Ogbu J.U. & Simons H.D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education
Group:
DJ Campbell
Matt Williams
Remington Price
James Lubell
David Keys
Nancy Ledesma
Lee, S.J. (1994). Beyond the model-minority stereotype: Voices of high- and low-achieving Asian-American students.
Group:
Yoon Ju Lee
Rocio Sanchez
Yoojung Kwon
Isaiah Kang
Stephanie Chau
Richardson, E. (2002). “To protect and serve”: African American Female Literacies.
Group:
Vishal Baheti
David Song
Juyeon Baek
Shannon Hawari
Kathy Shen
Newkirk, Tom. (2002). Excerpt from Misreading masculinity: Boys, literacy, and popular cultureGroup:
Nicholas Piccinini
Joshua Tovar
Alister Meshkin
Soon-Chan Kim
Tina Chen
Hull, G.A. & Schultz, K. (2002). Connecting schools with out-of-school worlds: Insights from recent research on literacy in non-school settings.
Groups:
Laqshya Taneja
Sasha Rasmussen
Scott Sok
Jelani Dunn
Julia Heunis
Victor Sandifer
Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice.
Jeremiah
Julia Heunis
Victor Sandifer
Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice.
Jeremiah
Not sure where to post this week's blog response. Because I don't see any questions I will just post my insight on an article I read last week that was not for my group. In Stacey Lee's "Behind the Model Minority," Lee claims that there are three main factors that cause minorities to behave the way they do academically. These are historical experience, identity and perceptions of opportunity. Once minority students have the historical context of Asian-American students, the perceptions of high-paying, lucrative jobs in the future, and the idea that they can reach those goals, minorities are more likely to succeed. I believe this is true because Indian-Americans have very similar backgrounds with Southeast Asians and they excel in similar ways. The concept of voluntary and involuntary minorities also appear to be an accurate theory. It makes sense that voluntary minorities—with their desire to overcome language barriers and social mobility and the perception that they are merely guests of white people in our country—really make them more likely to have drive and positive views on their prospective futures compared to people who have an oppositional culture and think that the host country owes them for bringing them into this society and forcing them to assimilate in the past. The separation of Asian students at Academic High into the groups: 1) Koreans 2) Asians with sub-groups a) New Wave b) Asian c) Asian-American, appears to be very generalized because it seems like any of these groups can cross-over or be a part of multiple groups, but I do observe this behavior amongst students of all kinds. Even Hispanic students who went to my majority high school students act similarly. There are the ones who are hard working, the ones who want to be associated as much as possible to the dominant culture, and ones who believe they need to be different and join gangs or be involved in delinquent activity. In conclusion, I think this article was great in generalizing and categorizing all the observed sub-groups of Asian students at that particular high school but it misses many groups and also it does not take into consideration that many groups overlap with one another. The key points I am taking away from this article is this: perceptions regarding future opportunities and attitudes toward schooling are linked. Furthermore, social experience in school contributes to resistance of academic achievement. Identities and responses to schooling are constantly being negotiated.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to speak briefly about Glynda Hull and Katherine Schultz's article "Connection Schools with Out-of-School Worlds." Before this class, I didn't have the needed language or an explicit enough understanding of "culturally relevant pedagogy" to discuss its impact on young lives. However, as a young student, it was never hard to identify those kids who lacked an interest in their school studies or were largely indifferent to school on the whole. It's only now that I can articulate the power and significance of engaging, relevant material in the classroom. I have come to the conclusion that our education system is failing young people if it cannot reach them halfway, in providing useful, functional information that they can draw on in their own lives.
ReplyDeleteThe article cites two types of learning that occurs in a child's life: school based learning versus community based opportunities. The authors believe that at the heart of this dialogue, some critical questions need to be addressed: Is it possible for teachers to actively recognize student's lives outside of school and integrate their interests, experiences and knowledge into their course studies? How do we involve students who deviate and drift from the mainstream in school?
The various articles related to culturally relevant curriculum have prompted a number of questions for me:
ReplyDelete1. Could the streamlined curriculum in a typical classroom be accommodating for some students and a barrier for others?
2. What are some possible reasons for opposing or resisting any real modification to academic curriculum?
3. What happens to the population of kids who find little relevance in their school work and constantly find themselves a stranger or outsider in their own classroom?