Thoughts for Feb. 12

I have to say that I was surprised by the fact that the reading was easier than I expected. Yet, even though I was able to read the words, I know I did not comprehend everything Olson was describing.

I think he brings up some interesting points in regard to literacy and I found myself thinking more about things that are so normal and everyday. I do believe that we place writing language and being literate above speech. It seems to be a way we grade countries on how advanced they are. If the people are illiterate, then something needs to be done! So reading Olson's viewpoint allowed me to think more about things I just accepted.

I would like more explanation and clarification on the theories of literacy and mind from Levy-Bruhl and Scribner and Cole. Like I said to a friend, "I can read the words on the page, but I'm not very sure on what they really mean." I think some more background information on these theories will help me understand more from that chapter especially.

"Nor is the simplicity of the alphabet the major cause of high levels of literacy; many other factors affect the degrees of literacy in a country or in an individual. Finally, our tardy recognition of the literacy levels of non-alphabetic cultures, especially the Japanese who routinely out-perform Western children in their literacy levels (Stevenson et al., 1982) has forced us to acknowledge that our view of the superiority of the alphabet is, at least in part, an aspect of our mythology" (p. 9). I have to say I was relieved to know that Olson is also looking at non-alphabetic languages. Having grown up surrounded by Chinese characters, I think we should take a close look at this type of writing system and see how it might change our own views on literacy. This was one of those, mmmmm moments for me. Interesting!

"For the first time, many scholars are thinking the unthinkable: is it possible that literacy is over-rated?" (p. 13). Certainly an interesting question to tackle. This reminds me of some of the critical theorists and the power struggle. Yet, what would our world be like without written language and literacy?

"Learning to read and write is at best a mere introduction to the world of literacy" (p. 41). This was a aha statement for me. It is true that as an elementary teacher this was the focus of what I did throughout the day. Yet, do we get so focused on these two elements that we forget everything else involved with being a literate person? Is this like the focus on decoding and forgetting that the word holds meaning? It certainly made me think.

"Literacy is not just a basic set of mental skills isolated from everything else. It is the competence to exploit a particular set of cultural resources. It is the evolution of those resources in conjunction with the knowledge and skill to exploit those resources for a particular purpose that makes up literacy" (p. 43). One thing graduate school has helped me see is an expanded view on the definition of literacy. It encompasses much more than I first thought.

". . . representation is never equivalent to the thing represented. If so, it is a serious mistake to think of written representations as transparent or neutral" (p. 63). I think this is true. Often times I read something and am ignorant of the fact that it is taking a side. It looks safe in print. It looks less intimidating, less in your face. Sometimes the only way I know that text is so much more than mere words is when that text is read to me with expression and emotion. I don't think text that ever replace or fully represent speech. That is why every book I read, I will have a different experience with it than someone else. I give meaning to words and read with certain expressions in my head.

Overall, I found myself more stimulated than I first thought with this book. Yet, there are still things I need clarification on. I know the discussion in class today will hopefully help clear up some of my confusion.