Jump to content

Talk:Literacy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
PhnxFyreG (talk | contribs)
51 edits
removed "broken anchors" template (broken anchor was already removed)
 
(115 intermediate revisions by 78 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Education|class=c|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C |vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}
{{WikiProject Education|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=High|applied=yes}}
{{WikiProject Writing |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes}}
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
==Redirect==
| algo = old(365d)
There is absolutely no reason why this page on "literacy" should be redirected from the "New Literacy Studies" page of from a "new literacy studies" search. They are quite separate entities (this is akin to having the page on "Canada" automatically redirect to the page on the "US"). The latter is a field of study and needs it's own page back again.
| archive = Talk:Literacy/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 10
}}
{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=12 |units=months |auto=yes }}


{{course assignment|course=Education Program:Drake University/Global Youth Studies (Fall 2014)|term=2014 Q3}}
==Teaching literacy section==
In considering earlier comments about the lack of an international view in this article, I think the teaching literacy section is too long to exist as it is in this article because it is so English-centric.....................


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
I would like to suggest that we consider including a summary about teaching literacy in English here, create an separate article that addresses this topic specifically, and link to that article from this section (as in [[WP:Summary style]]. It is certainly a complex enough topic to warrant its own article.
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Brooklyn_College/Orality,_Literacy,_Computer_Technology_(Fall_2018)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Imfromthepresent|Imfromthepresent]].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 00:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}}
There is an existing article on [[reading skills acquisition]], however, as mentioned above, literacy refers to a much broader range of skills than does reading acquisition. So I don't think it would be appropriate to try to combine "teaching literacy in English" with "reading skills acquisition," even though the topics overlap.


:I won't to start lesson on how to read and write
Thoughts?
:Online lesson I need help please [[Special:Contributions/105.113.30.74|105.113.30.74]] ([[User talk:105.113.30.74|talk]]) 09:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
Best,
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-02-09">9 February 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-05-22">22 May 2021</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Saint_Vincent_College/Linguistic_Anthropology_(Spring_2020)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Emzrohm|Emzrohm]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Eileen Lynch|Eileen Lynch]].
[[User:Rosmoran|Rosmoran]] 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 00:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Phonics section ==


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
Hi, all.
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Chicago/Feminist_Economics_and_Public_Policy_(Spring_2016)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:KAnds42|KAnds42]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Mjiang94|Mjiang94]].
One thing I think needs to be addressed in some way is that a comprehensive "phonics" method of teaching reading covers a great deal more ground than most people realize. In addition to teaching phonological awareness and sound-symbol correspondence, a comprehensive program also includes instruction in irregular words, the 6 syllable types, morphology (root words, prefixes, suffixes, etc) and word origin.


{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 02:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
I'm not sure how best to include this in the article.
==Redirect==

There is absolutely no reason why this page on "literacy" should be redirected from the "New Literacy Studies" page of from a "new literacy studies" search. They are quite separate entities (this is akin to having the page on "Canada" automatically redirect to the page on the "US"). The latter is a field of study and needs it's own page back again.
Thoughts?

Best,
[[User:Rosmoran|Rosmoran]] 09:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

:I copied what you said into the article almost verbatim, though it should be properly referenced. It would also be a good idea to update the [[phonics]] article. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


== Learning about literacy section ==

The Teaching/Learning literacy section is receiving "undue weight" in this article. That is to say, teaching literacy is dominating the content of the article, which is supposed to be about literacy in the broader context.

There are other articles that cover reading acquisition. I propose merging the bulk of the Teaching section in with the [[Reading skills acquisition]] article. What would remain in this article would be a summary of the major points currently included in the section, with a clear link to the more detailed article. (See [[WP:Summary style]] for information and examples).

Thoughts?

Best,

[[User:Rosmoran|Rosmoran]] 04:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:This subtopic is even more dominated by the topic of reading acquisition than it was when I posted the previous comment. If you have objections to this content being reduced to summary style and references provided to the articles that explicitly cover these topics, speak now!

:Best,

:[[User:Rosmoran|Rosmoran]] 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


== Constructive criticism ==

I'll begin with the section titled "Why learning to read is hard," as it strikes me as the most flawed. First, the entire section is based on the statement that "many children of average and above-average intelligence experience difficulty when learning to read." This does not necessarily make it an inherently difficult task. Like all acquired skills, it comes easily to some and causes great frustration for others, much like math or riding a bike. Second, it only gives evidence that learning to read ''in English'' is especially difficult, and offers no comparisons to other languages. While it brings up some interesting points (brain being wired to process speech as opposed to written language, etc.), it doesn't prove its thesis and offers only one side to the argument. Much of the "Teaching literacy" section reads like a high-school term paper or magazine article, and simply seems unnecessary given the content. Finally, the article seems to have a definite slant towards the English language (and the U.S., in particular), the "Illiteracy" section being the most obvious. Personally, I think a good "slash and burn" is in order, and would help the article immensely ("trim the fat," so to speak). Opinions? [[User:Intooblv|intooblv]] 08:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:Hi,Intooblv.

:I agree with much of what you say. One comment I've posted a couple of times is that the article is very heavily weighted toward reading acquisition. A brief summary-style type section should be included, because a critical element of literacy is learning to read. But the details can be handled in the articles specific to that topic, many of which already exist. I haven't done anything about it in part because I prefer to work as part of a collaboration.

:As to the difficulty of learning to read, dealing with the symbolic nature of the task is inherently difficult because there are so many neurological, cognitive and motor systems needing to be coordinated, and because it is a new skill relative to our long-term evolution. Consider: if it were "easy," most human civilizations would have writing systems. In fact, only a few civilizations have invented their own writing systems -- most were borrowed or adapted from the inventing language. Even today, two thirds of extant human languages are unwritten. You are correct that learning to read does come easily to a good percentage of the population, about 30%, but our illiteracy rates illustrate just how difficult a task it is. Nearly all the "illiterates" speak their own languages fluently (even if not correctly or eloquently).

:Incidentally, the above paragraph summarizes the type of information I think should be included in this article.

:Before a slash and burn campaign, I think it would be helpful to determine what topics *should* be included in the article. That would focus the "slash and burn," and also give us direction as to what needs to be kept or added.

:Thoughts?

:Best,

:[[User:Rosmoran|Rosmoran]] 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::You make some very good points, and I appreciate your acknowledgment that learning to read isn't ''always'' difficult, and (if it can be cited) I think that your "30%" figure is definitely worth mentioning. My main beef with the "Why..." section is that it puts too much effort into trying to prove ''that'' learning to read is difficult ("just look at all them little squigglies!") and not enough effort into ''why'' it is difficult. I think that the neurological/biological aspects of the argument are by far the most important/compelling, yet they make up very little of that particular section, which instead focuses on how complex English is as a written language. While true, this shouldn't constitute the bulk of the argument

::Perhaps "slash and burn" is a bit harsh, but it sums up my feelings about this article fairly nicely; there's simply too much unnecessary material. My next post will probably include a list of suggestions for the article, which will need critiquing. [[User:Intooblv|intooblv]] 19:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm glad you are interested in the article as a whole and willing to work on it. It's an important topic of particular interest to me, but I hesitate to work on it alone because of my personal biases.

:::I look forward to seeing your further comments.

:::Best,

:::[[User:Rosmoran|Rosmoran]] 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


== Syllables ==

This is a minor point, but in the section "Why learning to read is hard", part of the section come from a book — Why Our Children Can't Read by Dr. Diane McGuinness. In that section, it is explained that English has sixteen different syllable patterns, with a maximum of three consonants after the vowel. I understand the mistake may be with Dr. McGuinness (and I can't correct a quote), but this seems to ignore words like exempts, glimpsed, horsts, instincts, sculpts, sixths, texts, thousandths, and waltzed. All of these have four final phonetic consonants. If you use a different definition of consonant, you can approach five consonants with the word "warmths".

Her main point may be valid, but it seems she's just wrong about syllables. (If that is in her book)

I'm not sure what to do, or if anything should be done, but if anyone changes this, the same thing is here, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_education

- Misha

[[User:216.254.12.114|216.254.12.114]] 17:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
:One thing that could be done is to take the quote out, as it is inaccurate, or comment on that fact. You'd need a source to contradict that source...[[User:Hires an editor|Hires an editor]] 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

::Hi.

::This is an interesting point that I didn't notice before. Mcguinness' list of syllable types is very different from the 6 syllable types normally presented in language and reading instruction courses.

::In the typical 6-syllable paradigm, all of the examples you give fall into what is known as a "closed syllable." A closed syllable is one that has a vowel followed by one or more consonants --- in this type of syllable the vowel is usually short (your examples do include some of the exceptions, such as the r-controlled vowel -or in horsts).

::In your examples, the extra letters are all suffixes that do not add additional syllables (for example, a -tion ending adds another syllable to the word). Syllable patterns in this context are related to spelling patterns, not pronunciation. Adding an -s at the end of a word does not change the syllable type -- it's still a closed syllable. (Incidentally, even in McGuinness's paradigm, "glimpsed" and "waltzed" are non-examples even by your definition, as "e" is a vowel. )

::I think that we can probably replace the specifics of McGuinness' syllable types with a different example of the irregularities of English spelling. To my mind, including the syllable patterns clouds the picture rather than clarifying it.

::What would you think about using an example along the following lines (taken from the [[Alphabetic principle]] article:

:::''In English, spelling patterns usually follow certain conventions but nearly every sound can be legitimately spelled with different letters or letter combinations. [1] For example, the letters ee almost always represent /i/, but the sound can also be represented by the letter y. Similarly, the letter cluster ough represents /ʌf/ as in enough, /oʊ/ as in though, /u/ as in through, /ɔf/ as in cough, and /æɔ/ as in bough.''

::Thoughts?

::[[User:Rosmoran|Rosmoran]] 04:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:::No thoughts or comments. Except that in the context of the articles, Dr. McGuinness's list seems (to me) to be phonetic, not ..uhm...graphemic? Also, I have no idea what you mean by "your definition".

:::-Misha

:::[[User:216.254.12.114|216.254.12.114]] 22:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


:::Orthographic is probably the word you're looking for. :-)

:::With regard to McGuinness referring to phonemes (sounds) or spelling (letter patterns), it's certainly possible that I misunderstood. My experience is that discussing syllables in terms of CVC, etc, is only done in reference to the spelling patterns of those syllables. I don't have McGuinness' book in front of me, so I have no way to confirm one way or the other.

:::By "your definition," I just meant the way you seem to interpret the stated rule based on the examples you provided: exempts, glimpsed, horsts, instincts, sculpts, sixths, texts, thousandths, and waltzed. No offense intended. [[User:Rosmoran|Rosmoran]] 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

== Removed reference ==

This was floating around at the end of the "Information and communication technology literacy" section, but I have no idea what facts it is supposed to support. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:''Achterman, D. (2006, December). Beyond wikipedia. Teacher Librarian, 34(2), 19-22. Retrieved July 11, UNO, Information Science &Technology Abstracts database.''

== Removed passage on texting ==

I removed these two paragraphs, which are a rather strongly opinionated criticism of how text messaging is allegedly making children illiterate. Any such discussion would need to be more well-rounded; I'm sure you could find other authors who have written that text messaging is putting normal pressure on the language to change, and some who would call this author overly proscriptivist. The their/there example is a weird one to pick on, since those two words sound the same when spoken, and as such are commonly confused when written. Is any of this really an appropriate level of detail for this encyclopedia article? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

----

It has been argued by many{{weasel-inline}} that the linguistic changes which are associated with new media technologies and communicative practices have not only altered but replaced normal levels of [[literacy]] and accepted norms of communication. Indeed apart from becoming recognised as its own form of written communication, text talk has been “absorbed into languages more generally”, <ref name="literacy400">Goggin, Gerard (2006) ''Cell Phone Culture'', Routledge. London and New York</ref> and with its ever increasing use by mobile users it has been suggested by many to have contributed to a drastic decline in literacy rates of school children around the world. It has been reported that high school students are writing entire essays in text talk rather than standard English.{{Fact|date=October 2007}}

In his book ''Cellphone Culture'' Gerard Goggin examines how the spread of texting and other forms of multimedia literacy can be seen as a “threat to culture”. <ref name="literacy400">Goggin, Gerard (2006) [[Cell Phone Culture]], Routledge. London and New York</ref> Indeed Goggin remarks that text talk is typically discussed as something that “threatens the processes of cultivation and learning around which pedagogy and citizenship revolve”.<ref name="literacy400">Goggin, Gerard (2006) [[Cell Phone Culture]], Routledge. London and New York</ref> Such anxieties and fears stem from the potentially damaging effects mobile phone texting can have on written literacy. Indeed it has been reported that a “number of senior secondary pupils can not distinguish between ‘their’ and ‘there’”.<ref name="literacy400">Goggin, Gerard (2006) [[Cell Phone Culture]], Routledge. London and New York</ref> In addition to discussing the fears of multimedia literacy Goggin also documents studies conducted in [[Sweden]] that show that the “language use in text messaging is to be regarded as a variant of language use, creatively and effectively suited to the conditions of SMS and the aims for which it is used”.<ref name="literacy400">Goggin, Gerard (2006) [[Cell Phone Culture]], Routledge. London and New York</ref>

----
;References:
<References />


==Arab Countries Illiteracy Rates Claim==
==Arab Countries Illiteracy Rates Claim==
Line 151: Line 46:


So can someone give an example of an Arab country that has literacy rates at about 10% to 12%, as this article claims?
So can someone give an example of an Arab country that has literacy rates at about 10% to 12%, as this article claims?

== Citation request in "Which approach is better section" ==

Hi,

The following sentence needs a verifiable citation because it is a statement of opinion :


::''Consideration should be given to alternative methods of teaching reading since neither the phonics method, the whole word or whole language method, nor any combination of them is completely successful with every student.''

[[User:Rosmoran|Rosmoran]] ([[User talk:Rosmoran|talk]]) 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

== Map is outdated ==

Hello. Noticed that the World Literacy map for some countries might be outdated. Like Pakistan for example needs to be orange in the 50-69% according to all estimates including UN and world factbook. Can someone fix this chart? - SG <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.113.85.116|130.113.85.116]] ([[User talk:130.113.85.116|talk]]) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::"Statistics released by the U.S. Education Department this week show that some 32 million U.S. adults lack basic prose literacy skill. That means they can't read a newspaper or the instruction on a bottle of pills. " - '''LOL''' 3rd world level ... the us army is printing comic strips to replace user manuals ... --[[Special:Contributions/91.62.155.142|91.62.155.142]] ([[User talk:91.62.155.142|talk]]) 20:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

::: Recent reports in mainstream USA media state that around half of adults in Detroit are "functionally illiterate" - might this be the case in, say, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philadelphia etc which are similar socio-economically? In this case it would certainly suggest that there could indeed be millions illiterate, or is Detroit just an atypical "cluster"? --[[User:MichaelGG|MichaelGG]] ([[User talk:MichaelGG|talk]]) 13:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

::::I just added a section mentioning this to the [[Literacy in the United States]] article. My addition there could probably use a rewrite. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 07:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

==[[Analphabetism]] and [[illiteracy]]==
Both of them currently redirect here. I believe they should have a separate article, as, simply, literacy and illiteracy are two related but different phenomena.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

== Postliterate society ==

Can anyone take a look at the article [[Postliterate society]]? Looks like weird original research to me. --[[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] ([[User talk:Amire80|talk]]) 10:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi baily Hi Chyeanne

== Vandalism ==

There was a vadalism on this page. Due to lack of experience in wiki system, I can't undo the change. The vandalism includes deletion of whole section on 16:37, 29 September 2008.
Please help.
:I've reverted the article to revision 240316085 as of 07:10, September 23, 2008. -- [[User:Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill]] ([[User talk:Wtmitchell|talk]]) 01:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== Older data ==

Surely there must be earlier data available for world illiteracy than 1970? If somebody knows of such data, could they include it in the article? [[User:Jacob Lundberg|Jacob Lundberg]] ([[User talk:Jacob Lundberg|talk]]) 00:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

==The criticism section (Sudbury Model) ==
It strikes me as a good example of [[WP:Fringe]]. ''"Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere.''"

This Sudbury model is taught in 40 schools around the world according to its own article. That's 40 schools out of hundreds of thousands, needless to say, a very insignificant fraction. I don't think their non-mainstream teaching methods/opinions deserve their own section, and to be honest, it all sounds very opinionated and matter of fact-like. It sounds like someones trying to sell their idea and spread the word of this fringe teaching method. If anyone disagrees, please post your argument here before reverting. [[User:Sbw01f|Sbw01f]] ([[User talk:Sbw01f|talk]]) 20:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:Agree. Furthermore, there are only two citations, one of which is to the sudbury valley school itself and the other to a research talk which ''is'' about self-teaching but ''not'' about literacy. Since no one in 1.75 years has addressed this concern I am removing the section pursuant to [[WP:Fringe]] and [[WP:Notability]] since it only provides citations to a single source which is not "independent of the subject". -- [[User:InspectorTiger|InspectorTiger]] ([[User talk:InspectorTiger|talk]]) 22:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


==Whole Article ==
==Whole Article ==
I haven't looked at this article for quite some time, but reading it now makes my head spin. It has been gutted from it's previous incarnations and definitely reflects a particular ideology. This article definitely does not meet the neutral POV of Wikipedia nor are many of the assertions supported by references. G. Jacobs 29-03-09
I haven't looked at this article for quite some time, but reading it now makes my head spin. It has been gutted from it's previous incarnations and definitely reflects a particular ideology. This article definitely does not meet the neutral POV of Wikipedia nor are many of the assertions supported by references. G. Jacobs 29-03-09


==Changes to the opening section==
==Writing==
I suggest the opening section be changed in the following areas:
Why is this article almost entirely about reading? What about writing?? There is only the smallest mention of writing here. Why is the nearly the whole article about learning to read with no mention of learning to write?! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.41.204.190|92.41.204.190]] ([[User talk:92.41.204.190|talk]]) 18:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:1) Numeracy: I have already changed this because there appears to be no major organizations that include "numeracy" as part of literacy.

:2) "Updated and expanded definitions": The alternate ways that literacy is represented should be explained more clearly. For example, "health literacy", "computer literacy" and "ecological literacy" are not subsets of literacy (in my view), they are just another way of using the word literacy (as defined by various dictionaries).
== Spoken language ==
:2) Measurement: Regardless of the fact that some organizations give a "social and cultural" slant to literacy, it should be acknowledged that the only way literacy is measured is as reading or writing or comprehension.

:3) Readability: The first section has a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 17.7 (College Graduate and above). I feel it should be rewritten so the average person can understand it.
I have altered several statements that included the ability
to listen and speak in the definition of literacy---proclaiming
that this would be the "traditional" view (or similar). This
is manifestly untrue: The traditional view is to read and write,
sometimes even just read. (Cf. even the actual discussions
later in the article.)

From the references, I ''suspect'' that someone that someone
used modern US educational material, with its strong
over-inclusive and unscientific tendencies, as a basis.
Please do not do this.
[[Special:Contributions/88.77.148.116|88.77.148.116]] ([[User talk:88.77.148.116|talk]]) 03:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

== Graph references a blacklisted site that leads to a Worm/Virus ==

The graph World Literacy graph sites a link that is a blacklisted site on Wiki and also gave my computer a worm. How did a blacklisted site get into the description anyway? Does Wikipedia not clean links after it has blacklisted a site?
[[Special:Contributions/71.211.216.187|71.211.216.187]] ([[User talk:71.211.216.187|talk]]) 08:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

== Digital Citizenship ==

In the online world of easy publication and the absence of editors, is it important to include Digital Citizenship or Ethics as an element of modern literacy? For example, there is an ethical code of conduct required by Wikipedia which if it is not followed will result in the remove of your ideas (see the discussion on texting above). In other words, if UNESCO's definition of literacy holds true, is there an ethical responsibility to participating in community? Is online ethical behaviour a criteria for one to be considered literate or is this a value judgment? I think I am either scratching the surface here or I am way off base. I welcome your thoughts. [[User:RSOldring|RSOldring]] ([[User talk:RSOldring|talk]]) 00:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

==New literacies==
I've posted at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology#Computer/technology/web/net/online/digital literacy]] about the profusion of articles on "new literacies", which may need merging and cleanup. Anyone interested in the topic please comment on that thread. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

==Pre-literate==
WP doesnt yet have a page on pre-literacy, or pre-literate culture, but the phrase is used a lot in anthropology articles. I may create a stub for the word, but i think its a major omission that editors here could also take up.[[User:Mercurywoodrose|Mercurywoodrose]] ([[User talk:Mercurywoodrose|talk]]) 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

== "Literacy in South America" ==

How useful is this section? It seems a bit of weird slant on the topic, and doesn't even address any of the issues with it, nor the progress made in Brazilian literacy by Paulo Freire and others. Seems more of just like "Look at those people, how silly."

I'm not offering to update it, because I've got no particular knowledge of South American literacy, but, it seems, neither does the author of the section. If you've got nothing to say... [[User:Gabby93|Gabby93]] ([[User talk:Gabby93|talk]]) 09:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

== Introduction section ==

Will it be possible to add the reference for UNESCO's quotation? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.132.245.26|217.132.245.26]] ([[User talk:217.132.245.26|talk]]) 15:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== "History" Section Xuanzong ==

Hi,


I am happy to start this unless there are objection. [[User:Jnhmunro|John NH]] ([[User talk:Jnhmunro|talk]]) 12:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
It's mentioned in this section that the Chinese monk Xuanzang came to learn Math and Philosophy in 625BC. According to Wikipedia, Xuanzang lived in the Tang Dynasty, and therefore 625BC might have been a typo. I changed it to 625 AD.


--[[User:Tszhangto|Tszhangto]] ([[User talk:Tszhangto|talk]]) 20:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
::I have made changes to the opening. If you have concerns, please post them here or send me a message. Thank you. [[User:Jnhmunro|John NH]] ([[User talk:Jnhmunro|talk]]) 13:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


Re: [[User:Compositionist|Compositionist]]'s assertion that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and readers need research-based consensus:
== Literacy in the 21st Century ==
: Just about every Wikipedia article starts with a very basic definition of the topic that closely matches the dictionary. (ex: "Writing is a medium of human communication that involves the representation of a language through a system of physically inscribed, mechanically transferred, or digitally represented symbols.")
: Dictionaries are not typically outdated or inaccurate, and I think the vast majority of people would generally agree that literacy is the ability to read, write, understand, and evaluate, as per Wikitionary. If you want to go into detail into what one particular literary theorist wants to argue about literacy, that can go later in the article.
: I would not call the current definition of "particular ways of thinking about and doing reading and writing" meaningful. I feel like, outside of academia, it's fairly obvious that people read and write in the context of understanding or expressing things, and the level of nuance presented is neither necessary for an opening paragraph nor elaborated upon later in the article.
: You could workshop that to say something akin to "Literacy is the ability to read and write in at least one language, with the purpose of understanding or expressing thoughts or ideas in written form." This definition, like the rest of the article, assumes that we're talking specifically about the ability to read and write, as opposed to computer literacy, media literacy, etc. That said, it gets the point across while also not starting the paragraph with an extremely awkward dig at dictionaries.
[[User:InvisibleUp|InvisibleUp]] ([[User talk:InvisibleUp|talk]]) 05:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


Re: [[User:InvisibleUp|InvisibleUp]]'s suggested amendments: I'm happy to collaborate on a more accessible and less nuanced version of this introduction, perhaps starting with the proposed workshopped version. We do need to start with *some* definition -- agreed. But I don't see why we need to start by rounding up *dictionary* definitions as such. There are plenty of useful definitions of the term "literacy" that originate in empirical research on the topic, which are useful even outside academia because they help explain *why* terms like "health literacy", "computer literacy", etc. seem to proliferate. They proliferate *because* there is no such thing as the "ability to read and write" outside of some particular application of reading and writing something for some particular purpose. If people understood that better, which I hope this article would be helpful for, then perhaps we would need fewer such neologisms. [[User:Compositionist|Compositionist]] ([[User talk:Compositionist|talk]]) 15:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This section reads like it was copy/pasted from a website trying to sell you a book on Web 2.0 or something. It barely communicates anything, and certainly nothing substantial about literacy in the 21st century. I don't want to delete it out of hand, in case there's some merit to it that I'm just not seeing, but I don't think it's contributing anything.
[[Special:Contributions/24.124.69.197|24.124.69.197]] ([[User talk:24.124.69.197|talk]]) 05:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


== Teaching Literacy and the Three-Cueing System ==
== Pakistan Section Reads Like An Editorial ==


I think it is important to address a theory to teaching reading that is still practiced in many U.S schools to this day, despite research finding it flawed. It is called the three-cueing system, and I think it should be included in the teaching literacy section to bring more awareness to it. [[User:Emzrohm|Emzrohm]] ([[User talk:Emzrohm|talk]]) 01:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The entire subsection for Pakistan reads like an editorial. And this is unfortunate as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a collection of Op.Eds. A more appropriate entry would have involved a brief synopses of Pakistan education system, followed by statistics indicating improvement and regressions, followed by a list of existing challenges. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Elnyka|Elnyka]] ([[User talk:Elnyka|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Elnyka|contribs]]) 20:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Full English Literacy? ==
== Native American subsection needs help==
Almost none of the information in this subsection is in its sole citation, nor does this section seem to have much to do with literacy as defined in the rest of the article. None of the definitions given can be entirely detached from written language (even those definitions that include other skills), which this article in its present state does in the section on Native Americans. It seems to me, and apparently all of these diverse organizations cited by the article for definitions of literacy, that competency in oral traditions represents a different skill from literacy. Is the topic of how written language being brought by colonizers to people without a written language affects the native culture relevant here? I guess I don't know, this being a topic way outside my areas of expertise. It's certainly interesting, but possibly it would best be placed in a different article. In any case, it ought to at least be taken from reliable sources and be consistent with the terminology of the rest of the article. <small><span style="font-family:Courier New">[[Ashorocetus]] <small>([[User talk:Ashorocetus|talk]]&thinsp;&#124;&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ashorocetus|contribs]])</small></span></small> 23:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: Language and Literacy Acquisition and Development==
In the opening paragraph, there is this sentence: "Once these skills are acquired the reader can attain full English literacy,"
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Lehman_College,_CUNY/Language_and_Literacy_Acquisition_and_Development_(Fall_2022) | assignments = [[User:LehmanGirlMD|LehmanGirlMD]] | reviewers = [[User:Literacystudent|Literacystudent]], [[User:SavvyWriter58|SavvyWriter58]] | start_date = 2022-08-30 | end_date = 2022-12-21 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:LehmanProf|LehmanProf]] ([[User talk:LehmanProf|talk]]) 23:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)</span>
Shouldn't it simply be "can attain full literacy"? Literacy obviously does not apply to only English; it's being able to read and write in at least the vernacular.
[[User:PhnxFyreG|PhnxFyreG]] ([[User talk:PhnxFyreG|talk]]) 19:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:31, 30 December 2024

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Imfromthepresent.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't to start lesson on how to read and write
Online lesson I need help please 105.113.30.74 (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 February 2021 and 22 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emzrohm. Peer reviewers: Eileen Lynch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KAnds42. Peer reviewers: Mjiang94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

There is absolutely no reason why this page on "literacy" should be redirected from the "New Literacy Studies" page of from a "new literacy studies" search. They are quite separate entities (this is akin to having the page on "Canada" automatically redirect to the page on the "US"). The latter is a field of study and needs it's own page back again.

Arab Countries Illiteracy Rates Claim

[edit]

"Asian, Arab and Sub-Saharan African countries are regions with the lowest literacy rates at about 10% to 12%"

So can someone give an example of an Arab country that has literacy rates at about 10% to 12%, as this article claims?

Whole Article

[edit]

I haven't looked at this article for quite some time, but reading it now makes my head spin. It has been gutted from it's previous incarnations and definitely reflects a particular ideology. This article definitely does not meet the neutral POV of Wikipedia nor are many of the assertions supported by references. G. Jacobs 29-03-09

Changes to the opening section

[edit]

I suggest the opening section be changed in the following areas:

1) Numeracy: I have already changed this because there appears to be no major organizations that include "numeracy" as part of literacy.
2) "Updated and expanded definitions": The alternate ways that literacy is represented should be explained more clearly. For example, "health literacy", "computer literacy" and "ecological literacy" are not subsets of literacy (in my view), they are just another way of using the word literacy (as defined by various dictionaries).
2) Measurement: Regardless of the fact that some organizations give a "social and cultural" slant to literacy, it should be acknowledged that the only way literacy is measured is as reading or writing or comprehension.
3) Readability: The first section has a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 17.7 (College Graduate and above). I feel it should be rewritten so the average person can understand it.

I am happy to start this unless there are objection. John NH (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes to the opening. If you have concerns, please post them here or send me a message. Thank you. John NH (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Compositionist's assertion that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and readers need research-based consensus:

Just about every Wikipedia article starts with a very basic definition of the topic that closely matches the dictionary. (ex: "Writing is a medium of human communication that involves the representation of a language through a system of physically inscribed, mechanically transferred, or digitally represented symbols.")
Dictionaries are not typically outdated or inaccurate, and I think the vast majority of people would generally agree that literacy is the ability to read, write, understand, and evaluate, as per Wikitionary. If you want to go into detail into what one particular literary theorist wants to argue about literacy, that can go later in the article.
I would not call the current definition of "particular ways of thinking about and doing reading and writing" meaningful. I feel like, outside of academia, it's fairly obvious that people read and write in the context of understanding or expressing things, and the level of nuance presented is neither necessary for an opening paragraph nor elaborated upon later in the article.
You could workshop that to say something akin to "Literacy is the ability to read and write in at least one language, with the purpose of understanding or expressing thoughts or ideas in written form." This definition, like the rest of the article, assumes that we're talking specifically about the ability to read and write, as opposed to computer literacy, media literacy, etc. That said, it gets the point across while also not starting the paragraph with an extremely awkward dig at dictionaries.

InvisibleUp (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: InvisibleUp's suggested amendments: I'm happy to collaborate on a more accessible and less nuanced version of this introduction, perhaps starting with the proposed workshopped version. We do need to start with *some* definition -- agreed. But I don't see why we need to start by rounding up *dictionary* definitions as such. There are plenty of useful definitions of the term "literacy" that originate in empirical research on the topic, which are useful even outside academia because they help explain *why* terms like "health literacy", "computer literacy", etc. seem to proliferate. They proliferate *because* there is no such thing as the "ability to read and write" outside of some particular application of reading and writing something for some particular purpose. If people understood that better, which I hope this article would be helpful for, then perhaps we would need fewer such neologisms. Compositionist (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching Literacy and the Three-Cueing System

[edit]

I think it is important to address a theory to teaching reading that is still practiced in many U.S schools to this day, despite research finding it flawed. It is called the three-cueing system, and I think it should be included in the teaching literacy section to bring more awareness to it. Emzrohm (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Native American subsection needs help

[edit]

Almost none of the information in this subsection is in its sole citation, nor does this section seem to have much to do with literacy as defined in the rest of the article. None of the definitions given can be entirely detached from written language (even those definitions that include other skills), which this article in its present state does in the section on Native Americans. It seems to me, and apparently all of these diverse organizations cited by the article for definitions of literacy, that competency in oral traditions represents a different skill from literacy. Is the topic of how written language being brought by colonizers to people without a written language affects the native culture relevant here? I guess I don't know, this being a topic way outside my areas of expertise. It's certainly interesting, but possibly it would best be placed in a different article. In any case, it ought to at least be taken from reliable sources and be consistent with the terminology of the rest of the article. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 23:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Language and Literacy Acquisition and Development

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LehmanGirlMD (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Literacystudent, SavvyWriter58.

— Assignment last updated by LehmanProf (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Literacy&oldid=1266104111"