Talk:Literacy/Archive 1

Archive 1

2004-5 talk

I added a line that clarifies the relationship between literacy and income. Sociologists argue that family income is an indicator of literacy acquistion rather than literacy acquistion causing an increase in income. Remember -- correlation is not causation. Furthermore, this article needs continued work because it presents literacy from a narrow functional perspective. I am a certifed teacher with public school experience, have my Ph.D. in literacy, teach preservice teachers and graduate students, do inservice presentations with teachers on literacy, as well as work with parents, so I think I know what I'm talking about. I've also published nationally, and trust me, I don't make a lot of money from any of this. The bibliography needs to be updated. There has been so much published since the 1980s. In fact there is much to be updated. For example, to the homeschooler who had success with Distar, I'd love to know what other literacy practices you use in your home. I would bet that you read to your children, discuss the books, read recipes, signs, and have lots of other texts in your home. So, you're doing direct instruction through Distar, but you're also using and reinforcing literacy through authentic uses throughout your children's lives. That's what's teaching your children to read. Distar has taught your children how to decode. There's a big difference. GEJ 17 November 2005

---

I merged the article with New Literacy Studies.

---

I wanted to add some historical paragraphs on literacy through the previous 3000 years in general and in the previous 200 years in particular and make a tie-in to the history of writing and of the industrial revolution because universal literacy in industrialized countries was one of the important "late" results of the first phase of the industrial revolution and one of the major causes or facilitators of the second phase of the industrial revolution. But I do not see why I should bother adding something to an article if there is a big sign above it saying in a global way that the neutrality of the artcile is disputed. What is to be done? AlainV

The article's supposedly been under dispute since 2 Jun 2003, but a lot of work has been done since then and I don't see a whole lot of disputing going on. So in light of comments like AlainV's above, I'd like to remove the NPOV header. Any objections before I do so? Bryan 01:35, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

None from me, but are there any procedures for such a removal? A page somewhere in the meta sections of Wikipedia where we should post the removal? AlainV 06:59, 2004 Apr 17 (UTC)

Can't find one on a cursory exploration. However, I find that the NPOV dispute page says "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it has a NPOV." Since this article is approaching a full year with the dispute header, I think it's unlikely to be considered controversial to remove it now. :) Bryan 07:30, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

This article is truly bizarrely non-NPOV! The most important effects of literacy are not the same as the most important effects of teaching it to illiterate adults in a predominantly literate population who do not generally desire to be educated. Politics is asserted to be an important effect of literacy, but science, philosophy, and art are not!

---

The mentioned effects all improve public welfare. Of course the article didn't -say- that, so I rewrote to make the emphasis explicit. Descriptions of good social effects seem NPOV to me, if they relate to universal human goods, like health, wealth and safety. Arts and sciences enrich some persons' lives, but they do not have as much practical effect on peoples' immediate welfare. User:Ray Van De Walker

---

Greetings again, NPOVers. Have some mercy on desperate parents looking for reading instruction that works. I'm a home-schooler. I have no financial interest in any program mentioned in the article. Engleman's DISTAR book is a cultural treasure widely recommended among home-schoolers: I taught all my children to read with it, including a kid who was medically-certified as ADD. In three months kids reach 2nd grade level. I doubt if Englemann is getting rich from his Distar book (I paid $15), although he deserves to. My kids are learning spelling with Orton phonograms, one of the secret weapons home-schoolers use to win national spelling bees. Orton was a researcher, not a program publisher. We found the phonograms and spelling rules on flash cards at a home-schooling convention. I haven't used Pournelle's software, but she claims to have taught reading to refractory students in L.A. for thirty years, and her methods make sense to me. These methods are all -cheap-, and they work. The really expensive methods are the see-say methods sold to public schools, that claim to teach reading over five years with several sets of hard-back books, for a cost of several hundred dollars per student- and then fail. User:Ray Van De Walker

Where are the statistics?

Where are the statistics on literacy and illiteracy.? What are the figures from around the world? The CIA World Factbook would be a good source wouldn't it?

Some thoughts

I certainly disagree that literacy enables one to successfully function in society. Many illiterates in third world countries don't bother with literacy for them and their children precisely because they cannot see the point, as they function perfectly well without being able to read and write. I have removed what I consider certain not PC terms. I do not think we should say illiterates, but illiterate people, as they are people too. This term was rude and therefore POV to my mind. --SqueakBox 16:39, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, also remember to not call them communists but communist people, Catholic people, not Catholics and stupid people, not stupid. They are all people, after all. Oh, but for the record, many people in the third world don't see the point in literacy not because they don't need reading and writing but because their uneducated minds can't comprehend that a better life for their children could come from it. Of course in some areas there are very few jobs that require functional literacy..

Sorry if I offended anyone. Oh wait, if they're reading this I'm not talking about them anyway... ;)TastyCakes 04:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes

"The use of an ideogram based writing system makes basic literacy relatively easier to attain than the use of an alphabet based one, so it is estimated that through the more prosperous decades of her different imperial dynasties China reached very high levels of basic, functional, literacy. This made it possible for more people to communicate with one another because they shared reading and writing ability even though they they could not speak to one another."

I've removed this. The first sentence is blatantly false - alphabets are much, much easier to learn than an ideogram writing system. The idea that a writing system such as the Chinese system allows people of different spoken languages to communicate is often asserted but also often contested. Leftfist 20:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The History Section

"At one time, a literate person was one who could sign their name. At other points, literacy was measured by the ability to read the Bible." - Were people ever actually considered literate if they could sign their name? And if someone can read the bible, I think they're literate even by the modern definition. TastyCakes 17:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I added this sentence: "It is claimed that, in 1750, Wales had the highest literacy rate of any country in the world." - One example of such a claim is found here. I imagine that any statement of this sort is impossible to prove beyond dispute, hence the way I phrased the sentence. It is commonly considered to be true in Wales. 62.245.36.95 16:39 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Recent Literacy Survey

December 21, 2005

Recently, the Website Yahoo news exhibited a news article (USA TODAY.com article, “ Survey finds 1 in 20 lack basic English Skills”, By: Greg Toppo, 12/16/05) on English Skills among the population of the United States.

The article mentioned that English skills among adults living in the U.S. population are poor (eleven million- about one in 20 adults); I wasn’t totally surprise by these statistics. Why? One reason might be that the entire U.S. educational system is created around the theory of a ”Renaissance Man” or what a Wikipedia article defines as a “ Polymath” (Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, “ Polymath”);“Renaissance Man” or “Polymath” means someone who is educated in an array of multiple educational subjects. In the U.S. educational system this means a student is taught a little about a wide range of subject areas including academic subjects like English skills (which is necessary) and unnecessary subjects like physical education, sports, and certain social interaction customs like school dances (e.g. proms and etc.). I understand that some believe that a “Renaissance Man” education is the best education that can be offered in a industrialized nation like the U.S.; however because the U.S. educational system focus’s on unnecessary things there mayn’t be enough focus on necessary academic subjects like English skills. As a result, the U.S. educational system must ask itself this question: is it worth spending educational funding on more academic learning or is it worth spending funding on unnecessary things like school dances? Lastly, another reason for poor English skills in the U.S. might be is poor parenting skills. American society has always been attracted strongly to a “ Machismo” culture than an intellectual culture. This social trend might have led to poor generational parenting skills in American society like for example, when parents let their children be exposed to harmful distractions like violent mediums (e.g. video games, television, and etc). I understand that being a parent in American society can be tough. However, parents in the U.S. must ask themselves this question: is it worth raising my children as followers of “Machismo” culture or is worth raising them as followers of” intellectual” culture?

The USA TODAY.com article mentioned that Dale Lipschultz, president of the National Coalition for Literacy stated that a literate America would be more competitive and prosperous. I for one agree with this statement and its time for our government leaders and U.S. parents to consider the literal meaning of this statement as well.

Anon User.

Missing

Things I miss:

• A mention that in some countries literacy is taught in a language that children don't speak at home.
• A discussion of the merits of writing systems in relation to literacy. Include the paradox of Japan, with its complex system of two syllabaries, romaji and kanji with several readings still has a high rate of literacy.
• Some disadavantage of literacy, say, loss of oral literature, less memorization, excessive trust in the printed word,...

Map of literacy in the ancient world

Using blue for land and white for sea seems like a pretty poor decision.

I tagged this image and put a note on the image talk page. -- Beland 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

graphs

The first two graphs don't seem to be referred to in the text. The second one—declining rates—certainly needs explanation. Tony 06:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

the other languages section

I've noticed that links in the other languages section of this article contain some mistake: e.g if you go to the italian link, you get the italian corresponding article for literacy. But if you go to the spanish or portoguese (I can't understand the other languages link in this article) link, you get the corresponding article for illiteracy! Now I just edited the spanish and portoguese link, but I can't continue with other languages. Anybody can help?

Technology

I have changed the header which read 'The Importance of Technological literacy' to 'The Importance of Information and Communication Technology Literacy'. This I have done because most textual literacies were dependent on technology, even the humble pen or ancient printing methods. We tend to regard 'technology' as being almost uniquely modern, but it is not. In the 1970s we referred to the emerging information technology as 'high technology' but this has now been subsumed by the term Information and Communication Technologies, or ICT.

Changes Made

I reworked the section on teaching literacy to present a balanced perspective as well as international literacy information. I removed a subsequent section on "Literacy Readiness" because it was redundant.

I nuked a load of information on different writing systems, replacing it with a link to Writing system. We don't need to duplicate that information here. I've also added a {{globalize}} template because, quite frankly, the section is terrible in this regard. (WTF is kindergarten? ;) Hairy Dude 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Revised

The section has been edited. Does this satisfy your concern? Your lack of generosity in your preceding comments is quite telling. Perhaps in the future you will be able to discuss issues somewhat more logically than bombastically.

--Kearnsdm 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I was probably tired and in a bad mood at the time. I apologise, and will try to avoid such language in future.

I think the internationalisation still needs some effort. Actually I'm not certain the term 'phonics' is even used outside the USA; everything I've read has used the term "orthography" for the relationship of speech sounds to the writing system, and I've only seen American sources refer to this method of teaching reading and writing as "phonics". Some research needs to be done on this, I think, and certainly we need to cite whatever sources this information comes from. (Unfortunately I don't have time to do it.) Hairy Dude 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples of highly literate cultures in the past

I'd love to see this section fleshed out, especially with some references. I've tried looking for information and I haven't really found anything -- I even asked a professor of classics for his thoughts, and they were rather guarded on the matter. Does anyone have a starting point for this? CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Five Components of Literacy

This article makes no mention of 'the Big 5' and should include details of Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vacabulary, and Comprehension as well as their relationship in a balanced literacy approach.

The article literally does mention the "big 5." See the section on teaching literacy. Balanced literacy is not mentioned very much, so the discussion of this topic could be expanded. Kearnsdm 05:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes Needed

Some of this article is redundant, especially around the different approaches to reading, such as balanced literacy, whole language, and phonics. Furthermore, this discussion is not a discussion of general literacy, but rather of English literacy. This is not appropriate, in my view. Obviously, English literacy is a key topic for a page written in English, but that should be focus of a particular section and links should be used to connect to pages on phonics, whole language, and balanced literacy.

I intend to remove this redundancy very soon unless there is an objection.

--Kearnsdm 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Addition Needed - other languages

If anyone is an expert in how reading is taught in languages besides English, that would be great information to have. I am especially interested to see how Chinese and hiragana are taught. If you know, add some subsections.

--Kearnsdm 07:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting some links

There are a number of extraneous links that I could not seem to categorize. Someone please categorize them if you understand how the fit this article, or I'm going to remove those that do not seem especially germane. Kearnsdm 06:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

The link under paragraph "What does it mean to be literate?" doesn't work. Any suggestions? 83.24.28.20 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC) manxz

Confusing - but funny - sentence

"Although educators, politicians, and many of those with such limited reading vocabularies are considered--or consider themselves--to be literate, the most comprehensive study of U.S. adult literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government proves that they are not literate enough to be functionally literate."

Doesn't this make it sound like educators and politicians are functionally illiterate? Definitely needs some rewording. FilmFemme 15:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Literacy in terms of Latin

I learned a ways back in a class I took that during the medieval period, literacy was measured only by the ability to read and write Latin, regardless of a person's ability to read and write his or her native language. I added this to the article in the "Literacy throughout history" section, but I don't have a print citation for it, so if somebody could find one and add it to the article, I'd appreciate it.--Tabun1015 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

This is possibly the worse article on a serious subject I have read. It's full of ridiculous quoting from non-authorative opinionated sources and equally ridiculous bold-italic-exclimation marked passages quoting meaningless numbers. Then there are the contextless quotes about the use of propositional logic in the process of language. So? This means what? Does a child learning anything use propositional and other forms of logic? Does the mathematical concept of propositional logic even relate to how children learn or read? Doesn't this belong in an article about linguistics or the comprehension of language or cognition? Apologists for children who find it difficult to learn to read should go elsewhere, like their own article, or better yet, some other place than WP. 212.15.177.101 09:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "happened" to this article as I've only been following it for a short while. However, a critical aspect of "literacy" is becoming literate. While more complete coverage of reading acquisition and reading difficulties is available in articles devoted to those topics, it is quite appropriate for this article to include a summary of a related topic and a link to the primary article. Of course, the literacy article is in development and the implementation of Wikipedia:Summary style for those sections is not complete, so (obviously) improvements can be made.

If you have suggestions for improving the article, or would like to make a contribution to improve the article, please feel free to join in on the collaboration. I encourage you to restrict your comments on the talk page to polite, non-accusatory criticism (in the broader sense of the word -- check the primary definition of criticize in Wiktionary if you're unclear on its range of meaning) of the content. Otherwise, I invite you to go elsewhere.

Rosmoran 23:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation tag in Illiteracy section - reason why I put it back

I replaced the citation tag at the top of this section because there is still not a specfiic reference provided.

I don't understand why it was removed without a reference provided.

Best,

Rosmoran 03:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed factually incorrect statement

I removed the following statement from the "Why learning to read is hard" section:

"As a result, the only way a person can learn to read English is to learn, one-at-a-time, by rote memory or by repeated use, every word in their reading vocabulary."

There is no citation provided for this claim; more importantly, the claim is patently false.

Best,

Rosmoran 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Illiterates

In reference to a previous statement involving the use of "Illiterates" or "Illiterate people," why has this not been corrected? The term "illiterates"
gives a negative POV toward people who are illiterate, though it might not seem to be POV at first. Don't tell me no one else can see this. 172.164.128.188 15:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Literacy Template

Hello...I have created a Literacy Template navbox for use on articles that deal with this subject. It's only a beginning, so I hope that people will contribute to its growth and improvement. I used the "See Also" section as a starting point, and believe that it should be deleted in favor of the template. Hires an editor 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Literacy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Hi The section on literacy in the United States is disproportionate in size and depth of detail. It would suffice to give a brief outline of the history of literacy in the US. Further, literacy is in fact an important issue because of illiteracy - therefore the article should focus more on illiteracy rather than on literacy. That being so, more information should be included about countries where illiteracy is a problem. Rui Gabriel Correia

Last edited at 08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)