To say my Twentieth-Century Composition Theory and Practice course with Dr. Michael Harker was a joy would be a gross understatement. The course opened my eyes to so many literary theories and ideas about how education—and, more specifically, writing education—could be improved made me more passionate about how writing works in everyday life. The final seminar paper required students to provide a persuasive argument about something relating to literacy and composition theory. I chose to write about home literacy and its necessity for enhancing education at school. This paper not only displays my ability to persuade and effectively use research that supports my argument but also my passion for literacy and its role in society.

Laura Apperson
April 27, 2012
Dr. Harker

Final Seminar Paper

In recent years, the term “literacy” has come to mean something very specific to American culture: learning to read and write. This term and its association with a skills-based conception has propelled literacy campaigns to fight adult illiteracy and literacy myths to define what literacy should mean. However, it seems that the term “literacy” should not restrict itself to one singular definition: people communicate, and learn how to do so, in different ways. For some cultures, being literate in a spoken language is adequate enough to live and work in the community. For others, knowing how to read (and, additionally, at a very high level) is the only way to live and work comfortably in their community. Also, for some, becoming literate in a community does not include going to a formal school and following a certain path. Literacy, David Barton states, “starts from everyday life and from everyday activities which people are involved in” and “includes any activity which involves the written word” (34-35). If these factors differ so much, it seems peculiar that we define literacy based on what an institution defines it as when it does not line up with what literacy means to us in our everyday lives. If literacy is more ecological rather than skills-based and “education has not been used as a starting point” (citation here?) to define literacy, then home literacy plays a huge role in a child’s education — more so than learning in a formal educational setting.

Though English language and literature had a great reputation of scholarship and criticism, it has only been taught for a little over 100 years, and English departments themselves are even younger than that (Parker 3). Harvard did not have an English professor until 1876, over 200 years after the college originally opened (Parker 5). These early teachers of English were also often teachers of speech, since oratory and elocution were a big deal around the time of Patrick Henry in the United States and Edmund Burke in England. Parker notes that “if English has been somewhat late in gaining academic recognition and respectability in the United States,…it would probably never have been so strongly affected by educational events in the 1880’s and 1890’s” (12). During this time, college enrollment doubled, specialization increased, and the concept of a department emerged. Since more students were attending school, some kind of official administration was necessary: in the 1890’s, Harvard created an English department. These departments became “competitive and ambitious” (12), and professors of English wanted to “increase the prestige of their subject” (13) as well as the number of students and course offerings. In 1892, the “Committee of Ten” decided that literature and composition should be a unified class in high schools (14). Following this event, college entrance exams followed suit by linking the two subjects together. Speech, which used to be very important when studying English, became left out.

How does this history of the English department explain how literacy is defined today? English departments are still young, and, as Parker comments, still have much to learn (15). The departments have been founded as a result of social events, such as a rise in college enrollment, and curriculums changed as a result of illiteracy scares, such as Newsweek’s “Why Johnny Can’t Write.” This 1975 cover story included

How can one explain these moments of curriculum change based on the fear of illiteracy? Harvey Graff defines the term “literacy myth” in his essay “The Literacy Myth at Thirty” as “the belief…that the acquisition of literacy is a necessary precursor to and invariably results in economic development, democratic practice, cognitive enhancement, and upward social mobility” (635). The literacy myth can be found not only in an educational setting, but in civic, religious, and other contemporary and historical settings. One of the most groundbreaking and shocking parts of the myth is that the benefits that come with literacy cannot be obtained in other ways, and they cannot be credited to other factors.

Though Graff admits that the literacy myth is grounded in some truth, it has become a cultural ideology and a very powerful, revision-resistant, longstanding staple (638). However, literacy itself is currently viewed as something that is transformative, and, in fact, historically-founded. Its purpose is to organize and offer an explanation for assumptions and theories, while, at the same time, offering an explanation for institutions and how they work. Recalling Parker’s feelings about English departments, Graff comments that something that long maintained the literacy myth were “dreams of mobility — making it America” (644). The literacy myth implies the promise of achievement (Graff 644).

If literacy is transformative, as Graff claims, how can learning at home affect a child’s learning, and, ultimately, help change people’s definition of literacy? Felicity Martini and Monique Sénéchal conducted a study to examine how learning at home affects a child’s early literacy. They begin by discussing the Home Literacy Model, a model that made a clear distinction between informal literacy activities, such as a parent reading a book to a child, and formal literacy activities, such as a parent pointing to the alphabet while reading a book. The model states that while these two are both part of a child’s early development, informal literacy does not relate to early literacy, and formal literacy does (1). The researchers decided to conduct a study in order to expand understanding of this model, focusing mainly on the relation of child interest, parent expectation for the child, and a young child’s literacy acquisition (2).

Both parents and children were examined; parents were given a questionnaire that required them to discuss formal literacy teaching activities (such as teaching letter sounds, names, and printing words), the expectation they had for their children’s literacy acquisition, and the amount of time they had to spend on teaching their children (3-4). The children were tested on their language acquisition and reading ability, then tested with pictures to see how interested in the formal literacy activities they were (4).

The researchers found that the most common material parents used were storybooks, but parents who spent time teaching their child used many different materials and also incorporated their teaching in their children’s everyday lives (5-6). The researchers also found that parents typically had very high expectations for their child’s literacy skills, with nearly half of the parents admitting that they wanted their children to know how to print and read words before Grade 1 (6). Curiously, parent reports of teaching how to read was the only parent measure that was associated with child interest in literacy (6).

The researchers concluded that parent expectations and child interest accounted for differences in a child’s early literacy, and, therefore, broadened the Home Literacy Model. Barton supports this discovery, mentioning a study by Margaret Clark in 1976. Clark found that the one thing that 32 children entering school had in common was that their parents had a strong oral involvement at home; they were keen readers and participated in many literacy practices that the children were a part of (183).

So, how does parent teaching at home differ from teaching in a more educational setting?Barton notes that the home is an extremely important literacy domain because it is a place in which a wide range of activities occur that can strengthen a child’s early literacy (150). Martini and Sénéchal both note that parents who report that they are teaching have children who are more interested in literacy and the parents themselves have high expectations for their children (9). Though Martini and Sénéchal’s study does not factor informal literacy activities into the picture and uses the Home Literacy Model as a foundation for their study, the fact that parent teaching in the home has a clear affect on a child’s emergent reading and alphabet knowledge makes it peculiar that schools have not taken this into consideration. The researchers wonder the same thing, stating that “in time, the cumulative knowledge gained from research on the home literacy environment could facilitate the development of partnerships between home and school; partnerships that share the common goal of optimizing children’s literacy acquisition” (9). If children have a foundation of home literacy before they go to college, how does this affect how they learn in college, especially with parent expectation being a large factor in strengthening the Home Literacy Model, according to Martini and Sénéchal?

If partnerships can occur between home and school, and the literacy myth should be somewhat maintained, as Graff suggested, how could parents help teach something like David Bartholomae’s discussion in “Inventing the University: When You Have No Idea What You’re Doing?” Bartholomae argues in this essay that students in college must “invent the university by assembling and mimicking its language while finding some compromise between idiosyncrasy, a personal history, on the one hand, and the requirements of convention, the history of a discipline, on the other” (606). Colleges expect students to understand this type of writing seemingly without any preparation or expectation of having to write in this specific discourse that the university deems acceptable. Learning becomes more of about imitation than invention (Bartholomae 612). It is artificial, and, while Bartholomae holds that a good writer does need to consider the audience and the type of writing that the audience prefers, the way a student learns how to write this discourse seems unfair. Where are students expected to start, then?

With the awareness of the literacy myth and the knowledge that schools and universities require a particular discourse, it is possible that home literacy could prepare students for this kind of writing. Barton says that in the home, “one can look in more detail and examine the wide range of activities involving different literacies” (39). If this is true, then parents can spend more time with children as they learn how to read and write and as they grow in writing to adapt to this type of discourse. “What is of interest to schools,” Barton claims, “should be what children know about literacy” (182). Schools also seem to ignore home practices, which not only creates a huge wall between school and home practices, but makes it difficult for the student to resolve the two practices. Students have to identify with either one or the other (Barton 182).

How should the home and school begin to create a partnership? In Rona Flippo’s essay “Transcending the Divide: Where College and Secondary Research Coincide,” Flippo suggests that teachers should draw on out-of-school experiences, such as home practices, and personal knowledge to form links to new concepts and to apply new knowledge to problems and situations that the students care about (400). Since child interest is so important in home practices (Martini 6), shouldn’t it be just as important in school? Additionally, Barton stresses how important oral literacy is as a child in home practices (Barton 182) and Parker wonders why English completely abandoned training in speech and oral composition (Parker 15). Maybe schools should refocus on speech and oral literacy — it seems to be a key factor in children’s literacy, and, as Parker remarks, schools should be teaching speech skills to English students, especially those who want to become teachers (Parker 15).

Barton, Bartholomae, Parker, Graff, and Flippo have all taught something that needs to be addressed: the way people view literacy today. Home practices matter more than people realize. It is the oral literacy that makes the difference in children’s literacy, and, in turn, in a college student’s literacy. If home and school find a way to partner up with the desire to improve literacy, then the literacy myth can be transformed, and, eventually, considered more legitimate. As Graff said, “our task is not to disprove or ‘explode’ the literacy myth, but to understand it, and reinterpret it to serve more equitable, progressive humane goals” (652).

Works Cited

Barton, David. Literacy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Print.

Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University: When You Have No Idea What You’re Doing.”

Flippo, Rona F. “Transcending The Divide: Where College And Secondary Reading And Study Research Coincide.” Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54.6 (2011): 396-401. Literary Reference Center. Web. 11 Apr. 2012.

Graff, Harvey J. “The Literacy Myth at Thirty.” Journal of Social History 43.3 (2010): 635-661.

Martini, Felicity, and Monique Sénéchal. “Learning Literacy Skills At Home: Parent Teaching, Expectations, And Child Interest.”Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement (2012): PsycARTICLES. Web. 11 Apr. 2012.

Parker, William Riley. “Where Do English Departments Come From?” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Marilyn Moller. London: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., 2009. 3-16. Print.