Hello everyone,

In a previous message in which I inadvertently didn't reword the older, but non-applicable subject line, quitando la vergüenza, I wrote about the importance of revisiting the prevalent, even if etymologically appropriate, definition of literacy as the ability to read and write (expanded, it seems, by NIFL or somone else to include also oral/aural skills and numeracy).

Kearney asked why we would think in terms of, for example, social literacy instead of social skills, and my response was because of the political and legislative clout the term "literacy" carries.

I'd like to add another thought: there was a time when we thought of intelligence as a unitary construct, until Gardner introduced the notion of multiple intelligences. As a discussion about affect is currently underway on the assessment discussion list, I'll use emotional intelligence as an example.  We could refer to emotional intelligence as emotional "maturity," and leave the traditional notion of "IQ" in place.  The problem with doing so, in my opinion, would be that a re-visitation of the very construct of intelligence would not have been begun.

The same applies, I believe, with the construct of literacy.  It is in dire need of re-visitation. NIFL itself makes use of the term "health literacy."  Reading and writing are not necessary prerequisites to the  development of health literacy, even if those skills would be useful. 

Michael


 
Michael A. Gyori 
Maui International Language School 
www.mauilanguage.com



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/englishlanguage/attachments/20091006/e5886eb5/attachment.html