Learning Processes

I found the "literacy event analysis" critique interesting. As I stated in class, my analysis would have been different had I had Jonathon’s paper during the interview. When I read his paper I immediately remembered our class discussion about students being able to relate text to text, text to personal experience, and text to world. Jonathon’s paper accomplished all three of these critical thinking skills. He cited two books about how African American men were forced to join the armed forces or go to jail. He related how his grandfather was forced to join the army, and that Mohammad Ali, the boxer, had to pay money to the government to stay out of the service, while “white” boxers did not. He also stated that today young people have to register for selective service or face a huge fine and possible jail time. He tied all of this information to a song of a singer he likes, who addresses these issues. The content of the paper was rich with ideas and connections, and it will be interesting to see how he develops as a writer.

I learned a lot by my observation experience and by listening to other students’ experiences. What came to mind throughout this observation, discussions in this class, and discussions in other classes, is that as teachers we do not discuss the term literacy. We should explain to students that as they learn they are developing various skills in various literacies. Jonathon, my interviewee, demonstrated critical literacy, rhetorical literacy, digital literacy, and workplace literacy. Geoff Bull and Michele Anstey state in their book Teaching and Learning Multiliteracies: Changing Times, Changing Literacies that engaging students in conversation about their everyday literacies has become a vital component of teaching, because “A multiliterate person must be aware of his or her social and literate practices, or literacy identity, in order to be strategic and flexible in a changing world” (24).

Literacy

Over the last few weeks we have discussed how a person’s literacies are influenced by one’s history, culture, ethnicity, and socio-economic background. This was never so apparent than in my class last night as we listened to three teachers from various high school communities in the U. S.
One school resides in an affluent community, with access to high end educational programs and tools to help students succeed. Many of the students are taking AP courses, and ninety-percent of the students are college bound.
Another school resides in a working middle class community and has restricted access to additional educational programs. A few students are in AP courses, and seventy-percent of the students will seek further education.
The last school resides in a very rural, very poor community, where getting desks for the students is an issue. None of the students are in AP courses, and most failed the state literacy test.
Each teacher discussed their classroom environment and how they adjusted their lessons to accommodate the students. As you can imagine the vast differences in learning environments is amazing. The first two classrooms are deciphering complicated texts in a variety of methods. The expectations of the teachers are comparable and the students strive for excellence in their work. These students are inquisitive, and ask thought provoking questions. The teacher in the middle class community did say that he had to push his students to get to this point but by the middle of the year they are asking more in depth questions and making deeper connections between text to text and text to world experiences.
The classroom in the rural community is a struggle for the teacher. He has a hard time getting students to engage in reading let alone articulate what they have read. Most of the students read at a sixth grade level and have no interest in reading canonical texts. The students’ home lives do not support reading as important to their education. He said they consume erotica novels by the author Zane. He is struggling to get them to engage in texts required by the state. Added to this frustrating situation there are random breaks in the day, like an announcement by the principal for everyone to go to the gym. He said sometimes they are there for several hours.
Kristen talked about how some schools don’t have access to digital technologies, which I can understand, but I struggle with classrooms that don’t even have enough desks for their students, after all we are in the 21st century. President Busch and others were shouting “no child left behind”—these students aren’t even on the radar.

Fostering Adolescents’ Engaged Academic Literacy

I wish I had had Will Brown as my chemistry teacher in high school. I could have used someone who was willing to break down the text in class like he did. The labs were a piece of cake, but deciphering the text not so easy. Brown’s classroom design where students are assigned a team with names like Kinetic Kids, Periodic Pros, and Carbon Cavaliers to name a few, creates a sense of camaraderie in an unknown environment. He challenges the students to become “science learners . . . he builds routines that support their risk taking, sets thoughtful expectations for classroom discourse, and models and supports collaboration in a learning community” (102).
Gayle Cribbs in her Honors U. S. History class paired her students up to decipher the Constitution of the U. S. in regards to the internment of the Japanese during WWII. Here again a teacher supports risk taking by giving students the opportunity to deconstruct a difficult text together and participate in a class discussion about their confusion over terminology and questions concerning the legalities of the internment. It is interesting that as educators we assume students are going to be able to deconstruct difficult texts by themselves, when in fact we as grad students discuss difficult texts together to find meaning, not to mention that many scholars collaborate on their research before publishing their work.

These particular methods of teaching reminded me of Aylen’s comments on what he is doing this semester in his class. His students designed their assignments and rubrics, with his guidance. They are in charge of their learning process. It would make an interesting research study if he continued to keep this method of teaching over the next few years. I actually would like to hear how he feels it is going and if there are any changes he would make for next time.

Influence of Culture on Literacy and Mulitliteracies

While reading HALR I was reminded of a portion of my grad thesis, which I have added to my blog. In particular the discussion about how to interpret rap and hip-hop in context of students cultural practices. As well as the quote about male students, which states, "By being open to different ways of being a boy, different ways of being literate, different notions of text, different ways of teaching and assisting students, and by promoting a connection between school activity and literacies from outside the school walls . . ." (369).

While the studies of multimodal literacies are fascinating, what I find more intriguing at the moment is how society has gotten to this point and how culture influences literacy. Heath and Street discuss their approaches to studying language and literacy through ethnography; this made me think about how the first visually recorded history was generated with signs and symbols. Cave drawings and hieroglyphics on stone walls to computer programs sending information by cyberspace—it is mindboggling if one stops to really think about “it.”
This may get a little muddy for the moment, as I navigate through my thoughts, but the culture of a society influences the design of signs and symbols used to communicate in that society. Each family unit brings its culture to society, i.e. education, religious beliefs, heritage, foods, and even how one prepares the food influence lives, therefore impacts the society one negotiates. I use the word negotiate on purpose because when one enters a new environment she/he brings one’s culture into that environment and either knowingly or unknowingly influences what happens in said environment. For example, in Dr. Wood’s speech class each student brought to the table, so to speak, his or her own culture, thereby adding a certain dynamic to the classroom culture, which directly relates to the multiple literacies already in place in the classroom. Added to these literacies are the literacies the students have learned outside the classroom. For instance, DJ had imbedded a YouTube commercial in a montage of photos, charts, and text to be explicated at a push of a button.
Then there were Abby, Alfred, and Jess who combined a skit, poster, handouts, and commentary to illustrate a point. Each student brought three diverse cultures to the project. Abby is a missionary-oriented student, Alfred comes from the Caribbean and has family in South Africa; Jess is passionate about music and music therapy. Their presentation focused on raising funds to dig a well in Africa so the people will have water to drink. An unlikely group—yet their multimodal text presentation was point on and well received. While my personal opinion on the presentation is not relevant to my paper, what is important to understand is that each student brought a different dynamic to the project through their culture and literacies learned outside the classroom.

Ideas for activities

The National Day of Writing event that I attended in 2009 inspired me to use a more creative approach when designing class assignments for first year writing and fundamentals of speech class students. In fact, I want to incorporate digital technology writing/composing as classroom tools to challenge students’ perspectives in writing.

Example 1: Etherpad
Use the Etherpad program, which allows students to type on their computers and have it show up in real-time on the screen in front of class. The one downside to this program is that it only eight people can type live at one time, so in order to alleviate this dilemma have students work in groups. My suggestion is to have students produce a poem using keywords from the class. For an added twist have a student from each group draw out pieces of paper stating the parameters on how the poems will be structured. For instance, one idea is to have each stanza have a rhyming pattern of AB, AB, CD, CD, etc. After all the criteria are established, inform them there is a time limit to complete the poems. This promotes team work and challenges students think quickly. The poems can be silly, but the keywords have to be used in context. The intent of this activity is to show students that writing can be fun while teaching concepts important to the course curriculum.

Example 2: Google Translation
Have students work on a piece of writing, a short story, essay, or poem at home. The students are to either email the document to professor or bring on a memory stick. The professor loads one of the documents into Google Translation program. The students can decide which language they would like the document translated to. After document is translated click the audio tab and listen to the document in a different language. This event can be done in reverse as well. The concept behind this activity is to show students the different programs available, and for students to view the actual script of various languages used in the world.

Research on the Literacies of AAVE-Speaking Adolescents

I enjoyed reading Jamal Cooks’ and Arnetha Ball’s article on “African-American Vernacular English (AAVE).” Many years ago I heard about “Ebonics” (AAVE) and jumped on the negative band wagon, without really understanding the background information. The argument was about “Ebonics” being an approved language in the school system, thereby creating an inclusive classroom versus an exclusive classroom. Cooks and Ball discuss how “[a] long standing concern has been how to develop classroom cultures and curricula that promote equity in opportunity and accessibility to learning for individuals across boundaries of class and ethnicity” (142). The Oakland school district felt by allowing Ebonics to be an accepted language in the school system it would open the door to equity in the class. With that said, I found it interesting that while schools allow for other cultural languages in the classroom the goal is to shape all students to conform to Standard American English, which negates the inclusive culture concept.
Cooks and Ball in the section on “Curriculum, Instructional Strategies, and Pedagogical Approaches” discuss various ways in which teachers try to incorporate alternative methods of teaching besides the “traditional” structured learning methods. In particular, I liked Cooks use of “hip-hop as a tool to develop expository writing skills” (145). Many of the teachers in my classes have discussed the alternative methods they employ in the class to engage students in the learning process. Dr. Foreman in her CTAC 124 Fundamentals of Speech class used the data from a survey she did at the beginning of the semester to create an inclusive classroom environment. Along with the information she pared up students who were less confident speakers with more confident speakers to help build confidence and camaraderie in the class.
I did have a question on a statement made in the “Assessment” section. Cooks and Ball state that the Georgia High School Writing Test revealed that overall “choice on types of writing chosen on writing tasks didn’t matter . . . except when they focused on female and African American students, choice seemed to positively impact their assessment scores” (146). I found this very interesting and wished that Cooks and Ball would have explained their findings in more detail. For instance, what were the choices? What choices did the female and African American students choose? Why did those particular choices make a positive impact on their scores? What did the male and other ethnic students choose?
It would be interesting to see updated data on the AAVE- speaking students’ retention rates and post-secondary education choices. I also would be interested in reading teachers, administrators, and support staff opinions on the success or failure of their choices. Did the teachers embrace the change? How did they restructure their classrooms? What was successful and not so successful in implementing curriculum that encompassed AAVE students? All of this information could be used in other school districts that have diverse cultures with various languages and/or dialects being spoken. Not to mention being an interesting read.

Texts of Our Institutional Lives: Studying the “Reading Transition” from High School to College: What Are Our Students Reading and Why?

I enjoyed this article for several reasons. First it was interesting to see what students classified as reading, whether academic or nonacademic. Second I liked the in depth questions the students were assigned in their journaling. I was not surprised, that even though they were paid, they did not keep an updated journal. My guess “shiny objects” distracted them. Nor was I surprised that most students did not make a connection from text to text or text to world. At this age their world tends to have a pretty narrow focus, combined with the fact that many students do not find texts in school relevant to their lives. As the GA for the Gen Ed program, I sat in on a few first-year student seminars. Professors discussed how to show students that their classes relate to another, as well as to the world outside of academia. During their discussions several of the professors decided to create a “theme teaching curriculum” thereby reinforcing the cross relationships.
David Jolliffe and Allison Hart addressed this possibility in their “suggested three avenues” approach. In particular the second avenue stated that, “faculty members and administrators need to create curriculums, co-curriculums, and extra-curriculums that invite students to engage in their reading and to connect texts that they read to their lives, their worlds, and other texts” (613). Jolliffe and Hart also stated that there was room for “learning-community programs—in which students are taking two or three courses together, focusing on a common theme—foster this kind of curricular connectivity . . .” (613, 614). EMU has this type of program in place for first-year students. The Gen Ed program in conjunction with “Residential Life” created a grouping of three classes with a theme, which is reinforced and supplemented in the resident halls and apartments. New this fall are several classes offering the same theme as the tri classes with the intent of making connections between classes, dorm life, and outside activities. The goal is to create a cohesive experience with students, professors, and EMU life in order to help students stay focused on their four year program. A program that helps students see the relevance of their learning, as well as how classes combine and build upon one another. Students need to be able to see “beyond the grade” in order to inter-relate their courses, hopefully this program will accomplish these goals.
I find that Kathleen Yancey’s article “Literacy Demands of Entering the University” dovetails well with Jolliffe’s and Harl’s article. She states that there are three basic ways of testing incoming freshmen’s literacy levels, which are Advanced Placement (AP) testing, dual enrollment, and self-assessment testing. She goes on to say that these testing methods have some very real issues when assessing critical and rhetorical literacy levels of incoming freshman. The students who score a 3 on the AP exam tend to struggle when taking sophomore courses. Statistics show that those students that “dual enrolled failed a timed writing task at a third higher rate than those students who completed composition on campus” (259).
The self-assessment method that students (EMU’s method of testing incoming freshman) can take before entering college leads to issues because the questions are too vague and do not allow students to truly assess their ability compared to the expectations of the college. This method in particular creates a gap of knowledge and ability between students in a mainstream composition course. The gap between students’ writing skills and what is required by the college they attend is directly related to their ability to relate from text to text and text to world. If students do not relate to a text or text to world how will they articulate their thoughts on the subjects in the texts, and if they do not have the skills to articulate their thoughts in writing how are they going to learn to make the association from text to the world?

Divided against Ourselves

James Marshall discusses the articles that came out blasting the U.S. education system because we were supposedly losing our “unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation [which] is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world” (114)—a “Nation at Risk”. I found this concept extremely irrational. Students’ education process is not supposed to be based on the possible economic gains of the U.S. I do not send my children to school to so they can boost the world economy. I send them to school to enhance their knowledge and discover their passions.
Marshall goes on to say these particular articles raised such a firestorm that we have been revamping the educational system ever since. Each president since the prescribed “Nation at Risk” has added and/or deleted policies that they felt were advantageous to them and their party rather then what was beneficial to the U. S. students. The downside to throwing out strong verbiage like “We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” (114), is that it causes short-sighted, short-term fixes that cause more harm than benefit. For instance, the school systems are dealing with President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” philosophy, which put pressure on schools to gather all the students that were struggling and save them! Of course, the extra money, training, and supplies to help these students did not materialize, yet the expectation to whip students into educational shape is still there.
Over the weekend I went to EMU's play “No Child.” As you can guess this play exposed issues that the “No Child Left Behind” has caused in schools especially schools with a depressed socioeconomic status. The most poignant line to me was the reference to being compared to a five-year-old Chinese student. Our fear of not being number one blinds us to what is really important to American children, which is to help each child find their voice, use their voice, grow their voice, and make changes with their voice. This may sound philosophical, and maybe it is a bit—but if one really thinks about it educating students with a focus on the students rather than a test score or economic gain, we will achieve this vision.

Performative Literacy

In my ENGL 585 – Literature for Teachers we had a guest speaker via Skype, Sheridan Blau a renowned professor from Columbia University. Our discussion was based on his article “Performative Literacy: The Habits of Mind of Highly Literate Readers,”which broke down his theory on how students build their literacies through reading and re-reading tougher text. He lists three major literacies: textual literacy, intertextual literacy and performative literacy. His definition of textual literacy is the “procedural knowledge that allows a reader to move from summarizing or retelling a story, to constructing a plausible interpretation, to reflecting critically on a text.”Intertextual literacy is “prior conceptual and informational knowledge that readers need to makes sense of what they read.” Performative literacy is the literacy you gain by being proactive in your learning process by combining your textual, intertextual, and performative literacies together. Blau breaks down “performative literacy in action” by listing seven traits one uses to gain the ability to read and decipher more complex texts.
The seven traits are as follows:
1. A capacity for sustained focused attention. 2. Willingness to suspend closure-to entertain problems rather than avoid them. 3. Willingness to take risks-to offer interpretative hypostheses, to respond honestly, to challenge texts, to challenge normative readings. 4. Tolerance for failure-a willingness to re-read and re-read again. 5. Tolerance for ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty. 6. Intellectual generosity and fallibility: willingness to change one’s mind, to appreciate alternative visions, and to engage in methodological believing as well as doubting. 7. A capacity to monitor and direct one’s own reading process: metacognitive awareness.
I identified with all of these traits and I have seen students who are so fearful of failing or admitting that they don’t understand a reading that they will say nothing in class. We discussed how canonical texts can have this kind of impact because the texts are so highly regarded that the students don’t feel that they can question and/or challenge the author’s viewpoint. Along with these insights Blau listed three possible scenarios that one could try in a class setting to help students build their performative literacy.

Writing Processes and Practice

While observing a speech class I participated in the conversation about my writing processes and practices. When asked what my writing processes were, at first I was stymied by the question because I did not anticipate being involved in the discussion. However, I quickly gathered my thoughts and stated a few practices I do on a regular basis. I listened to the various practices the students stated, and one in particular was cited a lot, which was listening to music. While I would not consider this a process or a practice, the students surely did. When pressed to justify their answer those students stated that listening to music helped them focus and relieved the stress of writing. As for me, I need quiet to write and process my thoughts into a coherent piece of work.
In chapter four of Politics of Writing, Clark and Ivanič give examples of various writing processes. The first example and diagram is from Hayes and Flowers, which shows and discusses a “recursive process model.” This model depicts the planning, translating, and reviewing, along with monitoring, which is used to keep track of all the processes in motion. According to Clark and Ivanič this particular model leaves out the social aspect to the writing process, thereby making it a cognitive process and neglecting the social environment, which shapes the writer.
Both Clark and Ivanič prefer an “alternative view,” which expands on the process and practice of writing by developing and incorporating “socio-political identity, familiarity with genres, accumulating knowledge, opinions, and feelings for the writing task, and making use of familiar writing styles.” These particular processes and practices give the students control over how to shape and add depth to their work. The students can feel like they have a say in their paper and it becomes more than just an assignment. I like this alternative view better than Hayes and Flowers’, but if I had to go by Clark’s and Ivanič’s chart I would be overwhelmed with all the boxes, arrows, and swooping lines. I prefer the listed items on one of the previous pages. My reaction to the diagram makes me wonder what a student who is just starting to write might think of it. Would it be just as overwhelming? While I think having a consistent plan and process to one’s writing does help develop a better writer, I do not think having a diagram to map out the whole process each time is necessary. However, each student needs to find what works for them and continuously use that plan of action.
I find it interesting that various critics and theorists like to expound on a key word and when they do it does not match someone else’s idea. For instance, we just finished reading and commenting on Robert Yagelski and his theory on Praxis. He says, “I want to understand what it means to engage in writing as a practice of being, as a way of living together on the earth we share. I want to explore the idea of writing as praxis” His concept of practice is totally the opposite of Clark and Ivanič’s. Yagelski wants to have the practice of writing to free and expand the writer’s philosophies. While Clark and Ivanič allow students more freedom in their writing, practice is a part of following certain steps to complete a piece of work. The same word and two different interpretations, which one appeals to you?

Writing as Praxis

              One dictionary definition of Praxis states: Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realized. "Praxis" may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas.

              Paulo Freire defines Praxis as “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (190). Robert Yagelski works from Freire’s definition as he discusses the loss of “ontological” way of writing with students. The school systems in general teach students how to churn out papers meeting the state and federal standards. Yagelski contends that students should learn to write as an experience, an everyday practice, which explores the students’ thoughts, ideas, and life experiences at the moment they are writing.

              In this class and one of my other classes we have been exploring our reading and writing histories, from past to present, which pushes us to define and understand where our ideologies began and how they were/are shaped in relation to society. Yagelski does not want students to wait until grad school to discover their ideologies.

He states:

“When we write, we enact a sense of ourselves as beings in the world. In this regard, writing both shapes and reflects our sense of who we are in relation to each other and the world around us. . . . A truly transformative pedagogy of writing, therefore, begins with an understanding of the act of writing not as the writer thinking (as in a cognitive view) or communicating (as in a social view) or constructing himself or herself (as in a poststructuralist view)—all of which are valid but limited ways of understanding writing—but as the writer being. (Yagelski, 2009, pp.7–8)

As a creative writer I understand Yagelski’s statement and totally agree with his assessment. A large part of me comes through when I write creatively my experiences and dreams are intertwined with my stories. The question that has come up multiple times in various classes is how can I incorporate more creative writing in the classes that require composing papers. In other classes we have discussed critics and theorists who state that students should be able to draw on personal experiences when writing papers for school. So where does all this theory and debate get us?

              While Yagelski’s article is empowering to read, especially the seventh grade student’s digital story about her mother, these are pockets of teachers in school systems that allow flexibility in the classroom. Why don’t these present day critics and theorists come together and make a change in the system itself? Yagelski discusses the empowerment of writing in relationship to the writer. He says, “The writer at the moment of writing is experiencing him or herself through language” (192). Why not take this concept along with all the other theories and present a cohesive, clear, concise argument and make a case for changing the overall education system.

              Some may think I am being facetious and maybe I am a little, but I see the frustration on the teachers in my grad classes as each theory/idea is presented as another way to engage students, but it always comes back to: time, standards, testing, uneven levels of literacy, and student engagement. So we can enjoy our theories and revel in the idealistic moment of creating the ultimate classroom, like we did in ENGL516, but unless the state and federal governments have a flash of brilliance and actually listen to their teachers, the teachers will continue to find avenues of bringing engaging practices into the classroom all the while adhering to the STANDARDS.

Youth Voices and What They Tell Us

As I read through the chapter on “Youth Voices and What They Tell Us” by Sam Intrator and Robert Kunzman the CTAC124 (Speech) class that I observed, assisted, and taught a couple of times repeatedly came to mind. This was an all-freshman class in their first semester, which brought in itself first time jitters, nerves about fitting in, and the fear of public speaking. These factors were plainly written on each student’s face as she or he walked into the class and took a seat. What was not so obvious was the cultural, ethnic, educational, social backgrounds, and experiences that wove together and shaped each student’s ability and willingness to learn. With this in mind the professor created an anonymous survey asking questions that would give her insight into the classroom dynamics. Some of the questions asked were about family, religion, travel, birthplace, happiness level, what made them unhappy, etc. In addition, the professor had each student line up across the room in order of confidence in public speaking, with a scale of one being least confident and ten being very confident. This information combined with the survey gave the professor a good beginning to understanding her class environment. She shared the results of the survey with the students, so they too could begin to understand their classmates.

What this professor implemented in her class speaks to Intrator and Kunzman’s citing Peter Smagorinsky and Cindy O’Donnell-Allen’s theory that “engagement and disengagement of individual students cannot be understood without considering students’ individual social worlds as well as their prior experiences and relationships with the school culture” (39). In this particular class the students’ previous experiences in a school setting and outside social experiences played a significant role in the dynamics of the classroom environment. As the semester played out students experienced the loss of a parent, relatives being shot, having to parent younger sibs from a distance, and the struggle of learning to manage time wisely. As an observer in the class I watched the professor maintain the delicate balance of empathizing with those outside pressures and holding the student to the class requirements. 

Intrator and Kunzman state that “students describe wanting affirmation, acceptance, and support from adults who work with them in the classroom setting. Students yearn for positive relationships with their teachers” (39). A professor from another department found that she was counseling several of her students whose outside life was impacting their performance in the classroom. She had resisted this in the past for fear of overstepping the bounds of the student/teacher relationship, but in good conscience she felt her support was best served by mentoring them through the crisis. Intrator and Kunzman go on to cite Wilson and Corbett stating that “students evaluate teachers on the basis of how caring they perceive a particular teacher to be. They define caring as ‘acting in the best interest of others’ and suggest that students intuitively understand which teachers demonstrate their caring by holding students to high standards and by ‘refusing to allow them [students] to fail’” (39). In each case of the teachers I described they demonstrated Bruce Wilson’s and H. Dickenson Corbett’s theory about caring for the whole student and not just the academic half of the student. With that said, how does a teacher navigate through all the possible scenarios that students may bring into a classroom? Is it the professor’s job to be a counselor as well as an educator?  Intrator and Kunzman go on to say that there is a need for “nonparental adults to take a sustained interest in teenagers’ lives; as adolescents undergo transitions of social definition  . . .” (39). So, if there is this need for nonparental adult interest by the professor/teacher, how does the professor/teacher accomplish this and still teach?

I have to say from my observations the speech professor did successfully engage, support, and push her students to excel not only academically, but to grow emotionally stronger as a student and, more importantly, as a person. But it was a draining semester because there were so many students that needed the nonparental adult interest.   

January 16

What is literacy?

Defining literacy is problematic in itself because there are a plethora of definitions to the meaning of literacy depending on who is asked, which I have discovered by reading various critics. The Webster dictionary states that literacy: is knowing how to read and write. I define literacy as not only knowing how to read and write, but being able to articulate what one reads and writes as one continues to gain knowledge and navigates in multiple societies. Robert Yagelski discuss the complexities of literacy by citing that students need to be able to “understand how language, especially written language, functions in different rhetorical, cultural, and social contexts” . . . and that this understanding may be different then the literacy they bring to the classroom, thereby causing students to feel like they are navigating through a maze of theories and a cultural society they are unfamiliar with or understand (31).

As I study the concepts of multigenre and multimodal writing my research has led me to search out such critics as Shirley Brice Heath, Brian Street, Carey Jewitt, Gunther Kress, and Theo Van Leeuwen. These critics discuss how one’s culture, ethnic background, educational opportunities, and social involvement impact an individual’s journey in literacy, as well. Heath and Street explore communities to see how the people communicate and navigate in their societies, all the while cognizant that being involved with the society may well change how the people communicate. Thereby imprinting their forms of literacy on said community and altering the community’s literacy path. By this I mean that one cannot help bringing one’s own literacy footprint into a community, even if briefly, hence altering how that community views their idea of learning and writing.

For example, in Oakland, California Yagelski states that “Ebonics” was accepted as a language in a local high school. The nation was in an uproar over allowing an African American community to have an official language that defined them. This was counter to the standard approved “English Language.” Even I, at the time, was appalled by the thought that we as an articulate nation would allow an obscure dialect to exist in a forward thinking society. What was their reasoning? I felt like the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, shouting—“Off with their heads!” With that said, I did not search out the reasoning behind “Ebonics” because it did not pertain to me or my children’s literacy. But now as I am doing my grad work in teaching of writing, the various forms of literacy learned through one’s culture, ethnic background and educational opportunities is very important, so a second look at Ebonics to gain a better understanding of that society’s literary path may well be worth investigating.

Both Peter Roberts and Robert Yagelski bring to light interesting questions and problems with defining literacy. Ones that I had not considered until I took a class in Native American literature, and understood the damage that “whites” perpetuated against a society by having the audacity to inflict their perception of culture and literacy on another race. Not all the theories proposed by Roberts and Yagelski were discussed in my class but I have to say I did not consider any these ideas at all before the Native American Literature class, I just merrily road the “standard English language” path to literacy, without looking at the consequences that “standardizing” literacy may have on different cultures and/or societies.