readings for 4/21/08

Blog for readings for 4/21/08 I don't seem to be able to get these posted sooner. I keep trying.

Brandt Sponsors of Literacy

Brandt illustrates the principle of literacy sponsorship through the life experiences of several individuals. She identifies literacy as a commodity. “…one of the great engines of profit and competitive advantage in the 20^th century: a lubricant for consumer desire; a means of integrating corporate markets; a foundation for the development of weapons and other technology; a raw material in the mass production of information”(p 166).

Her essay is an attempt to offer a conceptual approach to the development of literacy as an economic development (p.166) (emphasis mine), the value of literacy and the factors that influence or motivate the individual to seek it, which she has labeled “sponsorship”. Sponsors, as Brandt calls them, are any “agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach or model as well as recruit, regulate, or withhold literacy- and gain advantage by it” (p 168). She sees sponsorship as the causes into which people’s literacy get recruited, the why and how they learn to read and write and, get exploited (p.168).

In this essay, Brandt looks at concepts of literacy development through the experiences of various individuals and demonstrates the patterns of sponsorship to the processes of stratification, competition and reappropriation (p.183). Her discussion of the literacy learning experiences of Raymond Branch and Dora Lopez demonstrates the concept of stratification. Although these two individuals were from the same era, area and educational opportunity their access to literacy was very different. Brandt compares the difference of majority-race membership, male gender and affluent socioeconomic status and learning literacy access to that of the minority-race membership, female gender and lower socioeconomic status and their acquisition of literacy for their personal self development. It is no surprise that Branch, who is a white male and comes from a higher socioeconomic back ground, was surrounded by literacy and easily accessed higher education and upper management employment. Lopez had to teach herself, had less access to instruction and learning tools. For Branch, the University town met his literacy needs, but for Lopez, it id not. Her literacy talents in two languages did not gain her the same advantages as Branch. This illustrates that there is, as Brandt states, a statistical correlation between high literacy achievement and higher socioeconomic, majority-race status (p.171).

In the next section, Brandt illustrates how sponsorship through competition effects literacy achievement. The life of Dwayne Lowery, a union representative, was changed by the increasing demands of higher levels of literacy from his opposition. Over time simple negotiations became more complex as the level of communication involved more legal and elaborate forms of literacy - reading and writing. Although Mr. Lowery met these demands through self-education, he was eventually replaced by someone younger, educated and certified in the field of contract negotiation. His literacy talents were devalued inspire of his seasoned experience. The sponsorship, in this case, controlled and inhibited his literacy value through competition.

The last example demonstrates how two different women experienced changes in their lives by reappropriating the literacy learning they achieved in their professional lives. They each, in different way and for different reasons used the skills they had acquired on their jobs and learned to use them in others aspects of their lives. In this way they managed to redirect the value of their literacy talents to more personally rewarding endeavors.

Finally, Ms Brandt looks at teaching and the dynamics of sponsorship. As teachers of reading and writing, she eludes to being brokers between literacy buyers and sellers; Teaching learners how to negotiate their literacy talents. She states that when one’s sponsors are multiple and, sometimes, at odds, they can make writing difficult, but if absent writing is unlikely.

My thoughts:

Brandt’s article was an enlightening aspect of motivation for writing. We have discussed much about discourse communities and this puts a different spin on that concept. I found her essay to be concrete, cohesive and stayed to the point. It was the easiest for me to understand, that we have read, thus far. I cannot analyze her theory as I do not have the theoretical expertise but find her concept interesting and I think well supported by her examples. Not the best “science” but she makes her point.

I can identify with the individuals that she features in their sponsorship for self-development. I can see how my own literacy acquisition was influenced by the need to learn and develop the literacy skills for the academic and professional discourse communities that I was entering. I feel that this is, also, what she was discussing. As a woman who entered academia later than most, I also felt the disadvantages of not being a traditional student. Fortunately, I had the sponsorship of organizations that valued women reentering the job force and a profession in high demand and understaffed.

I think we all, in some way, reappropriate the literacy skills we learn in one area to other areas of our lives to increase the value of our literacy skills or improve the economy or personal reward. We need to teach this. The teaching of reading and writing, in economic terms, seems to indicate that teachers need to understand the motivation (or sponsorship) of their students and the purpose of their learning and how to navigate and negotiate these influences. In the essay by McCarthy we see that the student did not know how to reappropriate his talents.

McCarthy A stranger in strange Lands

This article seems to be a demonstration of what we have discussed in class about audience, discourse community and the technology of writing. McCarthy followed this student as he figured out his audience, primarily his teachers, learned “what they wanted” from him and the appropriate language and format of each assignment as it applied to each class/course. Also, the concept of motivation or sponsorship from the Brandt article is illustrated. The student did better in the classes he felt had greater application to his life and future, Biology and English. He was motivated to write for his English class because he felt it helped him learn to write for his biology class which was his goal. He could not, unfortunately relate his general knowledge of writing to each of his classes, but saw them as entirely separate entities. He was able to relate the purpose of writing to his success in the class and to future classes, and for the purpose of communicating with the teacher and fellow students.

His difficulty with the poetry class is a reflection on the value he placed on what the class could offer him. Also, was the negative criticism from the teacher, who offered little in the way of correcting his mistakes. Dave’s contributions, on which he spent many hours, were not valued by the teacher, who was the “expert” and Dave the novice. He was not made to feel like he could ever achieve any higher status, whereas, in his other classes, he was given avenues for solutions, and treated like a peer. His contributions were valued and encouraged. Therefore he did better, he was more motivated. He learned to use the language of each discipline and the unique techniques and formats required.

This essay reflected strongly with the Brandt essay. We read and write for reasons that are important to us, even if we do not really want to. (sponsorship) We learn to use the language and techniques required of the discourse community in which we want to be accepted. ( writing across curriculum/discipline). We need to fell successful and valued in order to succeed or achieve a goal.

This essay was, again, easier to understand, straightforward and applicable to the concepts we have been studying. I guess I am a concrete reader. I don’t elate well to the writers that refer to other theorist in a more abstract way.

I think the author illustrated her point well and applied it to a teaching concept, which, for me, is important. How do we teach people to write (or succeed in their learning).

Heath Protean shapes in Literacy Events: …..

I had to look up the concept of “Protean Shapes”. I am not sure I understand it yet. Heath discusses the way people learn about their language and writing from their culture and demonstrates her theory of learning to read and write as a social phenomenon. By illustrating the many uses of the language of the people in Trackston, she shows how oral language differs from written language in both form and uses. I believe this is an example of how language appears to change when viewed from outside vs. inside and written vs. oral. It occurred to me as I read this piece, that there is so very much that is understood in unspoken language as well as visual comprehension that is not available or is more difficult to convey in written language. The author must go a long way to portray a scene that can be absorbed visually, without words or emotions that can be expressed by tone of voice or facial expression. Heath discusses this very early in her essay “the language of oral tradition is held to suggest meaning without explicitly stating information….In contrast, language associated with the literature tradition is portrayed as making meaning explicit in the text and as not relying on the experiences of readers for verification of truth value.” (p.443-44) I was not sure why I had to read the entire dialogue if the prayer, except to see how the use of the language changed with the emotion of the speaker, but it was an effective illustration of orality of language as culture.

This essay is another example of the value of both written and oral language as it applies to the every day lives of the people in a social group. They learn from each other, as children, what is important in the language, how to use it appropriately depending in the need and circumstances. As adults, they learn the meaning of aspects of the language from the experience of others, who will then pass that on.

I agree with Heath that language, both written and oral are social, cultural and only has meaning when it can be applied to or by the need of the individual or society in which they want to be accepted. The inequities of social language are also demonstrated in the use of forms that are read to applicants in some of the occupations Heath discusses. I felt this reflects back to McCarthy and the student. Why should these people learn to use reading and writing skills if they are not valued, seen as being able to contribute or treated like peers in their contexts? Are the employers using a different social language from the cultural or social group of the community, or does it appear different from the perspective of the individual and from the business. Do they each apply different meaning to the same language? It may be easier to get through the process, but it does not give credence or dignity to the people within that community.

Hull Hearing other voices….

Hull’s essay discusses the aspect of literacy in the work place. What constitutes literacy and how does being illiterate or literate affect the employee’s ability to function? She looks at various types of employment and some of the popular theories about the failure of the business or economy being the fault of the illiterate employees. As she proceeds through the essay to dispel this popular myth, I immediately thought of how many industries have outsourced their businesses to foreign countries or imported foreign workers. How does that support the idea that being able to read and write effectively in the business makes or break the business? This article really speaks about learning and using language and what is important to the individual. When the author is relating the experience of the supervisors sending memos on housekeeping tips to people that had been doing the job for years, they were insulted (not given credence for their experience or valued) The tips did not help them improve how they did their job nor apply to what they felt was important (getting a GED). The author illustrates how instituting group work did not work because the employees were not given any instruction on how to change their social structure or make the concept work. They needed to have some idea of how this was supposed to work, by modeling or being trained by others preferably peers that had been successful. But these concepts were not known at the time of this article. I also, got the impression that the concept of learning literacy as being important to one’s future and useful to ones goals needs to be developed from the earliest education. It became very clear in this article that, as often happens, students do not pay attention or learn what they cannot see a purpose in. (such as Dave). People learn what they need to, when they need it. When exposed to higher levels of literacy, it is taken for granted. For those that are not exposed to it or feel they do not need it or cannot use it, it may not be learned. I guess this falls under positive constructionist theory in that people bring with them their experiences into new learning situations. I would add to that “as they think they need them” ( as seen by our student, Dave) and the bank employees.

I see this article as another example of literacy being a sociocultural phenomenon. Language is symbolic and contextual, both written and oral. Most of us are able to move among more than one language group (or discourse community) and we will not learn or understand those that hold no meaning for us. Had I not had a need for this class (I signed up for it) I would not have learned any of the language of this discipline. Like a language of another country, I feel I am not fluently literate in it, but I can understand some of it. If I find I need it in my future, I will continue to learn how to use the language of English theorists (why did this font change?)