Adolescent literacy

[kimberkit]

I recently read an article that defined "adolescent literacy" as the ability to comprehend and make meaning of writing in a variety of mediums: internet-speak, newspapers, textbooks, email, fiction, nonfiction.

So, I have a confession to make: I am functionally illiterate. I don't follow the newspapers faithfully (Matt T had to explain what the big fuss with the Karl Rove case was), because it makes me feel helpless or angry to see the news half the time, when I don't plan on going into politics. I don't speak AOL. I can read nonfiction well enough, and comprehend it, but I don't give a damn half the time because it usually comes across as academics farting around, and, as far as I can tell, not doing much to save the world, even if they sometimes have interesting theories that may or may not work.

I think the point of the article was that adolescents have to differentiate between all the mediums they're inundated with, but that really should have taken a sentence.

Anyway. Either I'm a sad failure of the education system, or "adolescent literacy" is a meaningless term. Probably some of both -- I really should be more interested in watching the world fall apart by the seams, rather than wondering what I can do to save it, and I probably should be less disrespectful of the intelligentsia. And "adolescent literacy" is just another buzzword replacement for "secondary reading fluency and knowing how to tell academic writing from non-academic writing."

Comments

[lostsilmaril.livejournal.com]

Er... so...

If "adolescent literacy" is the ability to comprehend and make meaning of writing in a variety of mediums, that doesn't mean that you're illiterate if you choose not to read them. Literacy, at least in my mind, refers to an ability, not any sort of... cultural awareness, for lack of a better term. That's a totally different kitten.

[kimberkit.livejournal.com]

Motivation fuels ability. If you have no motivation to open a book, you will never improve your skills, and so, for a comprehensive definition of literacy, most people say that you have to have a certain curiousity, or guiding set of questions, to get you through something you really don't want to read. Since I lack all curiousity and motivation, I'm "illiterate" :P

[lostsilmaril.livejournal.com]

Well smoke my beard and call me curly! I'm illiterate too.

It's a bad definition. Humph, so there.

[shellaby.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't like that definition. I think it is extending the meaning of "literacy" beyond its realm of meaning. They're trying to define a student who can not only read, but be motivated and interested in reading in all these media; they need to find another word than 'literate'. This definition is almost like a judgement on a person!

[greenfountain.livejournal.com]

kim, there's a lot of difference between someone who doesn't read newspapers because it's depressing and someone who doesn't read newpapers because they won't make sense. (in a very concrete "i can't parse this sentence" kind of way, not a "what the fuck is wrong with people?" way.)

hell, i don't read things i don't like either, and i certainly wouldn't call myself illiterate in any sense. (okay okay, i admit being culturally illiterate...) there are too many good things to read (and do, in general) to waste time on unnecessary things you don't enjoy. there are plenty of lovers of newpaper reading to fill that niche in the world.

[kimberkit.livejournal.com]

The problem is that the article is trying to pass the burden of monitoring and motivating reading on to teachers. Hence, the definition of "literacy" = "make kids motivated to read, and curious, so that they will become fluent."

I don't like the definition either. I think it's stupid, which is why a grumpy post over it. But I feel like there's this subtext in ed classes, a lot: make the teachers responsible for making certain their kids are involved *all the time*. You can't teach a lesson without having a hook to get a kid interested; you can't get a kid to read a book without making sure they're motivated about the entire thing blah blah BLAH.

I wish I could point out to someone that making sure a kid learns to formulate questions is not the same thing as making sure that they're motivated. One is a question of ability and the other is motivation, and while the two are linked, they're not the same.

[kimberkit.livejournal.com]

oh! and to respond to your actual point, oftentimes, kids aren't aware that they aren't parsing a sentence when they're not interested in what the sentence means. That is, you get this phenomenon: "Miss, you told me to read those pages, and I did. What do they mean? I don't know. But I read them." Kids don't usually understand the difference between decoding and making meaning without having some kind of motivational interest behind understanding what they're reading -- or that's the argument, anyway, and it's valid enough. But it does put the burden of "literacy" on the teacher.

[kimberkit.livejournal.com]

That is to say, the article is NOT completely off its rocker, however stupid I find it, because there IS a link between motivation to read and unable to read, even if they happen to be two different phenomenons.

A kid who says, "this article is boring" as an excuse to not read the thing because it IS boring is very hard to tell apart from a kid who says "this article is boring" because they are functionally unable to read it. See what I mean?

I know that sometimes, when reading boring ed articles, I'll realize that, two pages later, I haven't understood anything I've read because my mind's gone elsewhere and I don't care, or I don't want to care. So it's arguable that, if I were a less motivated student, and didn't take out a pen, highlighter, and force myself to rephrase what whoever-it-was said, then I'd fall behind significantly. What if that had happened in elementary school, and I hadn't had a teacher to spark my interest in getting through texts? I would've flunked, because there's no way I would've started rephrasing stuff in margins on my own.