Articles without question

Hello all,
   There are a handful of articles that do not have questions. If you decide to read a question that falls within this description, please consider formulating/creating a question for your classmates. Questions will fulfill the the blog entry requirement. Contiguously, if you answer a question created by one of your classmates, this too fulfills the blog entry requirement. Lastly, remember that you only have to complete 10 blog entries by the end of the semester; consequently, there are 5 weeks during the semester where you may skip posting blog entries altogether.

In order to read the remaining comments on the model minority myth, open the comment section of the previous post.

re: Today's discussion

Hello again,
   I really appreciate the level of participation, respect, and candor that was displayed in today's section. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the variegated perspectives, concerns, and issues brought to the fore by this oftentimes incendiary, yet altogether important topic.  Thanks! You gals and guys are, in a word: awesome.

In class I alluded to a discussion about the model minority myth. I am pasting the conversation that took place on the blog to this post:

Hi class,

We had some great and powerful discussions in class this Thursday and I went home thinking a lot about them. So, I sent Jeremiah an email specifically about our discussion on Asian Americans and he asked that I share this with you all as well. I, myself, would love to hear what you all have to say. The following is most of my email to Jeremiah:

"We had some great discussions today in class! I just wanted to email you

about our discussion on Asian Americans and their economic and political

station in America. If I am not mistaken, you mentioned that many Asian

Americans are currently pretty well off economically. However, they lack

political power. This I agree with. I mean, I haven't seen any Asian

protest groups on campus either. However, I know of a few Asian youth

groups that do a lot of advocacy work in their communities (AYPAL in

Oakland being one). I can't help but wonder if whether our stereotypes of

Asian Americans (as submissive, docile, silent, etc) play a role in the

lack of political activism, or perhaps the stereotypes are keeping us from

seeing that Asian Americans are indeed active? I'm not very sure.

You also brought up a point that Asian Americans, unlike other minority

groups, have almost positive stereotypes. (Or more positive stereotypes

vis-a-vis those placed on Blacks or Latinos -- Asians stereotyped as smart

versus Blacks being stereotyped as dumb). Correct me if I took it the

wrong way, but I'm not sure any stereotype is positive. Being placed as

the "model minority" and being stereotyped as smart has some pretty

negative repercussions, especially for those Asians who do not meet the

expectations. A lot of the Southeast Asian ethnic groups (Laotians and

Cambodians for example) face a lot of the same realities many other people

of color in poverty face. However, when Asians as an umbrella group are

seen as doing well in the academic and professional realms, as being smart

enough, it unjustly covers up a lot of the struggles many groups of Asians

still endure -- and as a result hiding a lot of the political support and

help many Asian groups still need. It's this notion that Asians are doing

well, they are well-off economically (and some groups of Asians are) that

ties into this perception that political involvement is unnecessary.

However, I'm not sure lacking a political voice is ever desirable, even

with economic prosperity as a trade-off. (Not saying this is what you were

arguing, however. The discussion had me thinking.)

Please share any thoughts you may have."

Where to find the reading-related questions

Hello all,
   If, for whatever reason, you are having trouble locating the reading-related questions, simple click on "August" on the right side of the blog. I uploaded all of the questions in August, so they are all there.

IMPORTANT: Section this Thursday 9-29-2011

Hello all,
   I hope you all had restful yet productive weekends. As I am sure most of you have noticed, I have yet to assign presentation groups for this week. Here's why: this week, we are going to try something a little different. Instead of presenting on articles in front of your classmates, we are going to have information circles. Here's what this will look like: each group will still do a close reading of an assigned article (assignments will be pasted below); however, instead of presenting together as a group, each group member will join a circle comprised of one group member of another presentation group. So, for this week there will be a total of 8 readings including the two that I overlooked last week (Rodriguez & Tan). I will cover these two articles, which leaves 6 remaining readings to be covered. Here are the reading assignments (note: I moved a few people around; these changes are just for this week):

Lam (2004), Border discourses...

Group:

DJ Campbell  

Matt Williams 

Remington Price 

James Lubell 

David Keys 

Pratt (1999), Arts of the contact zone... 

Group:  

Yoon Ju Lee 

Rocio Sanchez 

Yoojung Kwon 

Isaiah Kang 

Stephanie Chau

Pearson (2001), Life in the radical middle... 

Group: 

Vishal Baheti 

David Song 

Juyeon Baek 

Shannon Hawari 

Kathy Shen

Brumer (1998), Phoncis and politics... 

Group:  

Nicholas Piccinini 

Joshua Tovar 

Alister Meshkin 

Soon-Chan Kim 

Orellana, et al., (2003), In other words... 

Groups: 

Laqshya Taneja 

Sasha Rasmussen 

Scott Sok 

Tina Chen

Dorner, et al., (2007), I helped my mom...

Group:

Victor Sandifer

Jelani Dunn 

Julia Heunis

Nancy Ledesma

Again, instead of presentations, we will form informational circles this week. Each circle will have an expert from each article so that all of the articles will be covered. More precisely, each group will feature one person who read Lam, one who read, Pratt, one who read Pearson, so on and so forth.

Field note policies

FIELDNOTE POLICIES:

Fieldnotes are a record of your experiences at your volunteer site this term. They are an important way for you to reflect on what you are doing and learning. They will also be the most important source of data for your case study project.

Logistics of submitting fieldnotes

Please submit your fieldnotes electronically to your GSI or Nora. Detailed directions for this will be provided in  class. Turn in separate FIELDNOTES for each visit. Remember to copy and paste the Fieldnote into the body of the email, AND send an attachment. Do BOTH.

Important: To ensure you are given full credit for your fieldnotes, you must format the fieldnote and  the emil subject line correctly, as detailed in this syllabus. The email subject line must include the following:

First_name Last_name Fieldnote #  (for example: Gilbert Goldenbar, Fieldnote #2)

           

Requirements and Due Dates

A total of ten fieldnotes are required. Each Fieldnote is worth three points (for a total of 30 points). Fieldnotes should be completed as early in the term as possible so you can concentrate on writing your case study. Collectively, fieldnotes represent 15% of your grade. Here is a word of advice: Write your fieldnotes AS SOON AS POSSIBLE after you get home from volunteering. You will remember the key details MUCH BETTER than if you wait even a day or two. Fieldnotes are due Saturday by 11:59 p.m. ONLY ONE FIELDNOTE PER WEEK WILL BE ACCEPTED; NO LATE FIELDNOTES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Fieldnote heading

Please include your name, your email address, the site, the date, the main activities you took part in, and the names of the people you interacted with. See examples in the reader; you will not receive full credit for your fieldnote if you do not format the fieldnote in the manner detailed in this syllabus and modeled in the course reader.

Fieldnote format

Fieldnotes have 3 sections and should be labeled with each of the following headings:

            A) General Observations. This section is particularly important at the very beginning of the semester as you become familiar with your volunteer site. In your first fieldnote, give a DETAILED description of your volunteer site and its neighborhood based on your first impressions. Also provide a general description of all the activities you took part in that day. Update the description of the volunteer site (and the neighborhood) as things change or as you notice new things. In every installment, give a general description of all the activities you participated in. In this section you are providing a context for the rest of the fieldnotes. Focus on what you saw and heard (and maybe smelled, touched or tasted).

            B) Focused Observations. This will normally be the longest part of each fieldnote (perhaps 2-3 good paragraphs, but you can write more). For each site visit, pick out the one activity that was most interesting, significant, harrowing, insightful, humorous, etc. Give a DETAILED description of this activity and the people participating (names if possible – no pseudonyms, please). Describe the participants’ appearance: age, clothing, gestures, hairstyle, mannerisms, etc. Describe exactly what happened, blow by blow. Report anything significant that was said, in as close as possible to the exact words.           

C) Reflections. Finally, write at least one good detailed paragraph on what you thought and felt about your visit, and especially what happened in the activity described in your Focused Observations section. What did you learn from this activity? If possible, relate (or contrast) your experiences to any of the EDUC 140AC readings from the term and/or to class discussions. After WEEK 3, in preparation for writing your case study, you must at least briefly relate your experiences to class readings, videos, or discussions in order to get full points for your fieldnotes. As much as possible, please keep personal value judgments out of your General Observations and Focused Observations sections. We will discuss this further in class and in sections.

Fieldnotes

When are the fieldnotes for each week due? Do we send these to you by email?

Thanks,

Laqshya

Here are the questions for this weeks readings:

There are a few of you who were having a hard time locating this week's questions, so here they are:

Moll

•  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?

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?

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?

Rose

• Based on his experiences with Vocational education, it seems as though Rose invokes his buoyancy metaphor, (students will float...), pejoratively; is there way in which it can be viewed positively? (Please explain)
• Rose described the “Voc Ed” track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected”; first of all, what does he mean by this? And, secondly, do you feel that remedial tracks still represent a “dumping ground” of sorts? Why or why not?
• What does it mean to be “groomed for the classroom”? On page 37 of the reading (the last full paragraph), Rose describes his subjective experience with literacy: which of Scribner’s three metaphors best encapsulates the relationship that Rose depicts?

WEEK 5 Blog Entry

What They Don't Learn in School-

I stand by Ferdman in his argument that cultural valuation equates to a child’s inclination to put a higher value on the learning experience, which consequently leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition.

Ferdman goes to argue that a school’s or teacher’s inability to access the student’s mind and guide them on both an academic and intellectual journey to success is because of their failed attempt to effectively bridge the contrasting home and school cultures of urban youth. I know that when I was younger, if the lesson was somehow related to my life, it just stuck more. Ferdman brings up quite an interesting argument regarding inequities in education that I have never thought about, cultures and cultural values of students actually play a big part in a child’s experience at school. It is implied by Ferdman that students who are members of ethnic minority groups may not have an equal shot at educational achievement because they are disadvantaged by their own ethnicity. Not because the lesson plan or the teacher may be engaging in racist acts, but because the majority ethnic group creates a sort of academic culture and climate that may not always be inclusive or conducive to their learning. Ferdman argues that this is a lack of consideration and in my opinion, I have to agree. In a way, this coincides with the idea that instruction should be given in that student’s native tongue, if a teacher or school makes the effort to in a way customize teaching and gear it towards that particular student or group of students, academic material would be better received and consequently, students’ retention of academic and educational material would also go up.

It’s not enough to address and make accommodations for the majority, the minority also has the ability to contribute to the whole, educators and proponents of academia need to work harder to level out the playing field and create a climate of inclusiveness and equality in schools, not just in areas regarding access to resources, but equally important, cultural equality as well. Material should be the same, but it is the techniques that we go about teaching that material that needs special attention.

Groups for this week...

We are going to stick with the same groups as last week. So, please refer back to the initial post, which listed the presentation groupings.

So, the first group listed, for example, which covered Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, will cover the first listed reading for this week (which is the Moll et al., piece). The same holds true for groups 2-4 as well: these groups will present in the same order, meaning the group who presented on the second article last week will also present on the second article this week's readings (Morrell), and the group that went third last week will present on third article (Rose) this week; and lastly,group four from last week will present on Anzaldua this week.

However, group five (Ambe), because they were unable to present last week, will not have a new article to present on this week. Instead, they will do the presentation that they were unable to do last Thursday.

Class 7: Thursday September 15
Meeting students halfway

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, (31), 2, 132-141.
Moll and his coauthors describe their collaborative project involving joint research with teachers, students, and families in southern Arizona. He uses his concept of “funds of knowledge” to refer to knowledge about their worlds that children bring to school, and offers ways that teachers can build on such knowledge.

Morrell, E. & Duncan-Andrade, J. (2004). What they do learn in school: Hip-hop as a bridge to canonical poetry (247-272). In J. Mahiri (Ed.), What they don’t learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban youth. New York: Peter Lang.
Teacher-researchers discuss their pedagogy, which integrates elements of popular culture into English literature lessons. This piece provides a model for employing methods and ideas presented in ED140AC.

WEEK 5
Class 8: Tuesday September 20
Literacy as narrative (and narrative as literacy)

Rose, M. (1989). “I just wanna be average.” In Lives on the boundary: An account of the struggles and achievements of America's educationally under-prepared (11-37). New York: Penguin.
Rose writes an evocative account of his years in the “voc ed” track, reflecting on his own school experiences in light of public discussions of education and the underrepresented student.

Anzaldua, G. (1987). How to tame a wild tongue. In Borderlands/La Frontera: The new mestiza (53-64). San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.
This essay describes Anzaldua's experience as a bilingual/biliterate/bicultural woman living along the Texas/Mexico border, attempting to negotiate a number of boundaries that separate languages, peoples, and ideas.

Clarification--

I am posting because I am unclear as to what questions we are to respond to for our weekly blog posts. Do we respond to the questions that are posted for the particular author of our choice? Or do we respond to a question from the list that is posted (like the post below this one titled, "Supplemental questions for remaining readings?")

I ask because I posted under the post, "Questions for Moll: Funds of Knowledge," but I am not certain if that is the correct post to respond to. Should have I responded to the "Supplemental questions..." post instead? Or am I required to do that in addition? Or...?

Thanks for your help!
Happy Thursday, Everyone! :]

I have deleted the supplemental questions...

The supplemental questions were only intended to be additional questions for last week, nothing more. However, they seemed to have caused mass confusion; so now they are gone.

Week 4 readings

Week 4 reading blog

The reading for this week is as follows:

Supporting student reading and writing

Hammons, Jane. (2001). Bigger than Michael Jordan. High Plains Literary Review XVI (2&3), 138-152.

Hull, G. & Rose, M. (1990). “The wooden shack place”: The logic of an unconventional reading. College Composition and Communication 4, 3: 287-298.

Ambe, E.B. (2007). Inviting reluctant adolescent readers into the literacy club: Some comprehension strategies to tutor individuals or small groups of reluctant readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (50), 8, 632-639.

Meeting students halfway

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, (31), 2, 132-141.

Morrell, E. & Duncan-Andrade, J. (2004). What they do learn in school: Hip-hop as a bridge to canonical poetry (247-272). In J. Mahiri (Ed.), What they don’t learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban youth. New York: Peter Lang.

IMPORTANT: Screen names & Unknowns on the blog

Hello all,
   For whatever reason, every semester, there are a handful of "unknowns" on the blog. I need to know who you are in order to give  credit for the work turned in. So, please pick a blogger name for this site. It doesn't have to be your real name. That said, if you use a pseudonym/screen name on this site, (i.e., any name than different from the name that is on the official roster), please email me. I need to match real names with pseudonyms in order to ensure that points are assigned correctly. Thanks.

If you're are not part of an assigned reading group...

Please email me so that I can assign you a reading group (jsims@berkeley.edu).

More on blog entries: Due date of blog posts

Your blog posts are due on Wednesday, by 9:00PM. To be clear, there are only 10 blog posts due all semester, so, you will not have to do one each week. Also, please remember that you only submit one blog entry (response) per week. (Obviously, you can post to the blog with items other than blog entries whenever you like.)

Groups for next week's presentations: Thursday 9/29/2011

Lam (2004), Border discourses...

Group: 

DJ Campbell

Matt Williams

Remington Price

James Lubell

David Keys

nancy ledesma (nancy, i apologize, my phone will not allow me to capitalize your first and last name)

Pratt (1999), Arts of the contact zone...

Group:  

Yoon Ju Lee

Rocio Sanchez

Yoojung Kwon

Isaiah Kang

Stephanie Chau

Pearson (2001), Life in the radical middle...

Group: 

Vishal Baheti

David Song

Juyeon Baek

Shannon Hawari

Kathy Shen

Brumer (1998), Phonics and the politics....

Group:  

Nicholas Piccinini

Joshua Tovar

Alister Meshkin

Soon-Chan Kim

Tina Chen

Orellana (2003), In other words...

Groups:

Laqshya Taneja

Sasha Rasmussen

Scott Sok

Jelani Dunn
Julia Heunis

Dorner, et al. 2007), I helped my mom...
Jeremiah
Victor

Hello all,

   Since some of you still had questions, here’s further clarification on the blog entry protocol.

Let’s get started:

Here are the readings for the next two weeks:

WEEK 3

• Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th Anniversary Edition (2000) with an introduction by Donaldo Macedo (71-86). New York: Continuum.
• Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Chapter 7: Literacy and critical pedagogy (98—110). In Reading the word and the world. London: Routledge.

WEEK 4

• Hammons, Jane. (2001). Bigger than Michael Jordan. High Plains Literary Review XVI (2&3), 138-152.
• Hull, G. & Rose, M. (1990). “The wooden shack place”: The logic of an unconventional reading. College Composition and Communication 4, 3: 287-298.
• Ambe, E.B. (2007). Inviting reluctant adolescent readers into the literacy club: Some comprehension strategies to tutor individuals or small groups of reluctant readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (50), 8, 632-639.

So, then, here’s how it works: Every week different groups of students will present on articles (pre)assigned them by yours truly. For example, say a group that consists of Julia, James, Alister, Scott, and Jelani are assigned Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, said group will, then, be responsible for presenting on this article to the rest of the class during section. However, this group should not answer any of the questions associated with this article; instead, said group should answer a (any) question other than the questions from the list connected to Freire (i.e., their pre-assigned article for the week). So, in this example, this esteemed group is free answer a (any) question from any of the remaining readings (see above for list).

Please let me know if there are remaining questions.