Response to Szwed's "The Ethnography of Literacy"

            In this article it seems as though Szwed is trying to define reading and writing as a whole in as simple terms as possible. For me I feel that reading and writing should be about an escape in a fictitious book, an informational topic you want to learn more about, a current event affecting the world we live in, etc. The purpose of my reading and writing is to further my knowledge or as a recreational, fun purpose. Szwed said, “A quick beginning inventory of reading contexts would include bedside reading, coffee-break and lunch-time reading, vacation reading, reading to children…” I very much agree with this. I love to read in my free time, especially on a trip or vacation. He also brings up the fact that people read for memorization purposes. I have been doing this probably since late elementary school or early middle school when studying for classes really became critical. An example of this in college was taking CMST 132 and memorizing speeches I had to write for myself. This was a nerve-racking reading and writing period in my life.

            I think Szwed wanted to display the different types of reading and writing in all forms. He states that there are, “out dated models of literacy inherited from nineteenth-century upper class Europe,” but also many ways to study the different types. For example, studying the observations of writing and reading activities in natural settings, or obtaining autobiographies of reading and writing. Szwed goes on to say, “Throughout, the focus should be on the school and the relation to the community’s needs and wishes…”Szwed also states there is a possibility of difference between private and public literacy.

             I thought it was interesting when he stated, “Educators often assume that reading and writing form a single standard set of skills to be acquired and used as a whole by individuals who acquire them in a progression of steps which cannot be varied or avoided in learning.” However it leads me to wonder what he means when he says, “It is entirely possible that teachers are able to teach reading and writing as abstract skills, but do not know what reading and writing are for in the lives and futures of their students.” Is he saying here that teachers need to make reading and writing more fun, interesting, etc. to their students? This statement was confusing to me.