In the essay by Giroux titled, “Reading Texts, Literacy, and Textual Authority” he is enforcing the need that a change in the education of students is drastic. The old ways of students being “passive consumers” and teachers being “reduced to a dispenser of knowledge” needs to change (86). Teachers need to be able to adapt to the different discourses that surround students’ lives. He writes of the “Great Books approach” and how it represents a model in which students are not active in their learning (86). They read to only come to class and discover the “true” or only meaning of the text. This of course is not the case because there is always more than one interpretation of a novel. What students often think is that there is only one correct way to interpret a novel and it may not be till college level they feel comfortable or are even aware that other interpretations are available. This brings it back to the point that teachers need to stop allowing students to be passive learners and allow them to become active in their education.
When novels are interpreted there is also the problem that educators lead their students towards the direction of the popular interpretation. This is the one students will often find while scrolling through the SparkNotes website. Yes, these interpretations often have the most evidence to support them, but it does not mean there are absolutely no other ones. Teachers need to be aware that they educate their students on how important it is to provide solid textual evidence that supports their interpretation. This way, teachers are not hindering their students and taking away their creativity to explore the text for themselves. Of course, as an educator, it is important for teachers to make sure students are not going totally off course when giving their interpretation. This line between, what is the “correct” answer and what is deemed “wrong” is often blurred and may vary from teacher to teacher.
An important point Giroux focuses on in his essay, is the importance that teachers of English need to “employ textual authority as forms of social and political discourse that bear significantly on the ways in which knowledge and classroom social practices are constructed in the relations of domination and oppression” (87). Giroux claims that students are not able to benefit from learning because it is not placed within a context that is relatable to a student’s life. He argues, for example, that the lesson plans being set on student’s learning writing skills are being “devalued because it is falsely defined as a pedagogy of skill acquisition rather than a ‘creative and genuine’ form of cultural production” (88). Students are being taught elements of writing, but think it is only necessary to learn this skill to pass tests and pass the class. They need to be exposed to life events that incorporate the skills they are learning in the classroom to justify why they are learning what they are. This seems to be the missing link that Giroux is claiming teachers are lacking in their lesson plans.
Giroux is not simply stating that teachers need to implement everyday life into the skills students are learning, he is also writing this essay for a call for action by teachers. He wants teachers to be active members of their school and challenge the ways in which education is being conducted. Are teachers capable of this type of all-powering notion that they can surpass all? Even with teachers that have families and other responsibilities besides teaching, can this amount of “public intellectual” identity be carried out? Or is Giroux asking for a sacrificing of teacher’s lives in order to create his idealistic type of education system?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Finding the voice inside the student
Class and gender are two large impactors when it comes to education. Pamela Hartman and Robert Yagelski are two people who have done research that directly support this claim. By taking a close look into the lives of students and their performance in their writing and in the classroom, it is clear to see a connection. Writers are in a constant process of trying to find their voice through their work and students are constantly looking for their own identity in the educational setting. These theories are important to investigate because if they are true, it is important to find an answer as to how this should be dealt with from the standpoint of a teacher.
Yagelski, in “Writing Roles for Ourselves”, tackles the idea of educational discourses bleeding into discourse that awaits each individual in their lifetime. He does so by discussing a couple of students’ writing that he dealt with in his time as a writing instructor. Beginning with an African-American female student, he was able to show the broadness of discourses that a student can deal with. She used her writing as an opportunity to communicate her own personal struggles with discourse as a member of a minority community. There is the discourse that is expected of African-Americans amongst each other and the discourse that is expected in the college classroom. While these two discourse communities are completely different, they exist all at once in her life. In her writing, Yagelski points out that she struggles with these internal issues while also concurrently discussing the issues that she is investigating. Another student Yagelski uses as an example is a middle-class, white male student. This student has self-esteem issues that he discusses in his discourse as a writer in Yagelski’s classroom. In writing dialogue that deals with a number of issues, some of which were meant to be personal, some of which weren’t, Yagelski noticed that the student was constantly dealing with his own esteem issues. The pattern that can be seen in these students is that their discourse is constantly self-inclusive. The writing that they do on various topics is also consisting of internal dialogue and finding a sense of self in the topic at hand. Yagelski appears to find that this includes even himself as he reads a flyer delivered on his doorstep about an upcoming construction project in his neighborhood. As a result of this literature he is influenced to go to meetings and vote about the topic and ultimately, as a result of the ruling, sell his home. All of these events included him investing the ‘self’ into his decision and discourse. Writing is in many ways self-expression and should not be detached from the self. This being so as a result of the impact that any topic at hand can have on the ‘self’.
Hartman, in “’Loud on the Inside’: Working-Class Gils, Gender, and Literacy”, similarly sees a strong connection between the individual and their performance in the classroom. She did a study of eleventh and twelve grade female students and studied how their social and societal backgrounds effected their performance in the classroom. She found a strong connection between the two. In one classroom, she broke the class into two separate lists: one consisting of working-class girls, and one the middle-class girls. Without knowing the information behind the list, the teacher of the class responded to it by pointing out that the girls on one side were much more vocal in class, while the other side tended to be quieter. The teacher was shocked when Hartman revealed the reasoning behind the separation on the list. She noted that all of the students are equally motivated, some just felt more comfortable taking part in the classroom interactions and discussions. Hartman theorizes that society has a strong role in this situation. She explains that society pushes their views on young influential minds through literature, movies, and working-class family structures. Women are often expected to be quiet and submit to the needs of males. She also points to many of these girls who are in quiet in the classroom being much more vocal in social circles outside of the classroom. This points to them being more concerned with how society views them than the academic world. Hartman sees some possible solutions to these problems. One way that there is help being given is through literature being introduced to the classroom that is less ‘romantic’ and less gender biased. Often women in the past have been forced to read primarily male narrated stories that force the woman to see the story through a man’s eyes. Women in these stories are placed in socially accepted roles. Hartman sees literature going in a better direction in schools as there is a place being given to women authors and books that bring diversity into the classroom. Her standpoint is that education should be ‘liberating’ and not ‘domesticating’. The long held view as the ‘good-girl’ being quiet in the classroom needs to be snuffed and there needs to be incentive and motivation for girls to participate in their academics.
As seen through the work of these two researchers, there are clear connections between class, gender, and education. It is important for the student to find his or her voice in the academic world because it is vital once one takes the step out of the classroom and into the world. One important way to do this is seen in Hartman’s observations as she illustrates how the teacher makes it a point for the classroom to feel like a safe, comfortable place where the student is not being forced to do anything, but instead feels comfortable to do so. This teacher moves from one topic to another when she sees students not responding to one. The success of this method indicates just how important it is for the student to find his or her self in the literature being discussed. Students have voice and need to be encouraged to find that voice and not be silenced.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Discourse, Of Course, Of Course
David Barton provides insight in great detail about the link between literacy and language. Literacy embedded in language discusses the constructiveness of language which influences the discourse of literacy. Three key aspects Barton presents in his text are that “there are different forms of language, which can be referred to as discourses; that these result in written texts; and that these texts mediate people’s experiences” (Barton 73).
The idea that there are various forms of language is evidence that we are divided and connected by ways of registers and genres. According to Barton, registers are simply the uses of speech language in different situations. Depending on the context of the environment and audience, there is a sense of adaptation to the language used in order to best fit the conversation. When I’m around older people and young children, I do not use profanity. Around my friends, I can let slip a few expletives once in a while. Perhaps it is easier to think of it as the jargon shared between a particular group like lawyers, doctors, or even teenagers. While registers involve oral communication, genres shape the language, as Barton indicates, by using the form of writing. Such genres of the written language include poetry, news articles, novels, and even classified ads.
These two together contribute to a larger sphere of language called discourse. Because discourse is the combination of the two divisions, its definition results from how one uses the language shared by individuals of that particular community. New discourses are created by piecing together parts taken from a person’s existing registers and genres (Barton 75). The discourse is diversified by the modification of the user’s registers and genres in the changing environments. Barton discusses further that discourse is not limited only to social interaction but also to behavior and setting which is a person’s ‘way of being’ (Barton 75). It is the language of a community that influences and is influenced by the participants of that group.
“A discourse community is a group of people who have texts and practices in common” (Barton 75). Discourse communities intertwine depending on the intended audience, the actual audience, or the oral and textual participants. What you learn in one community can transfer or be useful in another community like having a behavior and using the language of professionalism on campus and in the work room. Using this definition, you can infer that there are tighter and looser communities. Not knowing the newest of slang words can alienate a person wishing to join a hipster group. The different uses of the text can include or exclude the reader through the uses of specific language. It can either be more accessible or more restrictive depending on the intention of the writer. However, the producer of the text is not the only one who can give meaning through the text. Reading, as well as writing, is an interactive activity that gives the reader an opportunity to extract meaning from the text. The interpretation can also rely on a person’s background or identity. An imaginative child reading Lewis Carroll’s’ Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass would approach it differently than a forty year old realist.
Having some form of communication is important to the survival of perhaps every single species. Language is an enormously important part of our lives as humans. Communication is healthy, encouraged, and necessary. Barton states that “language mediates our experiences…The view of language which we construct internally is influenced by the language we have available…Language mediates thought and it contains the metaphors we live by” (Barton 84). Everything is organized by language especially knowledge. Does how we speak reveal our identity? If I rhymed like a rapper, would you think I am one? I am not so sure; I’m just you asking a question.
James Gee’s Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy? highlight some of Barton’s main points about discourse and language. In the first reading mentioned, Gee agrees with Barton when he says “It is not just what you say, but how you say it…It is not just how you say it, but what you are and do when you say it” (Gee 5). By agreeing with Gee, I could say that language is too limited in its function. It forgets the bodily reaction and beliefs of the speaker and audience which is significant to the discussion of literacy. Communication involves very much an appropriate behavior to the situation in which one is placed. However, that doesn’t make language is invaluable. There is just a sense of displacement of attention to what is truly considerable to the literacy discourse.
Gee discusses further his concept of Discourse which is defined by a thing much greater than language. The “saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations” make up Gee’s outline of Discourse (Gee 6). It involves much greater elements including that of a person’s attitude, diction, and philosophies. You can even consider the physical movements of a person while they are speaking. Gee calls this the ‘identity kit’ of a person which affects how someone thinks, talks, and acts (Gee 7).
Gee divides Discourse into separate degrees of socialization. First, there is the primary Discourse which is the foundation of an identity created by the early interactions of the self and the world. It is the identity of the home that is carried to different Discourses throughout our lives. The Discourses that are later acquired out in the social networks of the public sphere are known as secondary Discourses. These include developed Discourses ranging from places such as the jobsites to churches to bars. Each of these will have their own Discourse developed by the members of the community which can be passed on to future participants wishing to join.
There are also subgenres of Discourses known as dominant Discourse and nondominant Discourse defined by Gee on page eight:
Dominant Discourses are secondary Discourses the mastery of which, at a particular place and time, brings with it the (potential) acquisition of social “goods” (money, prestige, status, etc.). nondominant discourses are secondary Discourses the mastery of which often brings solidarity with a particular social network, but not wider status and social goods in the society at large.
Discourses can be developed through many different ways by many different people. Like Barton, Gee acknowledges the overlap and the possibility of exclusivity/inclusivity of the Discourses.
From this discussion, Gee defines literacy as “the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse” (Gee 9). This includes speech acts and writing competencies. The definition becomes problematic for teachers because of the misunderstanding of how secondary Discourses are acquired. On page twelve, Gee clarifies this standpoint: “even though Discourses cannot be overtly taught, and cannot readily be mastered late in the game, the University wants teachers to overtly teach and wants students to demonstrate master.” This leads to the ‘mushfake Discourse’ on page thirteen which is the “partial acquisition coupled with meta-knowledge and strategies to ‘make do.’” Because of the impossibility of instruction and learning of secondary Discourses, the attempt is a failed but almost successful quality of Discourse integration.
What is Literacy? discusses in depth the philosophies of discourse. Five notable elements to consider about discourse is 1) “Discourses are inherently ‘ideological’ 2) they are “resistant to internal criticism and self-scrutiny” 3) “Discourse-defined positions from which to speak and behave are not. However, just defined internal to a discourse, but also as standpoints taken up by the discourse in its relation to other, ultimately opposing, discourses” 4) “Any discourse concerns itself with certain objects and puts forward certain concepts, viewpoints, and values at the expense of other” thus marginalizing the opinions and beliefs of other discourses 5) They are “intimately related to the distribution of social power and hierarchical structure in society” (Gee 19).
Acquisition and learning is our means of survival, our ways of gaining knowledge in order to be able to function successfully in society. There is ultimately a struggle of power in the differing parts. Whereas “acquisition is good for performance, learning is good for meta-level knowledge” (Gee 21). Acquiring particular skills of a discourse only allows a person to perform the role but not actively engage in the community. Meta-knowledge provides a person with the comprehension important to literacy practices and the distinction of discourses that allows the person to be comfortably situated in a changing environment. The more social institutions are open for someone to learn this knowledge, the better the opportunity it is for someone to enter a discourse community.
Barton and Gee dive into interesting ideas of literacy and discourses. From Barton’s perspective, language is important to the contribution of discourses, registers, genres. Gee goes beyond that and considers the entirety of social interaction to include physical movements, intimate values, and personal beliefs. Gee also goes into further detail about acquisition, learning, and teaching and the contradiction of the educational system by discussing the concept of secondary discourses.
The idea that there are various forms of language is evidence that we are divided and connected by ways of registers and genres. According to Barton, registers are simply the uses of speech language in different situations. Depending on the context of the environment and audience, there is a sense of adaptation to the language used in order to best fit the conversation. When I’m around older people and young children, I do not use profanity. Around my friends, I can let slip a few expletives once in a while. Perhaps it is easier to think of it as the jargon shared between a particular group like lawyers, doctors, or even teenagers. While registers involve oral communication, genres shape the language, as Barton indicates, by using the form of writing. Such genres of the written language include poetry, news articles, novels, and even classified ads.
These two together contribute to a larger sphere of language called discourse. Because discourse is the combination of the two divisions, its definition results from how one uses the language shared by individuals of that particular community. New discourses are created by piecing together parts taken from a person’s existing registers and genres (Barton 75). The discourse is diversified by the modification of the user’s registers and genres in the changing environments. Barton discusses further that discourse is not limited only to social interaction but also to behavior and setting which is a person’s ‘way of being’ (Barton 75). It is the language of a community that influences and is influenced by the participants of that group.
“A discourse community is a group of people who have texts and practices in common” (Barton 75). Discourse communities intertwine depending on the intended audience, the actual audience, or the oral and textual participants. What you learn in one community can transfer or be useful in another community like having a behavior and using the language of professionalism on campus and in the work room. Using this definition, you can infer that there are tighter and looser communities. Not knowing the newest of slang words can alienate a person wishing to join a hipster group. The different uses of the text can include or exclude the reader through the uses of specific language. It can either be more accessible or more restrictive depending on the intention of the writer. However, the producer of the text is not the only one who can give meaning through the text. Reading, as well as writing, is an interactive activity that gives the reader an opportunity to extract meaning from the text. The interpretation can also rely on a person’s background or identity. An imaginative child reading Lewis Carroll’s’ Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass would approach it differently than a forty year old realist.
Having some form of communication is important to the survival of perhaps every single species. Language is an enormously important part of our lives as humans. Communication is healthy, encouraged, and necessary. Barton states that “language mediates our experiences…The view of language which we construct internally is influenced by the language we have available…Language mediates thought and it contains the metaphors we live by” (Barton 84). Everything is organized by language especially knowledge. Does how we speak reveal our identity? If I rhymed like a rapper, would you think I am one? I am not so sure; I’m just you asking a question.
James Gee’s Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy? highlight some of Barton’s main points about discourse and language. In the first reading mentioned, Gee agrees with Barton when he says “It is not just what you say, but how you say it…It is not just how you say it, but what you are and do when you say it” (Gee 5). By agreeing with Gee, I could say that language is too limited in its function. It forgets the bodily reaction and beliefs of the speaker and audience which is significant to the discussion of literacy. Communication involves very much an appropriate behavior to the situation in which one is placed. However, that doesn’t make language is invaluable. There is just a sense of displacement of attention to what is truly considerable to the literacy discourse.
Gee discusses further his concept of Discourse which is defined by a thing much greater than language. The “saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations” make up Gee’s outline of Discourse (Gee 6). It involves much greater elements including that of a person’s attitude, diction, and philosophies. You can even consider the physical movements of a person while they are speaking. Gee calls this the ‘identity kit’ of a person which affects how someone thinks, talks, and acts (Gee 7).
Gee divides Discourse into separate degrees of socialization. First, there is the primary Discourse which is the foundation of an identity created by the early interactions of the self and the world. It is the identity of the home that is carried to different Discourses throughout our lives. The Discourses that are later acquired out in the social networks of the public sphere are known as secondary Discourses. These include developed Discourses ranging from places such as the jobsites to churches to bars. Each of these will have their own Discourse developed by the members of the community which can be passed on to future participants wishing to join.
There are also subgenres of Discourses known as dominant Discourse and nondominant Discourse defined by Gee on page eight:
Dominant Discourses are secondary Discourses the mastery of which, at a particular place and time, brings with it the (potential) acquisition of social “goods” (money, prestige, status, etc.). nondominant discourses are secondary Discourses the mastery of which often brings solidarity with a particular social network, but not wider status and social goods in the society at large.
Discourses can be developed through many different ways by many different people. Like Barton, Gee acknowledges the overlap and the possibility of exclusivity/inclusivity of the Discourses.
From this discussion, Gee defines literacy as “the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse” (Gee 9). This includes speech acts and writing competencies. The definition becomes problematic for teachers because of the misunderstanding of how secondary Discourses are acquired. On page twelve, Gee clarifies this standpoint: “even though Discourses cannot be overtly taught, and cannot readily be mastered late in the game, the University wants teachers to overtly teach and wants students to demonstrate master.” This leads to the ‘mushfake Discourse’ on page thirteen which is the “partial acquisition coupled with meta-knowledge and strategies to ‘make do.’” Because of the impossibility of instruction and learning of secondary Discourses, the attempt is a failed but almost successful quality of Discourse integration.
What is Literacy? discusses in depth the philosophies of discourse. Five notable elements to consider about discourse is 1) “Discourses are inherently ‘ideological’ 2) they are “resistant to internal criticism and self-scrutiny” 3) “Discourse-defined positions from which to speak and behave are not. However, just defined internal to a discourse, but also as standpoints taken up by the discourse in its relation to other, ultimately opposing, discourses” 4) “Any discourse concerns itself with certain objects and puts forward certain concepts, viewpoints, and values at the expense of other” thus marginalizing the opinions and beliefs of other discourses 5) They are “intimately related to the distribution of social power and hierarchical structure in society” (Gee 19).
Acquisition and learning is our means of survival, our ways of gaining knowledge in order to be able to function successfully in society. There is ultimately a struggle of power in the differing parts. Whereas “acquisition is good for performance, learning is good for meta-level knowledge” (Gee 21). Acquiring particular skills of a discourse only allows a person to perform the role but not actively engage in the community. Meta-knowledge provides a person with the comprehension important to literacy practices and the distinction of discourses that allows the person to be comfortably situated in a changing environment. The more social institutions are open for someone to learn this knowledge, the better the opportunity it is for someone to enter a discourse community.
Barton and Gee dive into interesting ideas of literacy and discourses. From Barton’s perspective, language is important to the contribution of discourses, registers, genres. Gee goes beyond that and considers the entirety of social interaction to include physical movements, intimate values, and personal beliefs. Gee also goes into further detail about acquisition, learning, and teaching and the contradiction of the educational system by discussing the concept of secondary discourses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)