Welcome to the fall 2011 Ed 140 blog!

Pertinent information on blog entries


        Each week students in this section will be responsible for answering one of two (posted) reading-related questions; these questions will come directly from the readings for that week. Your responses should demonstrate some understanding of the material in question; that is to say, I am less interested in whether or not you liked the assigned articles (though I hope you do), than I am in your ability to identify and critically analyze the positions/main arguments presented within the texts.
       However, if you do not find my questions particularly compelling and wish to pose your own instead, you are welcome to do so. Your query (in order to earn the full two points) must ask an important question and provide context as to why you have deemed the question “worth asking”. Likewise, if you opt to address a post from one of your classmates (in detail) rather than answer the assigned questions, this too is acceptable. I want this blog to be our dialogue; so, to be clear I am disinterested in twenty-plus, slightly differently-worded answers to the same two questions. I much prefer and feel it is far more helpful to have class-wide, multi-layered conversations on the texts that will be covering.

So now I’ll get to what you really care about...
In order to receive the full 2 points:

· Each entry should be at least 200 words, (but no more than 350 words).
· Spelling and grammar matter.
· Avoid summarizing in your responses; instead, offer an analysis of the text.

Mahiri & Sablo: Writing for their lives

• This article seems to operate under the assumption that literacy, in the final instance, is inherently“political”? Do you agree with His assertion? Please explain.
• Mahiri seems to be pushing for a reconceptualization of literacy, which includes the cultural offerings of traditionally marginalized students. Do you see this as a clear challenge to the American “canon”; and, how realistic, in the face of the overdetermination of a Western, Eurocentric epistemology, do you think the prospect of this reconceptualization is?

Morrell & Duncan-Andrade

• Morrell and Duncan-Andrade argue that students benefit from culturally relevant instruction, yet there has been (and continues to be) ardent resistance insofar as rethinking or recapitulation the “canon” is concerned. Why do you feel that there has been continued resistance to the incorporation of this kind of pedagogy?
• The authors cite Ferdman (1990) who argues that cultural valuation leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition; why do you believe this is the case? More specifically, do you feel that cultural valuation (i.e., valuing a student's culture) in fact leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition?
• Why is it important for students to be taught in their own “native” tongues; and, what kind of transformational  experiences do the authors attribute to this kind of instruction?

Hull & Rose: Wooden Shack Place

Hull &Rose:

• Why is freeing students from closed, canonical (and necessarily terminal) interpretations vitally important if we hope to help young people think critically about the sociocultural identities that are available to them? 
•  What do the authors mean when they argue that “hesitancy and uncertainty are central to knowledge making” (pp. 297 of original text)?

Questions for Moll: Funds of Knowledge

• Moll, on page 565 of the original text, claims that “by capitalizing on household and other community resources, we can organize classroom instruction that far exceeds in quality the rote-like instruction […] children commonly receive in school.” What would this shift practice look like, practically? That is, what would a classroom that eschews rote, mechanized instruction in favor of a more dialogic flow look life in your opinion? Describe the mise-en-scène. 
• According to Moll, why is it important to account for the variegated household dynamics found within his focal classroom, which is a relatively diverse classroom milieu?

Rodriguez: Hunger for memory

• Many readers find Rodriguez problematic: Do you agree? How do you think other academics might respond to Rodriguez's stance in relation to cultural heritage and language? If you're familiar with Gloria Anzaldua's work, how do you think she would respond to Rodriguez's perspectives on culture, education, and assimilation?

Anzaldua: Taming a wild tongue

Anzaldua:

• Anzaldua writes that the "home" tongues are the languages spoken among family and friends; according to Gee, what type of discourse is this? Please provide an example of the differences between your particular "home" tongue and the tongue you most frequently adopt when not at "home". 
•  Anzaldua argues that language is, essentially, twin-skin to culture; that is to say, that language both instantiates and carries culture. Please discuss what it is that she means by this; and, argue for why you agree or disagree with this argument?
• How can linguistic suppression, or worse oppression lead to negative mis-identification? More specifically, how can linguistic oppression lead to the internalization of pejorative associations for linguistically marginalized groups?

Pratt

Pratt:

• It seems as though Pratt is arguing that the notion of a speech community is predicated on a false assumption of cultural homogeneity? Do you agree with this argument: And, if so, why is it problematic?
• Pratt mentions perspectives of power, how can these asymmetrical power relationships, like teacher-student for example, be made more equitable?