Drawing on other literacy courses on the web:
After reading the review essay on new books in literacy studies in CCC, I was inspired to take a look at my ever-evolving materials for the Literacy, Culture, and Identity course I'll be teaching in the spring. One of my primary challenges, as I perceive it, is to make the course slightly sexy and accessible to advanced undergrads while making it appropriate for grad students. I have quite a long list of potential texts at this point, but I'd like to meditate a bit more on the possible shapes of this course as I continue to read some of the scholarship in literacy studies.
Sociolinguistics
http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01E300_5_0
"role of language in many of the ‘big issues’ of life: identity, social relationships, social control, ideology, democracy, power, freedom and pleasure"
"Two key questions in sociolinguistics are: ‘Why do we speak differently in different contexts?’ and ‘How can we identify the different social functions of language?’"
"Discourse analysts look at ways in which texts and speakers communicate social and political values, and at how important aspects of identity are created through participation in discourse."
Technological literacy/literacy technologies
http://www.rpi.edu/~geislc/literacy/syllabus.htm
literate technologies: new communication technologies that have texts at their core; that depend upon reading and writing for their production and consumption. These include hypertext, voice recognition, email, classification databases, personal digital assistants, the web, ebay, and blogs — to name a few.
We will examine these literate technologies in counterpoint to four core concepts developed in literacy studies: literacy as practice, literacy as control, literacy as mediation, and vernacular literacy. Our goal is to understand the scope and limits of these concepts in the context of new technologically mediated environments — to see, in what sense, literate technologies challenge, extend or modulate the ways we read, write, and otherwise use texts at the dawn of the 21st century.
Position Paper
You are expected to write four position papers. They are due in email by 5 PM Monday so that the discussion leader can prepare fo Wednesday's seminar.
The position papers should, in less than 3 pages, characterize and analyze a literacy concept (from the literacy reading) in relationship to a phenomenon in new communication technologies (described in the technology reading). Consider them in counterpoint to one another. To do this, your paper should do the following:
introduce the concept and its general relevance or significance in literacy studies;
characterize its application as presented by the literacy author;
analyze its extension to new literate technologies as described by the technology author;
place your analysis in the context of other possible concepts, particularly concepts presented by other authors we've read;
suggest the implications of the concept for your work and the work of others like you in the field;
conclude with an overall assessment of the concept's contribution to studies of technologically mediated communication.
Politics of Literacy
http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~falbob/ENG350Syllabus.html
Some texts to consider, not already on my list
Gloria Anzaldua, Borderlands/ La Frontera: The New Mestiza
David Bartholomae, “Inventing the University”
Dewey, How We Think
Mary Louise Pratt, “Arts of the Contact Zone”
Richard Rodriguez, The Hunger of Memory
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
readwritethink.org
I come back to this site periodically, and I think I'm trying to figure out whether I can use it to any good ends in my courses. Perhaps it is more appropriately a capstone resource. When I first came here and first taught 458, I wanted to encourage English ed. students to do some professionalizing work. I don't think I've been very successful with that, and now that Betsy is integrating some of that into capstone, it may seem a bit redundant if I design an assignment to search for, evaluate, use professional resources. Still, it's worth considering. I think I'm ready to revamp 458 slightly. It worked very well once, but it has room for revision.
I come back to this site periodically, and I think I'm trying to figure out whether I can use it to any good ends in my courses. Perhaps it is more appropriately a capstone resource. When I first came here and first taught 458, I wanted to encourage English ed. students to do some professionalizing work. I don't think I've been very successful with that, and now that Betsy is integrating some of that into capstone, it may seem a bit redundant if I design an assignment to search for, evaluate, use professional resources. Still, it's worth considering. I think I'm ready to revamp 458 slightly. It worked very well once, but it has room for revision.
Reading and Reading Theory
Nice post, Kevin, and it brings several things to mind:
Literature circles in K-12 education.
Way back when I was finishing my dissertation and working at the National Center on Education and the Economy, my colleagues, Elizabeth Woodworth and Brooke Hessler, and I were working on drawing reading theory and practice from English education professionals into the composition classroom. One of the practices commonly used to foster reading and to train readers are literature circles. Now, I'm drawing on a somewhat faint memory at this point, but I believe Harvey Daniels is the author of the ur-text on literature circles. The primary thing I remember about these circles is that participants take on roles each time they meet, trying a different role periodically. And the roles included "the Connector" whose role was to connect the text to another text and the "Linecatcher," whose role was to find a line or two that really sounded cool or resonated with the reader in some way. The idea is that mature readers do these things automatically but that people who haven't participated much in this kind of discussion need a little experience, a little training in acting like mature readers. So, though many of our students will have at least some of these approaches in their arsenal, I'm suggesting they might benefit from a little bit of the literature circles training. Because as writing instructors we know that the students often write better once they know how to read better. We might add a role like "rhetorical analyst" or we might break down the roles that would encompass rhetorical analysis, particularly prior to asking students to do complex analysis.
I like the idea of adding a dimension of student selection to this activity of reading groups. Each reading group might select one full text within the scope of a broad topic or from a list developed by the teacher (a way to make sure that the readings in some way tie back to the course and can inform broader classroom work and discussion). The teacher would schedule dates for the groups to meet and the groups could work out schedules for role rotation. And/or the reading group work might be a group blog, or both.
This whole thing could be the primary literacy or leadership content and the groups, after reading and discussing the text could be asked to present on the text in such a way as to teach the whole class something about literacy or leadership.
Birkerts, and perhaps more importantly a strand in authorship theory that suggests readers and writers collaborate in the meaning making process (with culture that always present yet hard to pin down collaborator)
Ok, the one thing with about which I have resoundingly agreed with Birkerts is his concept that readers and writers collaborate in terms of meaning making. It sounds like Blau is talking about something like Daniels' Literature Circles in the college setting with an eye toward this strand of authorship theory.
My own interest in Reading Don't Fix No Chevys as a possible Literacy, Identity, and Culture text.
I had recently added this book to a list of books I want to read as possibilities for the Literacy course I'll be teaching in the spring. What do you think about its relevance for such a course at the 400/600 level?
Finally, I am compelled by your idea that we need to put engagement in the foreground. Of course, that is one of the primary reasons I come back to community/civic engagement. There is some evidence that engagement of the sort I think you are talking about happens in these classes with "real" audiences, contexts, purposes, etc.
Nice post, Kevin, and it brings several things to mind:
Literature circles in K-12 education.
Way back when I was finishing my dissertation and working at the National Center on Education and the Economy, my colleagues, Elizabeth Woodworth and Brooke Hessler, and I were working on drawing reading theory and practice from English education professionals into the composition classroom. One of the practices commonly used to foster reading and to train readers are literature circles. Now, I'm drawing on a somewhat faint memory at this point, but I believe Harvey Daniels is the author of the ur-text on literature circles. The primary thing I remember about these circles is that participants take on roles each time they meet, trying a different role periodically. And the roles included "the Connector" whose role was to connect the text to another text and the "Linecatcher," whose role was to find a line or two that really sounded cool or resonated with the reader in some way. The idea is that mature readers do these things automatically but that people who haven't participated much in this kind of discussion need a little experience, a little training in acting like mature readers. So, though many of our students will have at least some of these approaches in their arsenal, I'm suggesting they might benefit from a little bit of the literature circles training. Because as writing instructors we know that the students often write better once they know how to read better. We might add a role like "rhetorical analyst" or we might break down the roles that would encompass rhetorical analysis, particularly prior to asking students to do complex analysis.
I like the idea of adding a dimension of student selection to this activity of reading groups. Each reading group might select one full text within the scope of a broad topic or from a list developed by the teacher (a way to make sure that the readings in some way tie back to the course and can inform broader classroom work and discussion). The teacher would schedule dates for the groups to meet and the groups could work out schedules for role rotation. And/or the reading group work might be a group blog, or both.
This whole thing could be the primary literacy or leadership content and the groups, after reading and discussing the text could be asked to present on the text in such a way as to teach the whole class something about literacy or leadership.
Birkerts, and perhaps more importantly a strand in authorship theory that suggests readers and writers collaborate in the meaning making process (with culture that always present yet hard to pin down collaborator)
Ok, the one thing with about which I have resoundingly agreed with Birkerts is his concept that readers and writers collaborate in terms of meaning making. It sounds like Blau is talking about something like Daniels' Literature Circles in the college setting with an eye toward this strand of authorship theory.
My own interest in Reading Don't Fix No Chevys as a possible Literacy, Identity, and Culture text.
I had recently added this book to a list of books I want to read as possibilities for the Literacy course I'll be teaching in the spring. What do you think about its relevance for such a course at the 400/600 level?
Finally, I am compelled by your idea that we need to put engagement in the foreground. Of course, that is one of the primary reasons I come back to community/civic engagement. There is some evidence that engagement of the sort I think you are talking about happens in these classes with "real" audiences, contexts, purposes, etc.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
I was about to blog on one of my many other sites, but saw that you had updated recently, Amy, so I thought I would join the party over here.
I was reading Sheridan Blau's The Literature Workshop, or more specifically the second chapter, in which he describes how he runs a literature workshop. He offers a much more sophisticated pedagogy than "read the text, talk about it." His process is collaborative and re-cursive, and one of the generalizations is "Reading is a process of constructing meaning or composing a text, exactly like writing. The reading of any difficult text will entail drafting and revision (largely in the reader's head) and will frequently begin with what amounts to a zero draft. Just as writing may be defined as rewriting, so is any reading worth doing essentially a process of rereading" (53). The second generalization is that "Reading is, and needs to be in a classroom, a social process, completed in conversation" (54). The third principle: "Literary reading and literary study . . . teach students an intellectual discipline that defines critical thinking in every fied and fosters academic success in every subject of study" (57).
Blau goes on to take a quick jab at composition programs that remove literary study "for fear that it will overtake and marginalize the study of rhetoric, or in the interest of asserting the value of composition across the disciplines" (58). The new GTAs read the Lindemann-Tate exchange, and we are wrestling with question of "what to read" in composition classes. Klosterman obviously figures in to the discussion.
As I was reading, I was thinking about Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good For You. He explains numerous times that he still advocates reading and the development of traditional literacy skills, but he makes an argument for recognizing the complexity of contemporary video games and television, "texts" that seem to be successful because they are difficult and engaging, not because they are simple and straightforward. I have also been reading a bit of Reading Don't Fix No Chevy's, which also makes the argument that boys and young men are looking for a challenge, an engaging education, and they aren't seeing that challenge or engagement in reading. That book has a few stories, however, of boys turned on to reading when the subject matter is right, or when the text seems relevant.
None of these observations are going to seem new or surprising, but I still find it difficult to figure out exactly how to work with these insights. Klosterman is going to provide the kind of reading experience that will engage some students, but alienate others--particularly our female students, perhaps. Short readings, while easier to work with and teach with, do not provide any significant kind of engagement unless we can convince students to read, re-read, and re-read again. That is a habit we want to foster, but those re-readings have to result in significant gains of understanding, which is why Blau uses poetry, not non-fiction prose.
Should we form small reading groups within our classes, let them determine their semester reading list, get them write about those readings? Doing so would present pedagogical challenges and likely limit the ability to use texts as models. Do we not worry about the reading problem in writing classes? Many will argue that good writing emerges from reading, but in terms of a call to write, good writing seems to emerge out of a complex, interesting, and/or compelling exegincy, not necessarily based in texts. In McLuhanesque Figure-Ground terms, I think one of our educational problems I/ we face is that we(?) keep putting reading and writing in the foreground (skills to work on), when we should be putting "engagement" as the figure we are after, engagement that can flow from reading and writing.
Or, do we just stop worrying about teaching so much and focus on our blogging?
I was reading Sheridan Blau's The Literature Workshop, or more specifically the second chapter, in which he describes how he runs a literature workshop. He offers a much more sophisticated pedagogy than "read the text, talk about it." His process is collaborative and re-cursive, and one of the generalizations is "Reading is a process of constructing meaning or composing a text, exactly like writing. The reading of any difficult text will entail drafting and revision (largely in the reader's head) and will frequently begin with what amounts to a zero draft. Just as writing may be defined as rewriting, so is any reading worth doing essentially a process of rereading" (53). The second generalization is that "Reading is, and needs to be in a classroom, a social process, completed in conversation" (54). The third principle: "Literary reading and literary study . . . teach students an intellectual discipline that defines critical thinking in every fied and fosters academic success in every subject of study" (57).
Blau goes on to take a quick jab at composition programs that remove literary study "for fear that it will overtake and marginalize the study of rhetoric, or in the interest of asserting the value of composition across the disciplines" (58). The new GTAs read the Lindemann-Tate exchange, and we are wrestling with question of "what to read" in composition classes. Klosterman obviously figures in to the discussion.
As I was reading, I was thinking about Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good For You. He explains numerous times that he still advocates reading and the development of traditional literacy skills, but he makes an argument for recognizing the complexity of contemporary video games and television, "texts" that seem to be successful because they are difficult and engaging, not because they are simple and straightforward. I have also been reading a bit of Reading Don't Fix No Chevy's, which also makes the argument that boys and young men are looking for a challenge, an engaging education, and they aren't seeing that challenge or engagement in reading. That book has a few stories, however, of boys turned on to reading when the subject matter is right, or when the text seems relevant.
None of these observations are going to seem new or surprising, but I still find it difficult to figure out exactly how to work with these insights. Klosterman is going to provide the kind of reading experience that will engage some students, but alienate others--particularly our female students, perhaps. Short readings, while easier to work with and teach with, do not provide any significant kind of engagement unless we can convince students to read, re-read, and re-read again. That is a habit we want to foster, but those re-readings have to result in significant gains of understanding, which is why Blau uses poetry, not non-fiction prose.
Should we form small reading groups within our classes, let them determine their semester reading list, get them write about those readings? Doing so would present pedagogical challenges and likely limit the ability to use texts as models. Do we not worry about the reading problem in writing classes? Many will argue that good writing emerges from reading, but in terms of a call to write, good writing seems to emerge out of a complex, interesting, and/or compelling exegincy, not necessarily based in texts. In McLuhanesque Figure-Ground terms, I think one of our educational problems I/ we face is that we(?) keep putting reading and writing in the foreground (skills to work on), when we should be putting "engagement" as the figure we are after, engagement that can flow from reading and writing.
Or, do we just stop worrying about teaching so much and focus on our blogging?