Techniques for interviews (1-2-3 case design)

If there was one item I pulled from the group conversation in class the other night, it's that there seems to be a method to interviewing that may work best for this type of project. Our projects, formulated around some sort of literacy process (prose, document, quantitative) are not designed to find one quick solution. Instead, we are looking to discover (from various viewpoints) how this process is perceived by every stakeholder. To gain these viewpoints, most of us plan to do some sort of interview with these stakeholders. To gain the most from these interviews, I think it's important to use some sort of strategy for each level of interviewing.

I'd be glad (and thankful) to hear from each classmate on their progress and personal strategies for approaching these interviews. The focus of my interview is going to be the student first and the advisor second. From each perspective, I'm trying to understand where the disconnect is happening when using our resources and why they are unable to do so efficiently. The most useful piece of my interview is going to be sitting down and watching both the student and the advisor USE our resources WITHOUT my guidance. During this process, I hope to pause when necessary and ask what it is that's causing trouble, carefully documenting each remark. Maybe it's that they actually have trouble reading the language in our articulations or maybe it's that they can read it, but don't understand it. Pausing during the times the interviewee is having trouble and allowing for feedback/reflection will help in a big way I believe.

Taking a 180 degree turn, I'm also going to interview the members of my office- trying to garner their opinions on the matter. Not sure if having them walk me through the process will help- they do this everyday. This is where the sociocultural lens comes in to play. Since I know they can read and understand the articulations and know how to use our resources in tandem with the articulations, I want to understand how they perceive these processes (literacies are read and understood in many different ways- I want to see if there opinion differs from mine). How concerned are they with the ability of the students and advisors to read, understand/comprehend and use the articulations? What are the challenges associated with understanding articulations/what are they getting in terms of feedback?

What is your approach going to be?

Fast capitalism and the devaluation of labor

I hear a lot, “Well just remember, you’re lucky to have a job.”  

It’s usually in regards to a discussion about our working conditions deteriorating, and ever-eroding morale.  Some context from my perspective: state employees haven’t had a cost of living increase in over seven years, while our health insurance costs have skyrocketed, and our pension fund is used like a gubernatorial piggy bank.  But I'm lucky to have a job.  Not that I'm smart and hardworking and talented and that my labor is valued. I'm just lucky.

The language of fast capitalism has taken over the workplace, and while I got truly sick of reading the word capital-D Discourse in The New Work Order, I recognize the need for emphasis.  Changing the language changed the workplace, and I’m pretty sure the workers are the ones left behind in most of that Discourse modification.  My employment group jokes about the old trope, "do more with less!"  It's offered as a challenge, like there's a prize at the end of the event, like it's a game show or reality show.  Of course, "do more with less" is a standard part of the "streamlined" and "lean and efficient" business.  The people doing more with less somehow always seem to be at the bottom of the pay scale, though.  I don't see executives with golden parachute packages doing more with less.  

Gee et al write,

In fact, there is a danger of widespread cynicism in the workforce, based on the idea that fast capitalist practices are meant to “dupe” the worker into working harder and longer for less reward—or at least with greater risk—in the service of elites who still formulate the basic vision in their own interests.  (p.31)

I guess I've reached that place of cynicism, as I've already been asked repeatedly to "do more with less." (Which is one way of saying, "work harder and longer for less reward.") 

Our workplace has a new workplace motivational Discourse initiative, too, and in the first meeting about it, the first thing that was said was, "We know compensation is employees' biggest issue, but we're not going to address compensation."   So, here's the delivery of a Discourse about what a wonderful workplace we have, with the immediate elimination of our top employee concern. 

The Discourse of fast capitalism, of the “enchanted workplace,” also frequently includes this privileged notion of “do what you love.”  There are plenty of people who  hold their jobs simply to pay the bills, and this idea that you must “do what you love” really invalidates many different kinds of labor.  It's likely that the people cleaning your building are not doing what they love.  I'm not doing what I love when I schedule meetings, or order catering, or book travel, for sure.  But I have bills to pay, just like millions of other people. 

This all made me think of an article I read recently called “Do what you love—the dangerous work mantra of our time.”   The author, Tokumitsu, writes,

By keeping us focused on ourselves and our individual happiness, DWYL [do what you love] distracts us from the working conditions of others while validating our own choices and relieving us from obligations to all who labor, whether or not they love it. It is the secret handshake of the privileged and a worldview that disguises its elitism as noble self-betterment. According to this way of thinking, labor is not something one does for compensation, but an act of self-love. If profit doesn’t happen to follow, it is because the worker’s passion and determination were insufficient. Its real achievement is making workers believe their labor serves the self and not the marketplace. (p.1)

I realize that I’m suffering from reading too much with the text on this one, and I could stand to have a more critical perspective.  But I think that “do what you love” and “you’re lucky to have a job” and "do more with less" are all the same idea from different perspectives:  all are Discourses intended to devalue labor.  I have some intense feelings about the devaluation of labor, but that’s another blog post for another day.   

How does text affect you?

How does text affect you?

It is amazing how written words affect people. The responses on the blogs and responses in class have really helped me to analyze how I educated my audiences. Literary artifacts evoke a various ranges of feelings. How do we as educators ensure we are incorporating “what the text does to our audience” into facilitation if we don’t understand what the text does to our audience?

I imagine the authors of the texts we are reading may have written things differently if the heard our critical analysis first. It seems like the only option is to wait for feedback and make continuous improvements. Any thoughts?

Critical Discourse Analysis: Myths are "Real" if Enough People Believe Them

This week I have been reflecting on our class discussion about the importance of reading with as well as against the text.  In my Human Resource Development class, we are reading a text by Marvin Weisbord called Productive Workplaces.  In the first chapter Weisbord discusses myths in the workplace, and one particular statement that he made really stuck with me:  "Myths are real, and they shape your behavior."  In other words, regardless of whether or not something is true, the belief that it is true profoundly affects the society and culture that adheres to it.

Last week our class critically analyzed the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, and all of us were horrified at the basic assumptions this document was making about so-called "racial purity."  Just think of how many lives were affected by this because of the "myths" that shaped that society!  I could not fathom why anyone would think that these practices were acceptable, so I decided to do a little research via Wikipedia.  During the time that the law was established in Virginia, there was a popular concept, supposedly with scientific roots (ha!), called eugenics.  Eugenics is essentially a social philosophy that promotes improvement of human genetic traits through a reduced reproduction of people with "less desirable" or "undesirable traits."  In the 1920's, it was considered an academic discipline at many colleges and universities and even received funding for research.  This was not just happening in the United States, but spreading all over the world!  Because it was such a commonly accepted idea, it permeated many societies and became a part of their belief system (Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)

This is exactly why critical discourse analysis is so important!  Through it, we seek to understand the genealogy of the truth regime that is represented.  We read to understand their viewpoint and then we question their assumptions and motives.  Who knows how many basic assumptions we have in our society that we take as "common sense" but might actually be myths.  It is frustrating and stressful sometimes to read in this way, but I think it is worth it.

sTuDy cASe: trois, two, uno??

I had an AH-HA moment when I realized that in this course I would start to understand what I was learning today, in two weeks.  I found myself laughing, ironically at first, and then it turned to a confusing giggle.  

Hello? Is anyone else out there?

Though my style of learning and teaching is different, I am starting to identify (or think I am) the approach of generative critical thinking.  However, the act of understanding it is still, let's say, in the works!  Generating words and thoughts that lead to other words and thoughts that continue to lead to other words and thoughts is a laborious process that seems to have no concrete end.  Do I think it's a valuable endeavor? To my surprise, yes.  We've seen consistent proof of it in our readings and in the efforts of the authors of our texts.  But personally, I can honestly say that this process gets me out of my comfort zone, into a zone of the unknown....and this girl likes to know where she is going.

I've been through enough 'unknown territory' in my life to know that it is in this terrain where my skills get sharpened, my ideas are enhanced, and my experiences during this journey end up helping others.  These results have helped to build new routes in my life.  But these conclusions were not exposed while traveling the 'unknown territory' tour; they were revealed through my intentional effort of reflecting and questioning what had happened during that time.  Once I had an answer, I reflected and questioned that as well, until I was genuinely satisfied with the interpretation of what had happened.  Therefore, the generative critical thinking process in this course is not that different.

It has taken me seven weeks to realize that this is what could be happening in this class. In the end, I know it'll all be well, at least that is what all my graduating classmates have told me.  But I think they say that because upon my questioning the approach of this class, they all mentally reflect on their experience and have no doubts when stating that it has been one of the best classes they have taken.  There it goes again, reflecting.  I guess new routes ARE coming soon!

Critical Overload

So much of my day job in the ever delightful land of banking requires me to be critical –of myself, of my work, of my peers, of my team, of my leadership, of the organization. I am constantly questioning and pushing back on nearly everything. When I'm not pushing back, then I'm defending my work or my team's work. The demands are high and the pace is higher. At the end of every day, I’m emotionally and mentally exhausted. Now to be asked to read critically and against the text seems like I will need to have that same dynamic with my classwork. To be transparent, that makes me a little sad. 

I don’t need the class readings to be filled with bunnies and kittens, or read like fairy tales, because that’s not realistic. But I do like to come to the inviting land of learning and find something positive. I don’t want to argue with the text. I don’t want to argue with my classmates. I want to learn about new ideas and expand my mental horizons. I want to hear differing opinions with an open mind. I want to experience all of the joys of learning without suffering pain and anguish. Or at the very least, I don’t want my blood pressure to go up when I open the week's reading assignments. 

I don’t believe it has to be one extreme or the other, so an occasional jump in my heart rate is fine. A disagreement in the class discussion over a topic is to be expected. I realize that I am just one of many in the class. I’m simply hoping we can find a healthy balance.

Protecting Neutrality – Bracketing, Reactivity, and Positionality

My generative term for this week is “neutrality.”  For some reason, this concept was brought to the forefront of my attention while I was working on section 1.3 (Personal Relationship to Fieldwork and Subjects) of 1-2-3 project.  In this section I came across three terms, addressing different aspects of neutrality,  that I was unfamiliar with and thus wanted to learn their meanings; the terms were: bracketing, reactivity, and positionality.  The following definitions are “extracts” from the sources cited.

“Bracketing is a method used in qualitative research to mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of preconceptions that may taint the research process.  Bracketing is also a method to protect the researcher from the cumulative effects of examining what may be emotionally challenging material.”  Source: Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80-96. doi: 10.1177/1473325010368316, page 80

“Reactivity, also known as the observer effect, takes place when the act of doing the research changes the behavior of participants, thereby making the findings of the research subject to error.”  Source: McKechnie , L. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods: Reactivity. Retrieved from http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/sage-encyc-qualitative-research-methods/n368.xml

“Positionality is a complex phenomenon and shifts according to multiple factors which include space-times, place, people and life course.  Steinar (2007) suggests it is important to show how the researcher’s geographic location, social status, ethnicity, and gender fundamentally shape the questions asked, the information collected, and interpretation of that information.” Source:  Unpublished Graduate Research Paper, University of Canterbury, NZ,  Tulett, H. (2010). Positionality and Praxis. Retrieved from http://www.geog.canterbury.ac.nz/postgrad/420papers/2010/Helen%20Tulett%20%28highly%20recommended%29%20Positionality%20and%20Praxis.pdf

Although my awareness and knowledge of these terms is embryonic, I now have a greater appreciation for the level of effort a researcher must make in an attempt to protect his or her neutrality — or at least identify and account for their biases.

Case study: zzzzzz?

How is everyone doing on your case studies? I will admit to being very overwhelmed in class when this checklist was given to us—it’s so much to cover and I thought I didn’t know that much about my event (filling out a travel authorization form at VCU). But shortly after getting the assignment, Caitlin came over and we sat on my floor with our laptops and within two hours I had written five pages! I didn’t know I had so much to say about TAFs (this acronym is not really a “thing” at VCU but using it in the paper was better than writing travel authorization form over and over again). There are so many layers to all these tasks that we perform every day--I remember it took me weeks to learn all the policies to do the TAF correctly, and add to that a new computer system and there is so much going on.

I'm with you, J Lo--this project is not giving me "goosies" yet!

The only thing is that the paper, to me, reads really boring. Maybe that’s because I have such a long and complicated relationship with the TAF. I didn't even enjoy writing that part, as it was pretty tedious and I am sure I forgot a step or two, even after rereading the paper. I cannot see how someone who doesn’t work at VCU would want to read the technical bits of filling out one of these things in Chrome River. But I suppose that is Dr. Muth’s problem—drink some coffee before you read my paper, please!

I am told by everyone in Capstone that this is one of the best projects in the program so I am hoping I wake up when I research and start to talk about the power dynamics that are a part of this literacy event!

Literacy campaigns and power implications

The Arnove/Graff article makes the point that almost every historical literacy campaign has had an agenda, such as “…the spread of religious doctrine, the growth of market economies, the rise of bureaucratic  and legal organizations, and the emergence of national political communities” (Arnove/Graff, p.593).  This made me think about compulsory education at a federal or state level, and how current standardized testing fits into that larger model of literacy as power and literacy as having an agenda.  I believe that the largest cheerleaders of No Child Left Behind were textbook and test makers, who likely were also behind the lobbying push towards national standardized testing: they had a lot of money to make if lawmakers chose that path.  This just goes to reinforce that wealth equals power, and power and wealth together collude to control literacy.

We all know that public education in the US has gone down a standardized testing rabbit hole.  Many teachers no longer enjoy teaching, many students no longer enjoy school, and there is tremendous economic and social pressure to “succeed,” which leaves under-performing students and schools in the lurch.   We've talked a bit in class about the intersection of class, poverty, and literacy.  From my perspective, it’s clear that they’re all linked—and the Arnove & Graff text convinces me that they always have been.

Arnove and Graff write,

 “The power of dominant groups to shape language policy and educational content is similarly reflected in what skills are developed in what populations as part of the literacy process.  Historically and comparatively, rural populations, the working class, ethnic and racial minorities, and women have been the last to receive literacy instruction and to gain access to advanced levels of schooling.  As various Unesco publications reiterate, “The world map of illiteracy is the map of poverty.”  (p.607.)

Will this change in our lifetimes?  I guess probably not.  But it's worth thinking about, talking about, and thinking about ways the we might influence change.

The Real Cost of a VCU Education

Last night Jason raised the point from our reading that college graduates earn substantially higher incomes than those with only a high school diploma, so I wanted to find out how this played out in terms of wealth (income, assets, and debt). With skyrocketing costs of attendance, is a college degree really that profitable?

If you want to see just the actual cost of a VCU bachelor's degree with loans, skip to the bottom.

If you're interested in the usurious practices that add up to this cost, see the math below.

Assumptions: VCU's cost of attendance remains constant (it won't; it will increase)

Option 1: You're wealthy and pay for four years of VCU without financing:

VCU 2013-2014 in-state undergrad cost of attendance: $21,084.28 x 4 years = $84,337.12

Option 2: You're not wealthy and thus finance your entire degree:

VCU 2013-2014 in-state undergrad cost of attendance: $21,084.28

Federal Stafford loan interest rate: fixed @ 3.86%

Loan origination fee: 1.072 %

[(cost of attendance) + (loan origination fee)] = [(21,084.28) + (226.0234816)] = $21,310.3034816/yr

x 4years = $85,241.2139264 ~ $85,241.21

Assuming that you can qualify for federal Stafford loans, you will have a fixed interest rate of 3.86% (much lower compared to '06-'08 interest when it was 6.8%). However, as a dependent student, you can only borrow $5,500 your first year, $6,500 your second year, and $7,500 your third and fourth year, and $4,000 after (at which point you will max out). This leaves the following deficit of funds for VCU's cost of attendance:

1^st year: -$15,810.30

2^nd year: -$14,810.30

3^rd & 4^th year: -$13,810.30

The remaining balance will have to be paid or financed privately – private loans do not qualify for any federal benefits such as public service loan forgiveness [partial or full] or income based/contingent repayment plans.

If you are an independent student/emancipated, you can borrow slightly more, but for our purposes that doesn't matter because for simplicity's sake, I'll assume that you are able to find a private lender with the same low fixed interest rate and origination fee as the federal government's (you probably won't).

Also, while you are in college, interest continues to collect on your loan which is capitalized each year.

So here's your new total:

Years of study	Cost of attendance & loan origination fee (Principal)	Previous balance	New balance without capitalized interest	Capitalized interest over a year while in school	What you now owe
1st	$21,310.30	0	$21,310.30	$ 822.58	$22,132.88
2nd	$21,310.30	$22,132.88	$43,443.18	$1,676.91	$45,120.09
3rd	$21,310.30	$45,120.09	$66,430.39	$2,564.21	$68,994.60
4th	$21,310.30	$68,994.60	$90,304.90	$3,485.77	$93,790.67

Total cost at the end of 4 years: $93,790.67

Using the loan repayment calculator at http://mappingyourfuture.org/paying/standardcalculator.htm gives the following results:

# of years in repayment	Principal	Interest paid	Total cost	Monthly payment	“Minimum annual salary to handle these payments”
10	$93,790.67	$19,412.16	$113,202.83	$943.35	$141,503.00
15	$93,790.67	$29,904.71	$123,695.38	$687.19	$103,079.00
20	$93,790.67	$40,959.22	$134,749.89	$561.45	$84,218.00
25*	$93,790.67	$52,561.44	$146,352.11	$487.84	$73,176.00

*For the federal part of your loans, you can have them discharged after 25 years of payment [and even then you have to pay taxes on the forgiven amount as income], but this probably will only affect graduate students as you can borrow very little from the government as an undergrad.

Fun fact: Wall Street regularly borrows money from the government at a less than 1% interest. There are people trying to change this: http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/warren_student_debt/

On the bright side, the banks can repo your car and foreclose on your house – but they can't take away your education!

The "Perfect Storm"

The storm as conveyed by the author paints a convergence of 3 major points (divergent skill distribution, changing economy and demographic trends) causing some sort of injury or perhaps death to the "American Dream", causing inequality in wages and wealth, as well as social and political polarization. A fair shake at "future prosperity" is something the USA is known for- the land for opportunists, entrepreneurs and dreamers. There are SO many factors however, that interfere with achieving prosperity in America, but if I had to chose one topic that stood out in this article, it's the piece on adult literacy from the NLSY data in determining who in the long run earns a B.A./B.S. or higher. Being enrolled in READ 602, I'm currently tasked with finding an adult learner who has literacy issues (my learner has problems with reading/spelling). He would probably be somewhere in the middle of the pack concerning the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) data, which makes since seeing as only 15% of those in the 6th decile  of basic academic skills earned a bachelor's or higher compared to 76% in the top or 10th decile and 2% in the lowest. This relationship between basic academic skills and bachelor's attainment holds true regardless of gender, race or ethnic background. This is troubling news to me, and an obvious problem here is the divide that's being created due to lack of basic academic skills. This divide can be partly explained by the fact that those who are in the 10th decile are earning significantly more than those in the 6th and drastically more than those in the 1st. The size of the gap (according to the NLSY data) in mean annual earnings between high school (12 or less total years of school) and college graduates (23-30 year olds, 16 or more years of school total) was stunning. College grads earned 58% more in 1979, and in 2001- the gap had widened to 81%! Although a tad old, I certainly see this data as reason for fast track GED programs and a bigger push for adult literacy programs to help adult learners through basic academic skills with the ultimate outcome being a college degree.

Legitimate Language

The more I read of America’s Perfect Storm, the more unconvinced I felt.  I understand the report is framed from the urging of a historical, economical, and political context, but who really understands what needs to be accomplished to “reclaim the American dream” as Kirsch/ETS proposes? Isn’t this as complex an answer as our rapidly evolving population and world? As educators are we always confident we’re giving our students exactly what they need? It seemed to relate back to the belief that knowledge can be imparted despite continuous change or, the formula, if we all do x [e.g. NCLB], then it will increase y [not, ha!]. Why would we expect to see scores go up when the same standardizations are being used to assess the changing landscape? It seems simple to compare world rankings and point to our deficits but have our evaluative methods culturally evolved to get an accurate picture of how we’re really doing?  Time and time again it feels like we’re stuck in a paradigm of one-size-fits-all despite the diversity of our population.

One paragraph of the report was particularly alarming:

Interestingly, college graduates with weak literacy and numeracy proficiencies were much more likely than their more highly skilled peers to be underemployed…less than half of employed four-year college graduates whose prose proficiency placed them in a Level 1, and only a slight majority of those in Level 2, were working in college-labor market occupations (p.17)

I sense it’s a major red flag that four-year college graduates could also be categorized at a level 1 and 2 prose proficiency?

I found solace in Jank’s chapter, Turning to Literacy.  I appreciated her honest account of how deep the English language is tied to power and how cultural identity can be conceded by the influence of the “legitimate language”. But who decides legitimacy?  I couldn’t help but wonder about the identity struggles of those who were tested, categorized, and reported on in America’s Perfect Storm. Jank points out that all educators in diverse communities face the same issues as the English teachers in South Africa. So, is our task to lead learners through critical examinations of legitimate language? I imagine Freire would say so!

Critical theory & Americanuh

While reading the articles, which discuss critical theory, power and literacy, I was reminded of a wonderful book I just finished—Americanuh by Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Americanuh tells the story of Ifemelu, a young woman who leaves Africa to finish her schooling in America, whose position as an outsider allows her to write a blog (that is basically critical theory) about African Americans in the US.

“It helps us to understand that reading the word cannot be separated from reading the world” (Janks, 13). Even though Ifemelu knew English—it is the official language of British-colonized Nigeria, after all—she experienced a new kind of literacy when she moved to the United States to read her new world. It was fascinating how she was able to read people’s interactions and make critical deductions from it that were foreign to her a few years prior when she was in Nigeria. The literacy she experienced was slow, but through her blog, she was able to cause social change because she understood the power differential of groups in the US.

I am not really sure where I am going with this, but this course was definitely in my head while I was reading Americanuh. To me, it’s important to have a real connection to theory that is a part of your everyday life, as reading fiction books are to mine. As I was writing my 123 paper, I was thinking about how uncomfortable I am making judgments about the power struggles in my place of employment (it's kind of depressing, plus I have zero power to actually change anything). I much prefer to see those in my fictionalized worlds.

Gif from here from Adichie's first TED Talk.

Language rights in South Africa

"In South Africa where the struggle for language rights was intrinsically bound up with the struggle for human rights, I could not but be aware that language is fundamentally tied to questions of power". This seems like a quite obvious statement, not only in South Africa, but globally (somewhat). In South Africa though, if English and Afrikaans were the Official Languages of South Africa, and Afrikaans was seen  as a language of apartheid and oppression....what's wrong with South Africans speaking English? I understand that there are now 11 African languages that are officially recognized, but if English is/was an official language in South Africa that didn't align itself with Apartheid, why does Access to the English language have to be "tempered". I'm definitely not an expert, in fact this Janks article was the first that I've read about these language struggles, however it seems that this article is being somewhat unfair to the English language.

In defense of English

     How can a language be omnivorous?  Certainly the biology definition of the word doesn't fit.  Possibly the second definition ("taking in or using whatever is available") is what Janks meant. Or perhaps that the English language is somehow destroying the native languages in South Africa.  This must be it, since later in the writing English "poses a threat to other languages."  English is taking quite a bashing by an English teacher/teacher educator!

     Before we completely condemn English for all the terrible things it has done in South Africa let's think of some of the good things it still has going for it.  It is still the language of the international scientific community.  It allows discoveries and research to be shared and built upon around the globe. It acts as common means of communication and discourse between researchers the world over.  

     It is still the most common form of communication between non-English speakers everywhere.  It is nice to have a "common language" and especially nice to be a native speaker of it.  It is also the language of the majority of the great works of literature over the past century. But maybe that's because it has eaten all the other languages.

     I think my biases are equally as obvious as Janks' so it is probably time to move on.  "Meaning making" is the term I want to touch on next.  Is literacy the ability to make meaning out of texts?  What level of meaning making deems you literate?  Or is that a cognitive skill as opposed to a literacy skill?  I think we are treading on thin ice here.  Did Paulo Friere teach literacy to oppressed workers or did he teach them critical thinking and cognitive skills to read between the lines and see how power and other influences effect texts?  Maybe he did both.  Personally, I think we are stretching the definition of literacy to include those skills.  

Literacy is infinite…

Literacy is infinite…

As I analyze the assigned reading, the meaning of literacy seems to grow deeper. We have explored many aspect of literacy….
• Literacy as power
• Illiteracy as embarrassment, shame, uncomfortable feelings
• Literacy as culture
• Literacy as art, songs and bodily gesture
• Literacy in groups
• Literacy in subject areas
• Analysis of how literacy changes our views truth
• Literacy as awareness
• Literacy at the work place
• Social literacy

One can build on Freire’s conclusion that reading words cannot be separated from reading the world. Literacy (in all its forms) cannot be separated from reading the world. Based on our readings I am finding that literacy is a collection of what the world understands and is heavily dependent on context. Worldly knowledge is beyond my grasps. Because literacy is heavily intertwined with worldly understanding, I have surmised that literacy is infinite. I now know literacy may not be achieved in all areas but this class will strengthen my understanding of what it means to be literate. The class has already opened doors for understanding literacy for many viewpoints.

Assessment of the "Literacy Rate": Who Gets to Decide, Anyway?

This week's readings on "America's Perfect Storm" and "National Literacy Campaigns" have really brought a lot of questions to mind.  I have always been more than a little bit skeptical about measuring literacy rates worldwide.  In an effort to clear up some of my confusion, I looked up the definition of "literacy rate" on the World Bank's website.  According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, literacy rate is the "percentage of the population age 15 and above who can, with understanding, read and write a short, simple statement on their everyday life.  Generally, 'literacy' also encompasses 'numeracy', the ability to make simple arithmetic calculations"  (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ADT.LITR.ZS) 

For me, there are a number of issues with this definition.   For one thing, does the literacy rate really reflect the ability of a nation's population to participate in a shared discourse?  Who determines if a sentence is relevant to a learner's everyday life?  And furthermore, is the learner's everyday life even considered to be a part of the dominant discourse?  According to Arnove and Graff's article "National Literacy Campaigns," large-scale efforts to provide literacy have been more closely related to the interests of establishing a moral or political consensus or nation-state building.  As part of literacy campaigns, students may have been encouraged to memorize principles that they don't fully comprehend and that maybe have nothing to do with their everyday lives.  Despite the discrete skills that they possess to manipulate text, they STILL may be marginalized and unable to participate in their nation's larger discourse.  In that sense, they may still be seen as illiterate by their society.  Furthermore, is it fair to compare literacy rates among different nations when literacy might mean different things for each population?  Since literacy is a very subjective term, doesn't it render literacy rate statistics almost meaningless?   To me it doesn't seem that a literacy rate is something that can be so easily quantified, especially on a global scale.

The Efficacy of Literacy Assessments

My generative term for this week is “assessments.” In the report titled “America’s Perfect Storm,” we read about the perfect storm of “divergent skill distributions among U.S. population groups, a changing economy, and demographic trends of a growing, more diverse population.” (Kirsch, 2007, page 2).  The authors warn that if changes are not made our society could become more polarized, i.e. a high-wage earning minority with high levels of education and skills verses a low-wage majority with low levels of education and skills-- potentially threating our nation’s economic well-being and at worst, our democracy. 

However, what interested me most about the report were not the predictions and prescriptions, but the assessments or surveys used to substantiate the authors’ arguments:

·         International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS)

o   http://www.oecd.org/edu/innovation-education/39437980.pdf

·         Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),

o    http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/

·         Adult Literacy and Life Skills (ALLS) survey

o   http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/all/

·         Etc.

What I could discern about these assessments and surveys is that they are based upon the cognitive-psychological view of literacy.  They are designed to inform policy makers about the effectiveness of their nation’s educational system using comparative, decontextualized, skills based, quantifiable “measures.”  As an engineer, I am used to these types of assessments since they are a part of an engineer’s normal discourse.  Nevertheless, I am no longer confident that these assessments should be the primary means to inform policy makers.  

In the Belfiore book we are reminded that “context” in social practice theory has dramatically extended what’s important to consider in understanding the meanings of texts and literacy practices (Belfiore, 2004, p 254).  This is particularly important if we want to better understand, and assess, the literacy levels of those who are disenfranchised living within our nation’s borders.  Additionally, this same logic should be applied from a global perspective.  The IALS assesses “the 20 countries which account for over 50 per cent of the world’s GDP” (OEDC, 2000 p iii), but what about the other 173 countries (http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml) that constitute the bottom 50 percent of the world’s GDP?

By employing a social practice approach or lens to understand literacy were are able to look beyond skills alone to understand why people do, or don’t participate in literacy events or practices— a key workplace productivity factor in a knowledge based economy (ISO 9000, HACCP, etc.).  To me, these two aspects of social theory practice alone should warn policy makers that if you are really concerned about accurately measuring your nation’s literacy levels, and want to enhance economic growth by raising workers’ literacy levels, then the assessments and surveys of literacy must also utilize tools and insights associated with the social-constructivist view of literacy.