Gough, P. B. (1995). The new literacy: caveat emptor. Journal of research in Reading, 18(2), 79-86.
"You know, sometimes I think you got ice water in those veins and other times I think you're just a naive little schoolteacher. I've sent men on suicide missions in two different wars now and let me tell you something. It don't make a gods damn bit of difference whether they're riding in a Viper or walking out onto a parade ground. In the end, they're just as dead. So take your piety and your moralizing and your high minded principles and stick 'em someplace safe until you're off this rock and sitting in your nice comfy chair on Colonial One again." -Colonel Saul Tigh
This quote seems to fit right in with Gough's reading (well that's kind of a stretch, it actually is just a quote that exemplifies my feelings towards literacy research). He seems to do two things, the first of which I really appreciate, the second I just don't agree with. First he attempts to define literacy, which I like because none of the other scholars have tried to do. They either do not define literacy because they are afraid of pinning it down and therefore causing it to be a narrow field of study, or they do not define it because they simply do not have a good definition of what literacy is. There are other reason they may choose not to define it (maybe they assume it is something every preservice teacher should already understand and therefore they simply need to prove why it is so important to their audience) but the reason is not too important because they still do not offer a definition. Secondly Gough tries to define literacy by arguing what it is not. He argues that it is not social or political and even relative.
Why can't anyone just tell me what literacy is?
My first idea is that the whole mystery behind the definition of literacy is a big plot by the literacy academic community. Maybe they just want the preservice teacher to discover what literacy means to them in a kind of a-ha moment where you discover the definition and realize you just exemplified reader response at the same time. Yeah the higher ups in the literacy world would make you learn twice you to learn twice, the ultimate gotcha!
I don't think that I have formed a definition of literacy but I do think that I understand it better after these readings. I am going to compare what literacy is to a common saying. The saying is: There is a difference between hearing and listening. Reading is just hearing, but literacy is listening.
For me you have to be able to hear in order to listen, but you don't always have to listen while you are hearing. Reading is equated with hearing (Reading can also be viewing) and listening is equated with literacy. Sometimes you just want to watch TV or read a book without going deep into its meaning. Other times you either want to (or are required to) look beyond the surface of a book or movie and therefore need to utilizee literacy skills.
Therefore literacy involves looking beyond the words on the page and questioning the material and looking to understand it for more than just the words on the page (or lyrics or visual images).
In the end though a theoretical definition of literacy is actually unimportant to me. Why? Well because it is irrelevant what it is because no matter what the definition is I think there is an overwhelming opinion that literacy is a good thing when you simply equate it to a person being able to hear and listen. Gough states that politicians no matter which side of the isle they stand on want children to be literate (Gough, 1995). And India sure seems to be making improvements to their poverty problems through literacy programs. So I think this is a pretty astute assumption
Honestly I think that since a great majority of people would agree that literacy is a good thing then the academic scholars can stop telling me how important it is and just teach me how to implement it.
Colonel Tigh would probably agree with me, mainly because he is a hard ass who would probably just throw everyone out the airlock.
No comments:
Post a Comment