Post 21: What issues does this “The New Literacy” address for you that you think are important?

I think this article brings forth many great points.  That people today are always writing for an audience is a truth I’d never thought of before.  Whenever I ‘update my Facebook status’ or post a ‘tweet’ on Twitter, I am immensely aware of my audience, and it almost always has a point or an opinion.  As the article says, “For them, writing is about persuading and organizing and debating, even if it's over something as quotidian as what movie to go see.” Moreover, I structure my Facebook posts (where family will see them) in a much different way than my tweets (strictly for friends), and those are both very different from my private blog that only a few select friends read.  Furthermore, all of these mediums of communication are radically different from the way I email or write personal letters and especially different from the way in which I construct an academic post or paper. 

The point of this article was RELAX! We know our audience. It is not difficult to switch our tone depending on our targeted audience.  I agree that there is some danger of text speak or other slang creeping into academia, but only if teachers fail to weed it out early on.  My honest opinion is that parents should be able to handle the explanation of when certain vocabularies are acceptable, however teachers are the gatekeepers.  It is the teachers express job in elementary school to show students Standard English in all of its’ glory and teach students when and why it is important and appropriate to use. 

It is my humble belief that once learned, it will never be forgotten.  Students who learn the rules of language usage early will use it adequately thenceforth.

I completely agree with Clive Thompson when he says, “We think of writing as either good or bad. What today's young people know is that knowing who you're writing for and why you're writing might be the most crucial factor of all”.

Post 20: In the two short essays I have given you, the idea of text messaging in education is addressed. What do you think about this? Do you agree/disagree with the authors?

I have mixed feelings on the texting language.  I text. I text often. It is my primary mode of communication with over half of the people I am in regular contact with.  I find it simple and convenient.  I can communicate with people without interrupting my daily routines. 

One of the articles we read made mention to people not wearing the same clothes out on a Saturday night as they would while doing yard work.  This is a perfect example of how I feel. 

I think it is important for children to learn Standard English.  I think the structure of the language should be upheld. Children are going to talk to their friends in slang.  Children are going to text.  They are going to post on Facebook.  They are going to shorten words.  The rule for all of these things is: there is a time and a place for everything. 

I do not speak to my mother the way I speak to my friends.  I do not speak the same way around my infant as I do my coworkers. 

I think learning situational literacy should be part of school curriculum.  As technology changes, so will the way we interact with words.  Our literacy is changing now just as it has throughout history.  Teachers simply need to teacher students how to interact with words.  Some are only appropriate in certain settings.  

Technology is awesome for learning today.  Computers make information available exceptionally fast with exceptional clarity.  Learning can be interactive and individualized in computer games.  Technology does shape how we learn and what we learn. 

I believe it is wonderful and we should embrace it.  Our world is ever changing, and being able to roll with the punches is important.  We just need to learn when it is okay to use slang and when it is important to be eloquent with our language.

Post 19: Where do you stand on this issue? Do you think Google is making us “stupid”? How do these arguments play into literacy (or ideas of what literacy is as we move to thinking about technology?)

I do not necessarily think that Google is making us stupid.  I think that the internet and Google has transformed our society completely. Rarely is there a question that I have that goes unanswered.  I have a smart phone, and iPad, a laptop and a desktop.  I have access to the internet wherever I go.  Anytime I have a question, I must admit I Google it. Then, pop, I have an answer. 

Google is a wonderful tool.  It provides limitless information readily at the fingertips of the masses.  The detriment of Google and any other search engine is that in my opinion it impedes our ability or desire to remember anything.  My retention of information is sub-par. It seems that this is just a cycle though.  When people were beginning to write, there was uproar of how it would destroy our minds.

When print occurred and newspapers and books were readily available to the public, there was an outcry saying it would hurt our minds.

Now, here we are in the midst of internet everywhere. Information superstores are at our fingertips anytime of the day.  If we do not like what we see right away, we can simply click on another choice and it will be immediately in our faces.  That is where the scanning of articles and the necessity of headline writing comes into play.  We don’t have to read deeply into articles to understand the main points.  We can simply scan an article over, and if we do not get enough information, we can click a few times on our mouse and be trying out a new article. 

With every new development, literacy changes.  This is another shift in literacy.  The internet and Google has changed our access to written works.  We are certainly taking shortcuts.  Everything must be faster to survive.  The internet is a convenience that will only become more powerful and more integrated in our lives. 

Baron

Much the same as Ong suggests that we cannot in our society visualize a concept or a thing without visualizing the word in and of itself, Baron says that now that we have computers and have digitized text, he cannot write well without the amenities of technology.  Ong says that written words are now essential to our understanding and functionality of literacy, and Baron says that technology is essential to our production of writing.

I think both of these authors evoke a fundamentally mind altering thought process that alters my understanding of literacy.  I use technology to transform my thoughts and feelings into text every day.  After typing it up, I typically put it in some form on the internet and share it with my friends and family.  The days of penning letters are few and far between.  I remember having a pen pal in elementary school once. Other than that, when I hand write things: letters, lists, papers...anything, I am doing it for the sport of it, not out of necessity.  A couple of summers ago, I remember having to write "Thank You'" notes to 200 people after my wedding.  It was truly a chore.

On a daily basis, I usually update my Facebook status with some witty retort about traffic or some other easily relatable irritant.  I share photos via text message to my in-laws and siblings. And I tweet about something funny.  Technology has revolutionized the way I communicate with my friends and family.  It has transformed literacy.  Before bed tonight, I will read a few chapters of a novel on my iPad. I have no use for going to the library any more.  My library allows me to virtually check out books and download them to my iPad. 
The merge of literacy and technology for me is liberating and exciting.  It makes life easier and communication possible that would not have occurred otherwise. 

I have really focused over the past day on Ong's assertion that people who write and read written words visualize their spoken sounds and ideas in words.  We think in words. It is crazy.  It makes me feel like I am in the middle of the 'which came first (chicken or egg) dilemma'.  Do I think of the actual thing first? Or the words? Are they synonymous? Ah! It makes my skin crawl!  Very interesting topic.

Discussion Post for April 3rd

Ong tell us that writing is inhuman.  There is a disconnect between the spoken word and the written word.  We cannot visualize a thing without at some point thinking of the written form of the thing.  Cultures that are oral communicators only, do not have that issue. Ong highlights many other points from Plato as well such as “writing destroys memory. Those who use writing will become forgetful, relying on an external source for what they lack in internal resources” (Ong 21). A calculator is an example of this.  Based on this excerpt, I am confused at the overall point.  Seemingly many negatives are highlighted for the use of technology and writing, especially with the Plato examples.  However, Ong then points out that Plato was in fact using writing (this horrid thing) to broadcast his critiques of writing itself.  And, we wouldn’t know of his critique today without the existence of writing. Ong then says, “To say writing is artificial is not to condemn it but to praise it” (23).  I think he is saying that writing is a tool.  It perhaps weakens the mind, but it strengthens the depth and reach of information, opinions and lore.

Literacy certainly changes with technology.  Technology is an amazing tool for acquiring and transmitting facts and information more quickly and efficiently than ever. However, retaining of the information learned is no longer a necessity because it is always available at our fingertips, whether it is a mathematical problem that needs solved and I grab my calculator, or if I need to know the answer to seemingly any question, I can always just “Google it”. 

A girl in a boy's world: A wolf in sheeps clothing?

In my next paper, I will research and explore my experience as a girl growing up on a farm.  My personal experiences went against the grain of traditional gender roles.  The farming literacy, primarily vocabulary, and overall lifestyle affected the way I interacted with my peers while growing up.  Girls are supposed to be clean and dainty, I was rough and rugged and wasn’t afraid to get dirty.  Girls in my elementary class were talking about girl scouts and slumber parties, I was talking about baling hay and spreading manure.

Starting when I was merely 4 years old, I was required to help my dad on our farm.  We raised pigs, cows, chickens and ducks on our small farm in rural Iowa.  Farming and most outdoor chores are usually considered “men’s work”.  My dad often commented that I was supposed to be a boy, but since I was a girl, I had to become both.  As I grew up on the farm, I actually became “one of the guys”.  Every night after school, I was responsible for cleaning out the little homes of each group of pigs.  On weekends, I helped my dad with a plethora of various tasks including: splitting and carrying firewood, and many other heavy lifting tasks. 

My dad often had some extra help from the son of one of his friends. His name was Evan. I found myself in constant competition with Evan to be a better son for my dad than he was.  The only problem with this is that I was a girl.  I had to learn how to be a boy in my dad’s eyes (I thought) to get his approval and attention.  All the while, I had to figure out how to be a girl to fit in at school. 

Simultaneously I was becoming literate in Barbie’s and tractors, playing house and rounding up the hogs, decorating cakes and baling hay. If I was wearing dresses and playing with Barbie dolls and then coming home from school and changing into jeans and gum boots, one of my identities was a fraud, right? Could I really be both? Is there room for more than one Primary Discourse? More than one primary identity?

For my paper I will discuss my experiences and differing social discourses.  I will incorporate research about gender roles and the effects on children. (I’d even like to consider why I wanted to buy my son a swing this weekend, but refused because they only had a pink on, and I COULDN’T POSSIBLY BUY MY SON A PINK SWING.  Where does that come from?!)  

I can connect my experiences as a girl fitting in with the boys to my current success working with all men at my husband’s business (a gun shop).  I once again find myself in a situation of learning the language of a culture women don’t quite belong to (yet). 

Embracing Linguistic Diversity in the Classroom

I find it incredibly difficult to take an “all or nothing” position on the topic of alternate languages being used in a classroom.  Prior to starting field work in a Milwaukee Public elementary school a few weeks ago, I would 100% say that BEV should never, ever be used in an educational setting.  Before really exploring literacy and the implications of one’s personal identity on literacy, I would have said a person’s individual language dialect is irrelevant in schools.  I now approach the topic with a bit of a different, although hesitant, perspective.

I believe in our country.  I believe in our traditions, customs, morals, standards, and most of our practices.  Yes, some of these have gone to the wayside considerably over the past couple of decades.  However, at it’s core, the United States was built on principles.  We are the melting pot of many, many different cultures. However, since the founding of this country, a Standard English dialect was used in schools, in print, and in business communication.  In this country, individuality is accepted, yet there is a standard benchmark of criteria to be successful. 

It is for both of these reasons that I think that the answer to allowing BEV or other dialects into the classrooms is: sometimes.  Students bring their culture with them wherever they go. How students speak is part of who they are.  When talking to one another, students should be able to do so in any dialect in which they are comfortable.  Students who are exposed to a variety of dialects including BEV will perhaps embrace diversity.  I’ve also witnessed that classroom participation dramatically increases if students are allowed to speak in their native tongue.  It is much easier to express oneself in a language in which you are comfortable.  Any free writing should also be done in any dialect in which the student is comfortable. 

In an English class, however, or English/Grammar/Phonics studies, Standard English should be taught, and its usage should be enforced.  It should be explained to students why it is important to learn Standard English and when it is appropriate to use Standard English.  If the teacher sets the expectation for when and why to use Standard English, students whose primary discourse is not Standard English will not feel alienated.  It is also important when correcting a student who has chosen to use BEV or an alternate dialect at an inappropriate time the teacher simply ask them to translate that into Standard English rather than telling the student they are incorrect, wrong, or what they said is “bad”.

As I mentioned, I am doing fieldwork at a Milwaukee Public elementary school.  The classroom teacher is one of only 4 Caucasian individuals out of 32 students plus herself.   The classroom is exceptionally diverse in language as well, with a variety of students speaking a total of 7 different languages (this does not include BEV).   When students turn in written work, unless it is free written, it is expected to be in Standard English. However, I have noticed many students speaking BEV in the classroom.  The craziest thing, is that I didn’t even notice it at first!  It wasn’t distracting or disruptive to the learning environment.  It just was.  Students were still able to articulate their points. I think that the diversity of the classroom truly enriches the learning environment.  Learning Standard English, however, will prepare these students for further education and the professional environment.  Social literacy should be kept to one’s personal dialect.

 

Any Dialect Comfortable

1.      Conversations

2.      Verbally answering questions

3.      Free writing

Standard English

1.      English Class

2.      Spelling

3.      Phonics
4.    Any time specified that Standard English is appropriate