Figured Worlds Analysis

Holland, et al. (1998), describes figured worlds as “ 1) historically situated, 2) socially defined, and 3) focused on interpreting artifacts in specific ways” (466). There was a variety related concepts of figured worlds in our TRACS chapters. Personally, I agreed with the authors combined agreement upon Bourdieu’s vision that fields/ figured worlds are not figments of our imagination, but are real worlds that we belong to that are composed of cultural concepts (1998 60). In the education research article by Julie L. Pennington, figured worlds were interpreted as a group’s beliefs about literacy.

The two figured worlds described in my article were policy maker’s view of literacy “literacy as practice”, and that of educators “literacy as

Wright et al. 2001, state that some programs are associated with developing and improving literacy and reading skills for all ages. For example, elementary students could watch television programs such as Sesame Street, Dinosaur train, Dragon Tales, Little Einsteins, and Reading Rainbow. Beers 2005 suggests the use of visual scaffolding through different multimodal literacy formats hook students to reading. As Beers states as “literature evolved, stereotypes began to fade”, than why not change with the times (2005 71). Those that are arguing media is affecting adolescents reading and writing performance negatively have not adjusted to the times themselves. Growing up technology was not seen as the god it is today, it was something to be skeptical of. As a student, I found it wonderful to come home from school and learn from the programs on TV the lessons I was being taught in school. In 2015, it is unnatural to not consult the all and powerful Google before spewing out answers found on the web. If I feel as a student and future educator, that technology is a necessity in learning, that when used wisely and correctly will improve reading and writing skills, than I am positive students feel the same

There are several reasons why adolescent literacy programs do not work. According to Levin et al. (2010), the most common reasons for poor implantation in schools are “(1) failure to account for the resources that will be needed to promise success, and (2) failure to procure the appropriate resources at the outset” (2). A program could be successful, but without the whole package it is only half a success, and many times not worth the investment and time. Before embarking on expensive intervention programs schools should consult an “ingredients method”. Levin & McEwan (2001) suggest the use of this resource to evaluate what will be needed for the program to be a success price wise and requires planners to follow a specific procedure to implement the program in their schools (3). If schools would invest in a planning tool such as ingredients method, maybe they would not have to constantly invest in programs destined to