Socio-Cultural Dimension of Literacy

Introduction:

Research conducted by the various disciplines has always had a significant impact on how educators approach literacy instruction in their own classrooms. At certain points over the last few decades one discipline may have held more sway than others, however, there has often been ‘cross pollination’, or borrowing among the disciplines. In the last decade, emerging research has begun to redefine “literacy” in terms that reflect its’ multidimensional nature while at the same time acknowledging the realities of the diverse societies in which we live. Two important concepts, “culturally responsive instruction” and “critical literacy” have come to the forefront of discourse. According to Washington State University professor, Stephen B. Kucer, these are the “two routes through which this new sensitivity to diversity is [currently] being explored” (Kucer 2005, p.4).

In the second edition of his book, Dimensions of Literacy: A Conceptual Base for Teaching Reading and Writing in School Settings (2005), Kucer asserts that literacy is “dynamic and multidimensional in nature”, and for “literacy instruction to be effective”, it must be viewed as such (p.4). In the text, he provides an in depth explanation of the four interrelated dimensions of literacy used by readers and writers as they construct meaning. These aspects are defined as the “cognitive, linguistic, socio-cultural, and developmental”. Kucer states that these dimensions do not operate in isolation. They work in a fashion that is “transactive and symbiotic” in nature; each effects and is affected by all the others (Kucer, 2005, preface). Kucer believes that these dimensions can best be described through an examination of the roles, or positions that readers and writers adopt when they “transact with written language”. These roles include the “code breaker” (linguistic dimension), “meaning maker” (cognitive dimension), “text user and critic” (socio-cultural dimension), and “scientist and construction worker” (developmental dimension). (p.5)

In order to assist the reader in understanding his explanation of this multidimensional view of literacy, Kucer (2005) employs a graphic representation composed of series of concentric rings radiating outward (Fig 1.1, p. 5). He places the cognitive dimension at the center of the “literacy act” and the developmental dimension at the furthest most point of the figure. The “heart” of the “literacy act”, or the cognitive dimension, is described by Kucer as the “desire of the language user to explore, discover, construct, and share meaning”. (p.5) It is essentially the “mental processes, strategies, or procedures the individual engages in to construct meaning”. (p.91)

The ring encompassing the figure’s center represents the linguistic dimension; it is defined as the “language vehicle through which these meanings are expressed”. Kucer (2005) states that the cognitive and linguistic dimensions of literacy are connected because through the construction of ‘meaning’, “there is a transaction between the individual’s mind (cognition) and text (the linguistic)” (p.91).

The next ring in the graphic representation depicts the third dimension, the socio-cultural. In rounding out his cursory description of “literacy”, Kucer (2005) declares that it is more than just “individual acts and language use… [it] is a social act as well” and that “meaning and language that are built and used are always framed by the social identity (e.g. ethnic, cultural, gender) of the individual and the social context in which the language is being employed”. (p.5)

The outermost ring of the visual represents the developmental dimension of literacy. Kucer, conceives of “literacy” as progressive in nature. He prefers the phrase “becoming literate” rather than “being literate” because it more accurately describes the ongoing relationship that people have with written language and the fact that over the course of their lives people “may encounter literacy events [which require them to use] literacy in new and novel ways”. (p.5) It is Kucer’s belief that “becoming literate means learning to effectively, efficiently, and simultaneously control the linguistic, cognitive, socio-cultural, and developmental dimensions of written language in a transactive fashion” (p.4).

Assignment: Reflect on the dimension by answering the following guiding questions.

Focus: Socio-cultural Dimension

Part I. What are the key components of this dimension?

For Kucer (2005), the cognitive and linguistic aspects of literacy tend to underscore the commonalities “among, texts, readers, and writers” (p.197). In his opinion, focusing on these two aspects of literacy limits our understanding and disregards the extremely important social aspect of written language. Such a narrow focus, “situates literacy in the individual person, rather than the society of which that person is a member” (p.197). If literacy is viewed in such a manner, it therefore becomes divorced from the world (Baron, 1992; 1997; Elster, 2003; Scribner & Cole, 1981; Street, 1984). Consequently, Kucer (2005) maintains that reading and writing should not be considered “individual acts of thought and language”, they should be viewed in terms of a “patterned social act of a group” (p.197) Additionally, literacy simply does not happen because someone possesses and applies the requisite cognitive or linguistic skills, it happens because literacy is an expectation of the group to which the individual belongs. A further correlate idea that Kucer (2005) puts forth is that the literacy practices of the group reflect “the very nature of the group and the group’s position within the society” (p.198) For example, Kucer (2005) states that most socio-cultural examinations of literacy tend to place an emphasis on the use of literacy by “others”; “otherness” in this case being defined by socioeconomic status, culture, gender, or any other characteristic that would set the individual apart from the “norm”. In this case, the viewer is placed in a privileged position in which their own literacy tendencies are the measuring stick by which all others are compared. This pattern is most often reflected in American society when the “observers” are from dominant groups such as “European Americans, males, or the middle class”. (p.198) These dominant groups tend to be blind to the socio-cultural basis for their own literacy uses and view groups they deem as “other” as multicultural, ethnic, etc.

One of the dominant themes in Chapter 9 of Dimensions of Literacy: A Conceptual Base for Teaching Reading and Writing in School Settings (2005), is Kucer’s examination of how “various social groups mediate their interactions with the world” and “use literacy to produce, consume, maintain, and control knowledge” (p. 198). In making his case, Kucer (2005) cites the work of B. Ferdman. According to Ferdman (1990), our social identity consists of the totality of the groups with which we associate; these groups include “culture, socio-economic status, gender, organizations, occupation, religion, psychological, nationality, family, age, and sexual orientation”. Each of these groups has its own ideologies, requirements, and behavioral expectations for membership. These groups may socialize their members in a variety of conscious or unconscious ways, and it is “these guidelines that impact the individual’s beliefs and behaviors and frame his or her interpretations of and interactions with others” (Kucer, 2005, p.205). On the basis of these multiple affiliations, individuals will have “multiple frameworks for behaving and constructing experiences” (Kucer, 2005, p. 205) Because these group ideologies are sometimes not explicitly taught to group members, people often not aware of the origin of their beliefs and this is why they are sometimes pernicious. Kucer (2005) points out that this is most notably the case when the individual belongs to one of the dominant groups, the result being that the individual comes to view their own behaviors as “normative or universal”. What must be kept in mind is that one’s social identity continues to evolve over the course of his or her lifetime. D. Hoffman (1996) describes an individual’s social identity as “dynamic, often context specific in nature, and constituted by fuzzy borders between and among various social groups in which the individual has membership”. Yet, it is certain that each group will have its own literacy practices that are an “expression of the knowledge, values, and behaviors” of the group (Kucer, 2005, p. 206) Social groups will therefore either promote or deny the use of language as they see fit. Consequently, “[w]ith time, experience, and apprenticeship, the literacy practices of any individual come to reflect group norms and values (Kucer, 2005, p.207) Naturally, because an individual may have multiple group affiliations, they may also possess “multiple literacies”. (Kucer, 2005, .p 208) These literacies vary according to the circumstance in which the individual finds him or herself in as does the discourse in which the individual engages. Occasionally, these identities will intersect without issue, or may they possibly conflict because each group has a different set of literacy expectations or beliefs. A prime location for such conflicts to occur is a setting where the individual is not a member of the dominant group. For example, Hull & Schultz (2001) point out that “schools are a primary sponsor of literacy development and use within society and have developed their own particular brand of learning”. Adults and children have the expectation that schools will explicitly teach and hone literacy skills over the course of a student’s academic career and help them integrate into mainstream society. Schools naturally have specific rules and expectations for language use and text construction, however, these rules and regulations might be at variance with those of another group to which the individual belongs. Students might find that their natural instincts for dealing with language and text are subverted in a school setting. They may also find that their work is deemed of a lesser quality because it does not match up with the form and function of the dominant group’s view of literacy. Unfortunately, the “discourse practices of the classroom often come to be viewed as the norm [and] alternate practices are conceived of as deviant and deficient in nature” (Kucer, 2005, p.231). This tendency is reflective of what Gee (1996) deemed the “Master Myth”. “Master Myths represent a culture’s or social group’s favored views of reality. Entering a particular culture or group means becoming acculturated in these views of thinking and knowing” (Kucer, 2005, p.222). In some case, the master myths of the dominant group become tools of oppression used against nonmainstream groups.

What research has shown is that children are not raised in a literacy vacuum. Regardless of group affiliation, “most children in the United States enter school having experienced numerous literacy events within the home” and their community (Kucer, 2005, p.231) Some children will find that the literacy socialization they experienced in their homes and other community settings will be similar to what they will experience in a school, while others will find that it is very different from what they are accustomed to. For example, A. Anderson and Stokes (1984) conducted an examination of different literacy patterns for different ethnic groups across several domains. Four domains proved to be “statistically significant among the groups; they included “daily living, entertainment, religion, and literacy techniques”. Literacy took different forms and served different purposes for each group across the various domains. Additionally, research conducted by Pucell-Gates (1996) and L’Allier, & Smith (1995) indicates that socio-economic status is not a gauge of how many literacy events or the quality of these events that a child would be exposed to. However, the types of experiences might vary depending on resources available to the individual. All of the studies cited by Kucer (2005) clearly indicate that literacy is an integral part of the various communities in the United States and that there are many paths to literacy in our society that need to be recognized by our educational system and researchers in the field.

In Chapter 10 of the Dimensions of Literacy: A Conceptual Base for Teaching Reading and Writing in School Settings (2005), Kucer focuses on the relationships among power, authority and written discourse. He asserts that the “nature of texts encountered- and the understandings that children construct through transacting with the texts made available- significantly impact both literacy and concept development” (Kucer, 2005, p. 225). It is his belief that texts used in the classroom are the “product of power relationships in our society” and texts sponsored by particular groups represent particular ideologies. (Kucer, 2005, p. 225) Texts used in schools are no exception. Additionally, the background knowledge an individual brings to an interpretation or generation of a text reflects the “beliefs, ideologies, and experiences of the groups in which the individual is a member” (Kucer, 2005, p. 225) One of the major factors that influences the interpretation of a text is what the individual has been explicitly taught by sponsors. In a classroom setting, literacy sponsors include all of the following – teachers, publishers, evaluative instruments, and administrators. (Kucer, 2005, p. 226) According to Kucer (2005), sponsorship serves as the “gatekeeper for the generation, promotion, and maintenance in our society” (p.228) Therefore, it impacts what knowledge is to be esteemed, and what is to be ignored or belittled. Yet, sponsorship is not limited to the classroom, others such as political leaders, publishers, and the media can also act as the purveyors of information. The texts that are generated and promoted by sponsors though occasionally neutral can have biased perspectives that impugn the integrity of nonmainstream groups, or promote the values of the dominant group. The ideas and values put forth by the dominant group often keep it in a position of power and authority, while the nonmainstream or disenfranchised groups find it difficult to obtain a forum to express their views. In his examination of the “authority of discourse”, Kucer (2005) discusses the social constructionist view and the foundationist view of knowledge. Social constructionists believe that knowledge changes because it no longer fulfills the needs of the individuals that created it, not necessarily because it was proven untrue. Foundationists see knowledge as “objective, universal, and stable across space and time”. (Kucer, 2005, p. 231) Kucer (2005) maintains that “schools, governments, religious institutions, and the media tend to promote a foundational view of knowledge”. (p. 231) In a classroom setting, a foundationist stance is assumed toward texts and it is reinforced through the way that students are taught to interpret what they are presented with. However, readers and writers “social identities” will always impact their interpretation and generation of written discourse; their own background knowledge and experiences and that of the groups to which they belong play a role. Therefore, transaction is “widened beyond the individual and conceives of reader, writer, and text as reflections and products of relevant interpretive communities” (Kucer, 2005, p.233) It is a natural that students learn to read, write, and think in ways that reflect their social identities. However, these constructs can either support or constrain student endeavors in the classroom.

Part II. How do these components apply to your teaching?

Literacy is often viewed as the key to our culture. Too often, students who enter our classroom with different understandings struggle with acclimating to school expectations in regards to form and function in the areas of language and text construction. Teachers need to be sensitive to what Kucer refers to as the ways of “literacy knowing” that their students bring into the classroom. (p. 216) As suggested by Heath (1983) “schools need to build on and extend the abilities…that children bring to the classroom”. Teachers also need to seek out students’ specific aptitudes in order to strengthen them. It may entail teaching the students to apply particular abilities in different domains than which they are accustomed to. Additionally, it is the instructor’s responsibility as a “literacy sponsor” to help fill in literacy “gaps” by providing the students with whatever skill support they were not exposed to in other settings. An additional concern for teachers to keep in mind is that dominant group / middle class values should not be esteemed as the norm. This would necessitate a careful selection of texts employed in the classroom bearing in mind the author’s intent and the lens through which the student will view it. Essentially, the most important thing that I have learned from reading Kucer’s text is that the multiple literacies that students bring to the classroom must be acknowledged and viewed as just as valuable as the traditional concept “academic literacy”.

Part III. Why do you believe you connected with this dimension over the others?

I believe that I connected with the socio-cultural dimension of literacy more so than the other dimensions discussed in Kucer’s text because I have always been interested in how students learn to read and write and the impact that environmental influences such as family life have on the acquisition of language. I was also particularly interested in the discussion of socio-economic status, the fallacy of the “master myth”, sponsorship, and the authority of the written word.

Part IV. Write a sentence or two describing why you believe the other dimensions are important to consider when thinking of literacy.

The linguistic and cognitive dimensions of literacy are important to consider because they are foundational to an individual’s transacting meaning. It is also important to recognize the developmental dimension of literacy because “becoming literate” is a life long process. It is not a set of finite skills that can be perfected; these skills can only applied in different contexts over the course of one’s life as one encounters new literacy opportunities.

Sources:

Anderson, A., and S. Stokes. 1984. Social and institutional influences on the development and practice of literacy. Pp. 24-37 in Awakening to Literacy, H. Goelman, A. Oberg, and F. Smith, eds. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.

Baron, D. (1992, July 1) “Why Do Academics Continue to Insist on `Proper’ English?” Chronicle of Higher Education, B2-B3.

Baron, D. (1997, Jan 24) “Ebonics Is Not a Panacea for Students at Risk.” Chronicle of Higher Education, B4-6.

Elster, C. (2003). Authority, performance and interpretation in religious reading: Critical issues of cross-cultural communication and multiple literacies. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 663-692.

Ferdman, B. (1990). Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 181–204.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in Discourses. Second Edition. London: Taylor & Francis.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, Diane M. (1996). Culture and Self in Multicultural Education: Reflections on Discourse, Text, and Practice. American Educational Research Journal. 33(3): 545‑569.

Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 71. 575-611.

Kucer, S. (2005). Dimensions of literacy. A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in school settings. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the "TV Guide": Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 406-428

Purcell-Gates, V., L’Allier, S., & Smith, D. (1995). Literacy at the Harts’ and the Larsons’: Diversity among poor, innercity families. Reading Teacher, 48(7), 572- 578.

Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981). Unpackaging literacy. In M. F. Whiteman (Ed.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication: Vol 1. Variation in writing: Functional and linguistic-cultural differences, 71-87. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Final Writer's Workshop Piece

As morning’s first light infiltrated the room, my mother tenderly nudged me with her delicate pink tongue. Stretching as I slowly awakened, I basked in her loving attention. Though, the remnants of sleep proved difficult to cast off as I had spent most of the previous day doing my best to attract the interest of others. I had pranced and capered to no avail as a seemingly endless parade of inquisitive humans gawked at me through the dingy glass. Over the last few weeks it had been the pattern that a large soft palm would scoop one of my siblings up and carry them away. When they were taken, they would be gone for either a brief while, or they would not be returned. Occasionally, the chosen individual would be unceremoniously plopped back down into the soft shredded paper that constituted both our litter box and bed. Back under her supervision, my mother would commence with a meticulous grooming process to remove the “scent” from their bodies. When mother had finished with my siblings’ toilette, they would always brag and regale me with the antics they had engaged in while entertaining visitors in the “special room”. Though I wondered to myself, if they were so adept at amusing humans, why had they been returned to our pen? By this time, the prettier and healthier of my 7 siblings had been greedily snapped up leaving only my mother and me behind to wonder why we were somehow deficient in comparison. Being the runt of the litter I had a sneaking suspicion as to why I had never been beyond the confines of my clutch. When facility was closed and the lights dimmed, I could catch a glimpse of my own reflection in the glass. In the half-light, what I saw was a rather dainty bit grey of fluff with black stripes and gold eyes staring back at me. In my appraisal, what I saw was not unattractive. Yet, I simply did not compare with my eldest sibling who had been adopted almost as soon as she could gobble solid food. She was so confident the day the assistant came to get her! I wanted to swat her smug little face. I was so jealous! I wished that I would soon have my turn, though I didn’t want to get my hopes up. I knew that I would probably have to wait because of my size. The days slid by and eventually, my mother and I were the only ones who remained. We stayed tightly cuddled together, taking comfort in the fact that we had each other for company. Unfortunately, our united front came to an end this very morning. After my daily grooming, my mother was taken away to the “special room”. As she was lifted from the pen, she gave me a loving long look. I took this as a very bad omen, not for her but for me! I waited for a very long time but she did not return. Wallowing in despair, I found myself alone in the corner of my glass enclosure contemplating how to best deal with my new and profound loneliness. In my reverie, I felt my eyelids starting to close as I became increasingly sleepy. I was just beginning to lightly doze, when a chubby little hand knocked at the glass so hard that it rattled. BANG, BANG, BANG…“Mommy, Mommy! Look at the kitty!” Was it really true? Was someone talking about me? I scampered to glass and looked down. There was a little light haired human with a huge smile on his face looking up at me. It was then that I heard the magical words I had longed for, “May we see him?” I was so excited at the prospect of getting out of my pen that I put my two front paws on the glass to aid in my being picked up by the assistant. In my impatience to be taken to the “special room” I practically launched myself into her hand. As we traveled the short distance down the hallway, I tried to coax the human to hurry along by squirming the whole way. As we rounded the corner, the assistant ushered the four other humans – two large and two small into the designated space, handed me to the largest one, and closed the door. So there I was in the “special room” with not a clue what to do. “Oh, boy. I am in trouble!” Then it hit me! The advice my siblings gave me would surely come in handy. I wriggled out of the largest one’s hands and hit the floor with a thud. I scurried under one of the benches hoping to provide the humans with a lively chase. I am sure that the humans could tell how excited I was by the sound of my nails clicking on the floor as I ran. As I anticipated, the littlest one got down on his knees and peered into my shadowy hiding place. “Kitty, kitty, kitty”, he called. Tentatively, I crept forward not wanting to appear too willing. It was then that the same little hand that shook my enclosure grabbed my tail and hoisted me into the air! The room seemed to spin as I flew upward. In my fear, I let out an indignant yowl. I was so panic-stricken by this unexpected affront that I clawed his meaty little hand in response. “What was this all about? If this is what I am in for, I want none of it!” Luckily, the little one with poor manners dropped me forthwith. It was then that the elder female intervened. “Sean that is not the way we handle animals. He is just a baby like you. You have to be gentle. This is the way that you should pick him up.” Delicately, she scooped me up and cradled me to her chest. I purred and nuzzled her chin in appreciation for my timely rescue. It was then that she did the unthinkable and handed me back to the rapscallion! MEOW! I cried. Bracing for more indignities, I waited for the inevitable, but this interaction was different. His small hands delicately caressed my back as he talked to me in soft tones. “Good kitty. I’m sorry, kitty.” Maybe, the youngster was tolerable after all. He just didn’t know how to handle something as small as me. After a few moments, littlest human passed me to the one they called “Kaitlyn”. As he clumsily gave me to her, I prayed he wouldn’t drop me on my head. Now, here was a human I could get used to! She kissed me and hugged me the way I imagine only a little girl could. I actually felt like I needed a good grooming by the time she was done showing me “love”. However, it was all worth it when she introduced me to what would become my favorite thing in the world. At one point she gently placed me on the floor and pulled out of her pocket something she called a “string”. I had never seen such an item before and was extremely curious as to what it was and how it worked. I had great fun chasing after “the string” as she jiggled it and yanked it into the air. Occasionally, I would be lucky enough to catch it, but she always pulled it away from me. As we played, I came to understand that this was part of the allure of the game. I enjoyed my short-lived time with her immensely. I was so appreciative that I wove myself in and out of her legs to show my delight. Regrettably, I was so entranced in our lively play that I only caught snippets of the conversation being carried on between the two adults. However, my ears pricked up when I heard the largest one say, “I guess it is settled”. “Settled? What is settled?” I wondered. It was then that the largest human picked me up in one hand, held me to his chest, and opened the door to the “special room”. “Oh no, he is looking for the assistant! They are going send me back!” In my frenzy, I writhed and tried to escape when I was handed back to the assistant. “How could this happen? I did my best!” As I struggled to look over the assistant’s shoulder, I watched the four humans enter another room at the end of the long brightly lit hallway. Rather than walk back towards the glass pen that I had shared with my family, the assistant took a different route into a room I had been only once before. “Oh, no! This is where they took me to give me “shots”!” Now I was really in lather. As she placed me on the icy cold table and a chill ran through my body, I thought, “What are they going to do to me?” All the while I was panicking; the assistant continued to gently stroke me about the head and shoulders. It was obvious she was trying to calm me down but I was having none of it. My angst was compounded by the fact that she and another human started to “prepare” me. I soon found myself quickly dipped into some sort of repugnant fluid, given a maddening article to wear about my neck, and placed into a portable enclosure with tiny holes. I began to yowl mournfully as the impertinent humans closed me inside. “Maybe being returned wasn’t so bad after all!” I would have given anything to see shredded newspaper at that moment! It was then that I felt my new enclosure shift. This was a highly disturbing and unfamiliar sensation for me. As the carrier swayed back and forth, I had to struggle to remain firmly planted on my paws. In the long run, I had to relent and lay down to keep from falling over anyways. Thankfully, the holes at the top of the carrier allowed some faint light to penetrate it. It was through these openings that I was able to perceive what exactly was going on. I could hear the humans having a tête-à-tête about obtaining the necessities that I would require. Realization slowly began to dawn. I had been adopted! I was going to have a home of my own! I felt electrified and thrilled to the point that I began to sing in my best kitty soprano. As I crooned my little kitty heart out, the elder female opened the carrier a bit to slip a hand inside and scratch me behind the ears. What a wonderfully divine feeling! I arched my back in response. I wanted to take full advantage of this attention while it lasted! After a short time traveling, it was obvious that we had arrived at our final destination. I was finally released from my kitty prison out into a large expanse of blue “carpet”. As I emerged from the carrier, the two little ones were impatiently waiting for me. I slowly began to scan the room in order to soak in my new surroundings. However, my initial observations were interrupted as the “children” wanted to play. While we roughhoused, the larger humans busied themselves with establishing me in my new domain. After a short while, I was carried about and shown where I would sleep, find my food, and do “my business”. It seemed as though the humans had thought of everything, even toys and a window to sun myself in! What a view compared to the one I had previously! I soon discovered these wonderfully enticing and delectable things called “birds”! As the weeks went by, I grew much larger and became quite comfortable in my new abode. I even learned to respond to the dreadful name they gave me- Ember! I can’t fathom how they landed on such a strange moniker. Now that I am older and established, I understand a bit more about the ways of humans and workings of the world. My disquieting experience was just part of the process of finding the right family. Even though I was the last of the litter to be adopted, I am glad that it took so long, because as the humans say, “good things come to those who wait”. I bet my siblings would be jealous! However, my joys in life are tempered by small aggravations. My sweet but silly minded adoptive family didn’t have the good sense to stop at one perfect child. It seems as though they have a soft spot for other dim witted creatures. Shortly after my second birthday, they brought home a small black and white terror, they call Liebchen. But that is a story for another time…

Writer’s Workshop Reflection:

On my writer’s workshop blog, I focused mainly on writing poetry, but I did post a handful of journal entries. The journal entries I posted which dealt with my various pet procuring moments received the majority of commentary from my peers; therefore I decided to work on redrafting one of these items rather than one of my poems. The story I redrafted was inspired by an event that took place almost ten years ago when my husband and I decided to obtain our first little furry family member. I initially wrote about this fond family moment from my own perspective, however, acting on my blogmates’ suggestions I changed the perspective on the piece and added internal dialogue – a significant stretch for me as a writer. Even though this was a rather challenging piece for me to pen, it was actually amusing to put myself in the mind of a now 20 pound bed hog! Our cat was indeed born the runt of the litter; however, he has always had a rather imperious if not demanding personality, often putting my children and other pets in their respective places with the occasional swat or hiss when boundaries are overstepped. Therefore, while telling the story of his acquisition I endeavored to reflect his haughtier side through the expressions and vocabulary I employed. All things being considered, I found this exercise to be extremely enjoyable. It definitely helped me look at modes of writing and ways giving feedback in a new light and allowed me to stretch my wings are a writer.