The 5 elements of literacy according to Swed are “text, context, function, participants, and motivation”. They form the definition of his foundation of literature, and much of it’s ambiguity. “Text” is spoken as any material in which people read and write about and can relate to the geography and occupations of residents to an area. It includes what people see in common areas such as typography and signs, as well as what workers regularly read in their occupations. Text can be detailed for artistic or functional values as well as convey the literary value of communities. Swed recommends ethnography as a method of studying literacy due to using unprejudiced scaling, scientifically made definitions, and in person interviews. He believes that using field observations and obtaining in-person details such as biographies, statements, daily activities, advertisements, and church readings can have more accuracy than using statistical values. When Swed said “we must come to terms with the lives of people without patronizing them”, he meant to receive genuine details and statements and not repressed information out of apprehension. From his advice, and if I was a teacher I would teach literacy in a protracted fashion: one that gives enough study and learning to every one of my students. This would remove the gaps between the students that spend little and a lot of time reading and writing. According to Perry, the two models of literacy are multiliteracy and critical literacy. Multiliteracy involves using words outside of texts and in the media and videos instead. Critcal literacy involves reading both words and the world at the same time. I prefer multiliteracy due to being indifferent to what actually goes on in the outside world. I learned that orality is via verbal communication with cultures that had little to no writing while literature embodies knowledge and learning. Our communities shape our literature through information embedded around us when we go out and through what we see. It also provides the suitable learning for our environment by our educators. These standards that our communities make to better foster ourselves usually includes sources from other cultures, which can lead many to offer critique if standards fall or rise.
Powered by:
top
3 thoughts on “Conversation 2 By Tak Zeng”
It’s intriguing to learn about Szwed’s viewpoint on the five parts of literacy and his emphasis on ethnography as a technique of research. The concept of evaluating not just the text but also the environment, function, participants, and motive behind it emphasizes the complexities of literacy in many contexts. I agree with you that literacy should be taught in a more equal manner, with appropriate time and care given to all pupils. This method has the ability to bridge the gap between students who have different reading and writing habits, resulting in a more inclusive learning environment. Furthermore, Perry’s discussion on the dichotomy between multiliteracy and critical literacy is thought-provoking. Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages, and it’s fascinating to learn your choice for multiliteracy. It serves as a reminder that literacy instruction may be customised to meet the tastes and needs of each individual. Finally, the notion that literature is formed by our communities and reflects the information and learning that exists in our surrounds is a significant one. It emphasizes the interdependence between culture, literacy, and education. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
I agree with your approach to teaching literacy in a protracted fashion, as it can help bridge the gap between students with varying levels of reading and writing proficiency. It’s important to ensure that every student has the opportunity to learn and improve their literacy skills.
Tak–can you revise the Perry piece here, the two models of literacy?