Before you read:
Yes I agree with Ressnick’s assessment that schools are not the only source of literacy. There are many sources of literacy, including family members, pastors, coaches, and society in general. Anything that makes you more knowledgeable about literature or even in reading people’s body language should be considered a source of literacy.
After you read:
1) Apprenticeship, as defined by Ressnick, is a model in which a student (of sorts) learns a particular skill by means of coaching. Over time, the dependency on the instructor will decrease. A good example of this in practice is in a college setting. A TA (teacher’s assistant) is nearly always a graduate student learning to teach by being in the classroom and helping out the teacher with tasks, then maybe eventually beginning to teach the class themselves.
2) I think Ressnick brings up a great point when she claims that viewing literacy only as reading and writing that is to be learned in the classroom as a mistake. If we look at it as if we have the ability to absorb literacy from the world around us, at any moment in our day, then our society would be much better off. If we use this approach to literacy, we can achieve it through sports, work, listening to a speaker, etc.
3) Three kinds of useful literacy as stated by Ressnick include filling out job applications, reading recipes, and consulting bus or airline schedules. Two other useful kinds of literacy include reading road signs and typing on a computer. I agree with her categorization that these are useful kinds of literacy. Filling out job applications helps you out in life, therefore making them useful. If a person could not fill one out, then they would most likely not be able to get a job, then they would not be very successful with their life. As for reading recipes, if you could not then you would probably not eat very healthy foods or eat out a lot. So, this skill proves to be very useful in life. This proves to be the same for the rest of the examples.
4) Ressnick offers types of informational literacy as being newspapers, magazines, and even keeping up with sports teams. I agree with her categorization of these as informational literacy because many people don’t actually have a use for this information except to keep pleasant conversation, or simply to KNOW things. I think all of these could also fall under the “pleasurable literacy” category, because if you are a child reading a Highlights magazine, you may not be reading it in order to have something to talk about in your next scholarly conversation, but simply are reading for fun. The idea that sports are informational literacy is plausible, but it also can fall under the category of pleasurable literacy because many people watch sports purely for entertainment. Overall, I agree with Ressnick’s assessment.
5) Reading for pleasure, as defined by Ressnick, is not forced reading, or reading to have a discussion topic. I agree with this criticism. She says that pleasurable literacy is usually where a person is able to imagine themselves in the situation; put themselves into the story line, such as in a mystery or romance novel. She claims that reading for pleasure is a kickstart to useful and informational literacy, because if you enjoy reading and writing, then it will be easier to retain information that could help you in any aspect of life.
