.

Why don’t the negative consequences of being low or non-literate sufficiently compel people to learn to read and write? Why weren’t the efforts made by Donny Sr. and Jenny enough to encourage the children to read? Are there other essential factors that create strong readers and writers that Purcell-Gates does not consider?

You don’t even have to read this. But if you choose to read it, start anywhere—right, absolutely anywhere—that you’d like. It’s all the same.

Three weeks ago I began writing (and did actually post part II) of what I thought might become a three-part series of posts for this blog. This won’t be the first time that I’ve started a post this way, “I was going to do…but now I’m doing…” But this time will be a bit different, because I’m being a bit more honest about the “because” of the thing.

This is principally a post about what has happened to me recently. To tell these more recent stories, I’m going to draw upon some others. Of course, you can say, instead, that this is an elaboration on the “mesh” that I first started to work with here (explicitly in terms of literacy) about five weeks ago. That’s also true.

Or just have an unhealthy pastry and read for fun; as I hope to demonstrate, you can’t predict how this might affect that work that you do.

Continue reading meta ann doak →

I thought I would start out my post being positive and remind everyone that there is only 50 days and 4 hours until the end of fall semester (at least for this class)! Three cheers for everyone who has made it till now, I know that I am barely hanging on right now. However, I thought that since I have a midterm tomorrow (one that I am pushing off studying for currently) I thought that I would talk about test taking in this post.

As an English major I never take tests and so I’ve grown to hate them, but I know not everyone is like me so my first question is..yey or ney? And why? I know I hate test taking because I don’t think that it is an accurate sample of what I know. It is more of a “let’s see what all she can memorize and cram into her brain the night before” kind of sample. Way long ago when I was a freshman I was in a Jewish Studies class that was about the Holocaust. At the end of the semester our professor told us that we had learned (for me memorized) over 115ish dates. I don’t know about you, but when I think about the Holocaust dates really don’t come to mind. I think about the stories, what is was, who was in charge, why it was happening, etc. To be really honest I couldn’t tell you 95% of the dates that I “learned” what I could tell you was some incredible stories. This is just one example of many that I have experienced where I felt that my test was only testing me on what I knew at the moment.

There are a few exceptions to this of course, my ASL classes there is no chance in h-e-double hockey sticks that I could learn everything that are on my exams the night before. It is something you either know or you don’t depending on how frequently you’re using the signs. I still hate these tests though, but for a different reason. The pressure. I don’t feel as though I succeed well under pressure and my nerves get to me very easily. Just recently I took a small quiz for ASL and I threw up the night before because I was so nervous. That kind of pressure is no good for a student like me. I don’t thrive on late night paper writing or all nighters. I fail.

So as a future teacher I ask myself, “will I give out tests?” Well for me it is a simple answer, probably not very often only because I am focused more on writing but I feel as though if I were to teach a literature class I would most definitely have comprehension quizzes. So does that make me a hypocrite or does it make evil for placing the burden on my students that I have always hated. I am not really sure what it makes me, maybe you can tell me.

So does testing make us better or worse? I would have to say it is neither here nor there because I am sure there are some people who would rather take a four hour exam then write a two page paper and then there are some who would end up in tears and throwing up their dinner when they are forced to take a twenty minute quiz.

My future teachers what kind of teacher do you want to be? Will you be understanding of your students who are like me or will you hold them to higher standards because you know that they can do it (because if I can, anyone can). Curious about everyones thoughts on test taking regardless of it they are related to my questions and for those of you who have upcoming midterms may the odds be ever in your favor! (:

Slavery was an interesting period in American history. Yes, the fact that one race dominated over the other is a fascinating topic, but the rules created and regulated by whites for the African-Americans are equally as fascinating. Not only was the idea of literacy pushed out of the minds of African Americans, but in some states they where physically punished.

However, something that kept popping up in the Cornelius piece was the fact that African-Americans were more heavily prosecuted if they were found to be learning how to write rather than read. In this system, writing caused more problems because slaves could use writing to obtain more freedoms, like writing to other slaves, writing permission slips, or even forging their masters signatures on checks. Back then, one had to learn how to read before they could write, so the overall process of literacy was slowed down. However, now a days, we are taught how to read while learning how to read simultaneously.

How I view the system back then is that reading is the past, and writing is the future. If the slaves knew how to read, they could comprehend what had already happened, but they could not do anything about it without writing. Writing opened up more doors than reading did; it was the ability to create their own thoughts–something that frightened the slave owners who wished to control them.

My question arises from the old system. What is more powerful/valuable in our current system of literacy teaching? Does writing still hold more power or does reading? Or is it possible that that system all together not exist anymore, that both equally matter in the sense of power?

Reading Min-Zhan Lu’s story about the education in school versus her education at home I felt conflicted the way she was. I could not believe her ability to switch back and forth between the language of the school and New China, and the language her parents were teaching her at home. I cannot imagine the confusion she experienced when she realized the same word (such as “red”) meant something totally different depending on if she was at home or at school.

We have discussed a lot about dialects and first languages versus second in class so far. However, we never discussed a different mindset depending on someone’s location. Her parents wanted her to be “cultured” but her teachers wanted her to learn the “language of the Working class”. There was such a difference between the two languages that Min-Zhan Lu wasn’t sure how to separate the languages depending on where she was. How can someone go from the color red representing revolution in school, and the “Commies” at home? She was never able to share examples with the class of outside reading she was doing because no one else would have understood the references. No one else would have read Jane Austen or Nathaniel Hawthorne because the themes and viewpoints would not match with those of New China. I am amazed she was able to keep the conflicting viewpoints so separate. However, it saddens me that in order to keep her thought processes and languages straight she refrained from participating in school and sharing her original book report on The Revolutionary Family with her parents. She was forced to sort out the different languages every time she wrote a book report for school.

I admire Min-Zhan Lu’s perseverance when it came to using both languages. However, I wish she did not blame herself for being unable to separate such opposing forces easily the way her teachers and parents wanted her to. When she received a Chinese-English dictionary in high school and found the definition of “class” to be completely different from the context in which she understood it, she saw even more the opposition between the two educations she was receiving. She also saw how different the  same language (English) could be, depending on her location. Her parents did not want the “Red Doctrines” to corrupt her, but in school she was taught the language of revolution and looked down on for having an “Imperialist Lackey” for a father.

Do we have anything similar to that in present-day America? Maybe not to that effect. If a family has strict views about certain social issues but sends the children to a public school, the children will potentially be exposed to all different types of viewpoints. Maybe this could be similar. What are everyone’s thoughts? Do we have situations in America today where there is a potential for a different “language” between home and school? I do not mean speaking Spanish or Russian at home and English in school. I mean learning a different type of the same language based on beliefs. Do you guys think we have anything this severe today?