RES 5535: Race, Class, and Gender in Literacy Research (summer 2009)

Sorry for the delay…all of a sudden I had technical issues after the last line of storms blew through. I think my router crashed, but I’m back in business now.
Kristen Perry’s paper was as eye opening as the Noll article in that it forces us to broaden our definition of literacy to include a practice that doesn’t require reading or writing – the conventional formats for literate practices. Oral storytelling as a social and literate practice is examined as the very essence of the practice undergoes a metamorphosis of sorts. For the Lost Boys of Sudan, telling stories played huge part in defining who they were in the local community. They used storytelling as a tool for making sense of the world around them, and for education within their own culture. As these boys moved forward in their lives and circumstances, their identities changed as they responded to the environmental, cultural, and social events around them. As the boys resettled in the United States and were exposed to new ways to use literacy, these former storytellers began to tell their own stories in an attempt to alert people on a global scale of the atrocities being committed in the South of Sudan. They began to use literacy as a different tool, as a critique of governmental policies that allowed the extermination of so many innocents, as well as a condemnation of sorts for those who watched. They used storytelling to help others understand their realities. My question is this: Are the Lost Boys of the Sudan more literate now that they can write down their stories? Now that they can communicate via documentary, speech, internet, or other means? Clearly, these young men learned to use a specific form of literacy as a tool with a specific purpose. The ultimate goal of literacy, making meaning in whatever format, remained the same. I suggest that the change in the way storytelling was used was not so much a transformation as a bonafide appropriation, as Perry calls it, of newly learned literacy practices. This growth was authentic – as powerful and real as any other literate practice one might think of. “Authentic literacy…involves providing opportunities for students to write for real audiences and real purposes, beyond learning to read and write or earning a grade.” This authentic “mother of invention” type of change is exactly what we as teachers are hoping to see happen in our classrooms every day. These students had a legitimate reason to engage with reading and writing, outside of the formalities of content and convention. This authentic literacy was powerful, energizing, and effective.
I must make mention at this point of that little girl Shannon, who “wasn’t writin’ nuttin.” Perhaps the reason she wasn’t writing was because of the conjured up circumstances of the writing opportunity. Shannon had no reason to write during her group time. The boys took care of everything, and unconsciously excluded her entirely. Give this child a real reason for caring about writing, and I’d bet she could easily be engaged and productive. While we’re talking about classroom practices, perhaps there should be more storytelling in our language arts time. Using descriptive (oral) language and varied sentence structure would be a great way for many of our students to practice and engage with literacy in a new way. I recall a children’s lit class where I was required to tell a folktale. It isn’t easy! Remembering the sequence and every minor detail (so the audience can see the movie in their minds) is more difficult than you might think. Try it!
The authenticity of the Lost Boys’ needs for different literate practices may also be contrasted with those of Daniel and Zonnie. Storytelling might have been perfect for Daniel to relate some of the stories and culture of the Native Americans. How motivating and unique an assignment that could be.

Annie Croon