Moll
- 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?
RESPONSE TO QUESTION#3- The “home” tongues that we speak at home is what Gee refers to as a the “oral mode,” literacy through acquisition in our daily face-to-face communication with intimates (family, friends, etc). In my personal experience, the language I have learned to speak at home has been in response and in connection to the culture and language my family speaks. My mom and dad grew up in a ranch in Mexico so the life and culture surrounding that lifestyle is definitely imbedded in the language we speak at home. At school and with non-Spanish speakers, I’ve seen my language drift from personal to academic(detached from reality/home). Theres less emotions involved.
ReplyDeleteBy arguing that language is twin-skin to culture, Anzaldua implies that language is informed, greatly by the things (colors, geographies, people, symbols, flavors, odors, sounds) that encompass our cultures. I can see this happening with my family and my “home tongue” where to say “echele ganas mija” doesn’t quite feel the same as “do your best, my child.”
In the case of Xicanas, the linguistic suppression/oppression that we are subjected to both outside and within our culture has led to a sort of mute(ing), where to have a language (find the voice) means to speak up both against the mainstream culture and our machista-driven culture. When Xicanas speak up, we break the tradition of silence/ we transgress / and thus, we heal our linguistic terrorism.
(My question) How does discourse, in Gees literature, relate to one of the metaphors posed in Scribner's reading. How do each relate to being "groomed for the classroom." Transcribe these articles to argue Rose's "dumping ground" experiences in Voc-Ed:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would like to articulate my subjective view on Scribner's poised Three Metaphors,focusing on "Literacy as Adaptation." This idiom seemingly focuses on "functional literacy [which] is conceived broadly at the level of proficiency necessary for effective performance in a range of settings and customary activities." Scribner then progresses (off topic?) to describe problematic paradigms in defining "functional literacy," instead of further defining features of "Literacy as Adaptation." Yet, she ends back on-topic with emphasis on: (1)Technology redefining literacy, and (2)how some communities demand(or practice)higher levels of literacy than others. "Literacy as Adaptation," from what I gathered, is one's ability to acquire and learn a set of skills in order to make him/herself "functionally literate" with whatever "community" they are engaged with.
This is aesthetic to mastering primary/secondary discourse's(Gee: "What is Literacy"- 7,8) in order to develop better communication and understanding of/in a culture.
Rose describes living in a world in which he experienced two levels of functional literacy, and mastered two levels of discourse. 1:(Voc. Ed.)in which he was seen as a student with minimal "literacy skills." As a result, he is seen, and engages in, a "dumping ground" of similar students. In this world, Rose-- largely-- adapted by setting the bar low for himself, starving himself of engagement or even meek interest in academia, while only coasting along with the expectations of mentors/peers around him: "fuck this bullshit... Bullshit, of course, is everything [he] and others, fear is beyond [them]." Bullshit being that they were in this "classroom," because they were not properly groomed enough to partake in lessons with the "average" students.
And, later, he finds another world,set by the demands and challenges of MacFarland. Rose struggled, initially--yet adapted to (Literacy as Adaptation),and thus performed well in; eventually excelling to the point of becoming literate in this discourse to such an extent it enables him to abdicate his old culture/discourse/literacy.
Anzaldua describes that language represents a culture and a social way of life.” Anzaldua says in the article that Anglos want to “get rid of [their] accents” and their cultural way of speaking. Meanwhile, she says that “[she]’d rattle something off in Spanish, unintentionally embarrassing [her California Chicano friends].” True Latinos would criticize her “forked tongue”/ “orphan tongue” (variation between English and Spanish). This shows that Anzaldua is being disapproved by both Spanish-speakers and English speakers. The only comfort she could find was in speaking her native language with her immediate family. According to Gee, a language or a type of speech spoken with close family or intimates is known as a “primary discourse.” I am of Indian descent, and I believe I speak my best Hindi with my family. I feel more comfortable speaking in anglicisms with them (e.g., “Happy Birthday” becomes “Happy Birday”). I speak English with my friends and other Indian friends; some do not know how to speak Hindi while others feel uncomfortable doing do. However, my closest friend and I do speak Hindi together. Speaking or learning in one's native language makes the overall effect of the communication much stronger (Friere and Macedo). At parties or at get-togethers, I find it difficult to carry on a Hindi conversation with family friends. At first, they were surprised that I could even speak Hindi. They often hesitate speaking fully, and interject “neutral English” every once in a while. I personally love being Indian and showcasing my heritage and language. Though my Hindi may not be perfect (growing up as a child in the U.S. leaves an accent in native languages), I am happy just the way I am. “Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself.”
ReplyDeleteResponse to Rose Q #1 & #2
ReplyDeleteRose’s buoyancy metaphor can be viewed positively in some cases. Because students float to the mark teachers set, if teachers set higher marks, then students may float higher. The buoyancy metaphor can be seen as rising up to the challenge and achieving more than students have initially imagined, if used in a setting where a teacher really knows a student’s zone of proximal development, scaffolds when necessary, and instills self-confidence. I thought about the student from New Orleans that Nora mentioned who was seen as a hero/survivor in California and given high expectations when in New Orleans teachers had low expectations for him.
By describing the Voc Ed track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected,” I thought Rose meant that the vocational education track was a place to isolate those who were struggling in class and daydreaming to avoid inadequacies like Rose from the other higher tracks, so students in Voc Ed won’t “get in the way” of those in other higher tracks. I think Rose considered not only students to be disaffected, but also the teachers were disaffected as well. The term disaffect is said to break down into not affected, which means estranged. In the Voc Ed track, Rose saw the teachers and students to be disconnected from true job skills. I feel that remedial tracks still represent a dumping ground of sorts, because any grouping of struggling students together is in itself a separation from other students and skilled teachers, especially if the other tracks receive more resources and advanced help.
Rose Q1
ReplyDeleteIn calling the “Voc Ed” track a “dumping ground for the disaffected,” Rose is adopting the cynical view point that the vocational education track is where the school system places all the kids who’ve they’ve given up on. When it’s thought that there’s no hope for a student, or perhaps when it’s thought that the process of educating him would be too labor or cost-intensive to be worth it, they’re placed in this “dumping ground.” Here, they can be kept out of the way of the rest of the school, pacified with low expectations and simple work. Rather than taking up the challenge of truly educating them, of demanding more of them and dealing with the resistance that is sure to follow, the school system finds it convenient to relegate them to a place where nothing is expected of them, and they can simply go through the school system and get out of it, none the better for the years of mandatory education they went through. Are remedial tracks still like that today? That’s difficult to say. No doubt it varies hugely from school to school, program to program, and in some instances even teacher to teacher. It would probably be an injustice to many dedicated educators to generalize and declare all remedial tracks such “dumping grounds”; on the other hand, it is undeniable that some remedial tracks indeed are this way. No investment is put into educating the “hopeless”; it is easier, and cheaper, to write them off as lost causes and dump them into a holding pen where they can wait until they’re at the age that the schools are no longer responsible for them.
Rose Q2 response
ReplyDeleteI agree with what iKang says about the Rose adopting the cynical view point of the vocational education track. What Rose means when he called the "Voc Ed" track as a "dumping ground for the disaffected" is that it serves as a way to basically place away the unmotivated or struggling students. They apply this low standard to these students, expecting them to accomplish nothing. This system does not try to develop their students and take the challenge of truly educating them by trying to set higher standards for them to try to reach.
Looking at schools today, the remedial classes are similar to this system. Students are placed in lower class and pretty much separated. However, each school has different programs. The result is some systems being this "dumping ground" and others that are more developmental. From personal experiences, my high school's remedial track had kids who were suffering come after school to get help to improve. This kind of program feels less like a "dumping ground" because these students are not counted off as hopeless, but instead are given a chance to better themselves.
In response to Rose, Question II:
ReplyDeleteIn life, if we were to all look at things with lowered standards, there would be less advancements to society and people would be repressed by the system in which they are placed into. There would be little room for betterment of our lives thanks to people who will only work the minimum in order to get by. The minimum that is necessary in order to pass a class would be all that is necessary for remedial courses. Therefore, kids would be unable to succeed with their education and be forever trapped in inadequacy. After reading about Rose’s dissatisfaction with vocational education, I too agree that it is a poorly structured system in which people who are not going to do much with their educational careers go to accomplish very little. At my community college I transferred from, vocational air-conditioning and cooking classes were offered so students could begin becoming technicians and chefs. However, most of these students end up having numerous issues getting jobs when competing against students from real educational institutions with much more legitimate degrees such as culinary schools. The remedial tracks are a plague amongst the educational system in America. We need to all think about what is better for the youth and if they are struggling we need to give them additional amounts of support through tutoring and enrichment programs, not place them in lowered standard programs or classes. Society would benefit immensely if there was no longer a perceived way of thinking that we should expect less from others who are not on the same level of intellectualness.
According to Gee, the type of discourse that Anzaldua is referring to is the primary discourse which is acquired through subconscious learning. When I am at home I speak Hindi. I agree with Nancy in that the major difference I see is that when I speak in Hindi I can capture somewhat of the culture from India as opposed to when I am speaking in English. The polite manner in which we talk is partly due to the lack of roughness in the language and partly due to the general respect of others, especially shown to elders, that is taught in the Asian culture.
ReplyDeleteWhen Anzaldua says that language instantiates and carries culture she means that language is one word description that is directly tied to a culture. For example, when I say I speak Hindi, there are immediate connotations that pop into my mind about how a person who speaks Hindi lives, his or her traditions, etc. Because language has such a broad meaning, I do agree with Anzaldua when she says that it instantiates culture. It influences our culture and how we think. A verbal diagram described here could well define the language and culture relationship: “you” linking to “your language” linking to “reality.” Edward Sapir said it best—“language acts like a polarizing lens on a camera in filtering reality.” It helps characterize the interests and concerns of the culture.
In response to my peers’ analysis of Rose’s piece, I too have to agree that the vocational program turns into a flawed system if the teachers do not set goals and do not cater to the students’ interests and finds things that appeal to them in order to facilitate learning. Rose wrote that, “students will float to the mark you set” and because these students were told that they were dumb and because no mark was set by the teachers, the students kept free falling. When the system doesn’t believe in you, how can you believe in yourself?
And, to further illustrate just how problematic tracking is in today's educational milieu, look no further than the overdetermined ethnic and socio-economic homogeneity of remedial classes Nationwide: they are filled with poor students, who are primarily black and brown.
ReplyDelete