Oh for the day when the only thing that matters in education is making certain that students are fully equipped to succeed in the world around them (locally and globally). When it no longer matters what race or socio-economic background they hail from, but all that matters is the fact that they need to master “content a” to move on to “content b” and ultimately continue on their path to greatness. That will be a day worth celebrating!
It enrages me to hear people discuss “black English” as if it is anything other than another dialect within the English language. It makes me equally angry to think that there are those who still think that by failing to expose poor children and children of color to standard English, classic literature and the like that they are doing them some sort of favor! It’s just as bad as me refusing to teach my students about Evolution because I happen to believe in Creationism. How absurd!
There really is nothing new under the sun and the more I read articles in the education world, the more I realize we have been attempting to fix the same broken system repeatedly making some of the exact same mistakes. For teachers to still believe that allowing a child’s dominating culture to be the sole basis of everything they learn as if this will somehow propel them out of their current situation is to me absurd. I agree with the author when she said “rather, the acquisition can provide a way both to turn the sorting system on its head and to make available one more voice for resisting and reshaping an oppressive system” In fact, I believe it is the only way! If we limit our children only to what they already know, then how will they ever adapt to the world around them? How will they ever be prepared to meet opportunities or even recognize them successfully? How will they locate their horizons, let alone expand them? When did teaching children to think outside of the four walls of their current situation, speak and write Standard English and communicate on multiple playing fields become oppression? If we have sense enough in business to realize that we need to learn Japanese or Spanish or German to communicate with global partners and grow corporations, why do we expect things to be any different for a child’s life through the tool of education?
Yes, every child needs to understand that who they are is valid and the language and habits of home life mean something, but they cannot be allowed to remain unlearned concerning other languages and habits if they are to succeed outside of their homes. Like Ruby Payne says, there is a language at home, one at work and one when you’re out with friends. Children must be taught each language and how to maneuver through each dynamic so that they are not locked into self-imposed limits of ignorance and failures to communicate. It may not be in our job description as teachers, but yes we need to be just like those teachers of old and constantly remind our students that they are better, can be better and must do better than what mere statistics have to say about their situations. If we have to feed them, give up prep periods and lunch breaks, stay after school and visit homes to ensure they are literate and able to function successfully in any genre then that’s what needs to be done. That’s the kind of “no child left behind” that we need in American education. Like the author said, “When teachers are committed to teaching all students, and when they understand that through their teaching change can occur, the chance for transformation is great.”
Aria, if it makes you feel any better (and I'll address this in more detail in my own post), I felt like Gee's comments were quite out of date based on what I explored as a graduate student in linguistics in the 1990s. Much of what Alycia has discussed with regards to respecting the language of the home but balancing it with the notion of currency (needing to be "dressed up" in the business world, as it were), which the article also addresses, is certainly consistent with both my own attitudes and the attitudes I was exposed to. I feel rather that Gee's attitude that what he calls (misleadingly, in my view) "Discourses" are fairly immutable is wrong and counterproductive.
I wholeheartedly agree Paul. I know the author respects some aspects of Gee's thinking, but for the most part I just found myself pretty much disgusted. In fact, I almost forgot what the article was about.
The article started out with a lady named Marge who was hesitantly accepted into a master’s degree program. Her writing skills and GRE test scores were low, so she was assigned support by Susan. Long story short, even though Marge still had low GRE scores, she was writing papers at levels about the rest of the students in the program, and was publishing research. “The point is, people, when given support, can “make it” in culturally alien environments”, the article stated – even if their standardized test scores are low. The article discussed literacy as a larger entity called “discourse.” Gee argues that discourse are ways of saying, writing, doing, being, valuing, and believing – all of which are in different contexts. I agree with this statement. People need to know how to be literate in differing contexts. Students need to know how to speak like students, teachers as professionals, lawyers as lawyers, etc. People need to know how to differentiate speaking with family, friends, professionals, colleagues, church etc. The article discussed that Gee argued that, “people not born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse…discourses cannot be “overtly” taught, particularly in a classroom” I have to disagree with this statement (and disagree with Gee in most of the article). Teachers can teach their students about discourse. For example, in the classroom, the teacher should act as a professional, and expect the same from the kids. Students need to be held accountable in not only doing their required schoolwork, but also acting as a professional student would. They have to learn to write scholarly (not in slang, or text, etc). The teacher CAN do this. Depending on the teacher, they can require different professional approaches of their students, like requiring a handshake at the classroom door before entering. These are some things that can be done to address discourse in a classroom. What really frustrated me is when the article said that, particularly poor students would be locked into their place due to their genes in their lower-class status by their discourse. What is even more disturbing to me is when educators say similar remarks. Education is one route to help people move between classes, and between discourses. It is our role to help the students see this, and to help them get there. It is the students’ role to do it. We have to show students how to speak academically appropriate, remind students how to write scholarly, and have student practice these in the classroom, even in mathematics and science courses. Particularly, in my classroom, next year I am going to apply these models more. We will speak properly in the classroom. Students will be required to write scholarly on their classroom blogs, journals, papers, etc. Also, students will be required to act as professional students. I would like to implement the hand shaking before entering the classroom. I think it will instill a “this is business” sort of attitude – but I have to make this clear to my students those first couple weeks of school. Some student may be apprehensive of the above, but if the tone is set, it will work. Also, as the article said on pg. 7, teachers also need to acknowledge and validate home language, as their main language is vital to their sense of self and community. A teacher is not to take this away and chastise it.
On the 6th page of the article, that first paragraph said that progressive teachers of literacy empower disenfranchised students by having them develop literacy within the language and style of home discourse. I am just going to say it, but this is stupid. The whole point is to differentiate between the ways we speak at home, the way we speak with friends or colleagues, and the way we speak professionally. By doing what these “progressive” teachers are doing, we are instilling in the children exactly what we aren’t supposed to be doing. There’s a time an a place for using your home dialect, text language, slang, etc. If a scholarly paper allows this, then sure! Do it! IF it doesn’t, it doesn’t. People need to learn and have access to the dominant discourses. This is what will help people move the social ladder – literacy is everything.
I want to look at Gee's original articles before concluding what he actually said; most of Delpit's references are paraphrases, which can be dangerous things. :)
That said, not to respond to Gee specifically but to characterize what is an appropriate distinction, there's a difference between acting in a particular way and truly embracing those ways of being in one's soul. We teachers can and ought to model appropriate cultural behavior, in as much as "this is how lawyers act" and "this is how professionals act", and so forth, but I would agree with the premise that, once you've been fully enculturated into one system of thinking, it's difficult to shake that and learn another one. There will almost always be some mannerism, some philosophical expression, *something* that will give you away as being a "Pretender" to someone who's looking hard enough.
Perhaps (and again, I haven't Gee's original works) a stumbling block is over how it ought to be in the first place. I don't think people *should* adopt a dominant "Discourse" that is antithetical to their own identity. I want my students to succeed to the extent that they want to in mainstream society, but only in the upper echelons does that require abandoning their authenticity in all contexts. Each individual in a complex society has to find their own point at which they're willing to compromise their own identity for the sake of success in the greater community, although it's easier for people whose identity is more in line with what the currently dominant mainstream wants (history is littered with tragedies of people who found themselves in the dominant mainstream one month and staring at the wrong part of a guillotine blade after a violent shift).
In reply to: "I am just going to say it, but this is stupid. The whole point is to differentiate between the ways we speak at home, the way we speak with friends or colleagues, and the way we speak professionally."
I like to compare language to clothing. There's a wardrobe we wear to work, a wardrobe we wear to social events, a wardrobe we wear just chillaxin' at home. Likewise, that's how our language is: There are things we just don't say here, there, or wherever.
However, I'm old enough to remember when it would have been unheard of for a male to go a job at most corporate offices in anything other than a suit. Now, only a handful of decades later, suits are in the definite minority. People who didn't like wearing suits just kept pushing the envelope to see what they could get away with. "Casual Fridays" spread out. Now older, conservative HR and manager sorts complain that some young workers (particularly female) wear flip-flops to work... but the flip-flops stay anyway.
The point being, dominant paradigms shift constantly. Yes, we should give our students guidance on how to succeed in what now happens to be the dominant way of communicating, but we shouldn't do it at the expense of them losing their home identities. Poetry, especially, should be a place of exploration of identity: If a student wants to write a piece, prose or narrative, on what it feels like to be caught between the worlds, I say that should certainly be encouraged. That's what I took Delpit to be saying. If the exercise is to write a letter to a company president (for instance) asking for something, that letter should be written in the register appropriate for the president; if, on the other hand, the exercise is to explore through writing a student's understanding of content in a way that their friends might connect with it, that should likewise be written in an appropriate register.
I understand the point is to differentiate between the ways we speak at home, the way we speak with friends, etc... I was referring to the fact that some teachers, according to the article, don't believe in students navigating in and out of discourses.
Also, as you mentioned "...would have been unheard of for a male to go to a job...in anything other than a suit", there are cultural shifts of course. Also, regardless of cultural shift, many companies do require the "suit and tie."
You said that we shouldn't do it [give our students guidance] at the expense of them losing their home identities. I agree, and this is what I meant in my post. Students can still explore their identity in the classroom, but they still should understand the varying means of discourse. As you said, and as I mentioned in my post, students can do this in many different ways within a classroom. This is what I was saying in my post. Depending on the context of the classroom, learning, assignment, blog, etc., students need to know how to move in and out of discourses appropriately.
Tamara said it perfectly in her post. Helping students learn a second discourse by acknowledging and validating students’ home language without using it to limit students’ potential; recognize students’ home discourses and the discourse in the classroom; saturating the dominate discourse with new meaning; and acknowledging the unfair “discourse-staking” that society encourages. :)
Jordan wrote: "I was referring to the fact that some teachers, according to the article, don't believe in students navigating in and out of discourses."
Can you cite this in the article? I read the first paragraph on the sixth page, as well as the surrounding paragraphs, and I don't see this being said. I see Delpit promoting pretty much what we're saying: "Teachers must acknowledge and validate students' home language without doing it to limit students' potential."
Scratch that then...I must have read it wrong - must have been too heated when reading the article haha.
I'll keep the statement as valid for those teachers who are not doing it. I have witnessed too many in the classroom. Scratch my reference to the article - my bad you guys.
This is great conversation, here. How does discourse contribute to the notion of education being only for white people? Many students associate education with acting, speaking, and thinking, "white" and being "black" is often identified with being lawless, using reference to the word, "nigga" repeatedly and to being offensively aggressive. What implications do these notions have on your ability to recognize these type of discourse as white educators yet at the same time break through these so-called American traditions that are deeply embedded into the fabric of our schools and institutions?
Preamble: My first reaction, hinted at in my comment to Aria above, was to conclude that Gee is some sort of deterministic bigot. I had forgotten one of the prime directives in critical reasoning: Consider the source. I don't know for sure what Gee has or hasn't said about what he calls Discourse; I've ordered the cited articles from WSU to read them. I realize it's unfair to make conclusions about someone's position based on a few paragraphs written by another person. My interpretation of what Gee is saying is likely to be different than Delpit's.
One thing I'm particularly curious about, as a linguist, is why Gee uses the term "Discourse". Other references I've found (such as http://elateach.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/gees-discourse/) indicate he means to distinguish between discourse in the linguistic sense (the totality of the substantive communicative content of a single conversation between individuals, including words, grammar, body language, intonation, and so on) and Discourse in the sociolinguistic sense (the totality of information needed and used to identify individuals within particular groups or communities). If this is accurate (and Delpit's summary doesn't contradict it), I find "Discourse" to be an unfortunate term to be using. The concept of register (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)) seems closer to me to what Gee is getting at, so perhaps "periregister" would be a more apt term.
Be that as it may, I'm of mixed opinion whether a periregister (Discourse) can be explicitly taught effectively, and of mixed feelings about whether one ought to be. For me, the crucial challenge for an educator is how to prepare students, particularly those from cultures traditionally marginalized by the dominant powers, to be competitive within the greater mainstream without undermining their own cultural identity.
As Frank Smith discusses at length in The Book of Learning and Forgetting (among many other sources, including Delpit), membership in an identity group is crucial to the human experience; if we use our position as educators to suggest that the student's existing positive group identities are flawed, we risk pretty severe psychological damage on several fronts. First, the students may become hostile towards us; second, the students may become hostile towards themselves or the community identity they feel is holding them back. A scene from the film Stand and Deliver comes to mind: Calculus teacher Jaime Escalante visits the restaurant owned by the father of a student who's dropping his class. There's an altercation, in which Escalante talks about what the girl can do with an education beyond working in a restaurant, which sets of a tirade from the father. Escalante's error is in implying that there's something wrong with restaurant work; regardless of his own opinion on the subject, his implication of that belief effectively shuts down any further civil conversation on the subject. Even though the girl does return to the class, I do wonder about the long-term impact of the conversation.
As Delpit discusses, perhaps one of the most important things that a teacher can do is acknowledge the unfairness of the way in which cultural identities manifest in power structures. She limits it to "our society", but the reality is that any sufficiently large human population creates layered periregisters that accompany their subcultures. Japan, for instance, has entire vocabulary sets and grammatical structures that are to be used only in certain groups. It's simply not fair, no, but it is the system that we all have to find a way to work within, if we expect to be successful beyond our personal neighborhoods. At the very least, we need to learn the register (if not the periregister) of the dominant paradigm long enough to subvert it.
Truly, I’m grateful that I had teachers that did not view the acquisition of a new Discourse in a classroom impossible to achieve. I learned how to navigate in and out of a discourse throughout my educational experience.
In the past, while I was still residing with my parents, if someone called our home, my parents could identify my relationship with the caller based on the type of name he/she used. For instance, if the caller asked to speak with “Tamara”, then this was typically a person calling for a business purpose (e.g. job or bill collector). If the caller asked to speak with “Tam”, then this was a family member or a friend. But if the person asked to speak with “Tami”, then this was usually an acquaintance from school or a co-worker. So, based on my personal experience, I disagree with Gee’s notion about dominant discourses. Mainly because, I have the ability to use different voices for various settings. Without doubt, I acquired this skillset based on the expectations and influences of my elementary and secondary education teachers.
Furthermore, I know it is possible to maneuver through different discourses, so I plan to be a teacher that strikes down the notion that Gee argues. Especially since, I am a living witness that it is possible for teachers to help students acquire a discourse in which they weren’t originally born into due to socioeconomic status.
Therefore, I will take the advice of the author to help students learn a dominant secondary discourse in the classroom by using the following strategies: acknowledging and validating students’ home language without using it to limit students’ potential; recognize students’ home discourses and the discourse in the classroom; saturating the dominate discourse with new meaning; and acknowledging the unfair “discourse-staking” that society encourages.
Language discourse is something that we learn from the circles of people we belong to. The home is the primary learning space for children and so it is dominant. The second area would be the institutions or outside groups that one attends regularly. A child does not attend school until about five years of age and so the language discourse that he/she might learn there would take more time and effort to establish. Teachers must work with students at there level of language and gradually elevate it. This will validate the student’s home language, give a sense of community and also educate them in a new discourse.
Conflict may arise as a student is taught new words to use in dialect because it is natural to have discomfort in new beginnings. Teachers must not give up on students, even when they do on themselves. They need to know that they are capable in achieving success. Brilliant minds are sometimes illiterate but if they are given the help they need, they can "make it."
Reading the article, Acquisition of Literate Discourse, was very inspiring. Sometimes it is easy to forget that as educators we must never give up on the children. In the world today, some students can be difficult to work with. It becomes easy to only give attention to the successful students than the ones who need it most. All children have the ability to elevate to higher levels of education, language discourse, and successful achievement. Believing in them is the push they need.
Each subject within a school has its own set of vocabulary that at first might not be know by students. Even though my classroom is not a writing class, I must include vocabulary, reading and writing into my course to expand literacy in my students within the art realm. As my class reads articles together, I will encourage my students to underline or circle words that they do not know the meaning of and have discussions about them so they will understand more clearly. I also will have writings which need to include ‘art words’ with correct meanings. Thirdly, I will also have tests where students will list ‘art words’ such as principles of design. The words must have correct spelling in order to receive full credit. All of these activities will increase understanding, promote literacy and give my students a new, stronger language discourse of art.
I believe that the ways students are assessed is the key to the issue of bowing before the master. In my experience in my own classroom it is very clear that students do not all learn the same way and really can't be assessed in the same way. I have kids who really seem to understand the material and can talk about it, but if they have to take a written test they do not do well at all. There are certain ways that they can express themselves best and they should be assessed in that way. Unfortunately, there is no way to assess a country full of students in the ways that they are assessed best, so they must assimilate to one method whether or not it is accurate. I wish I could offer a better way to do it, but there isn't much of a way to make it "fair" enough to suit a large population like that of the United States or other countries.
The, “Acquisition of Literate Discourse: Bowing Before the Master”, looks at James Paul Gee’s notion that literacy goes beyond reading and writing and has relates much more to an individual’s discourse. Discourse could be looked at as an identity that one gains from situations or experiences that shape what you believe or value. One gains different discourses in their home settings, institutional settings, and group settings. Not every discourse will carry equal status in one’s life. The article discussed Gee’s belief that one is limited to their own dominant discourse unless they have access to another type of discourse. This is cause for concern because it locks individuals into a status without accounting for personal desire to change their discourse. As an educator this is difficult to digest. It is my belief that the role of an educator should not be limited to teaching a student another discourse but also teaching them skills that help them to obtain another discourse on their own. If students are limited to the discourse of their home or surroundings and have no physical access to another discourse, what would be the point of educating that student? I feel that no matter what your status, culture, race, or educational needs you want to if obtain another discourse it should be obtainable based upon your work ethic and desire to achieve that goal. In education this is an important frame of mind because the alternative locks you into a very narrow window of opportunity when working with your students. Another important part of the article discussed the ability for different professionals to use a primary discourse (such as a home language) and a secondary discourse (such as an educational language), in their professional practices. While it is understandable that some literacy professionals would applaud this practice and encourage it, I feel that those who applaud this practice have been limited to only one dominant discourse, in particular one that is highly academic. The last part of the article reviewed some suggestions as to what teachers can do when trying to help students acquire different discourses and transform them. While the article did provide a lot of insight into the notion of language as a discourse, I think that most of the suggestions should be intuitive for most teachers. Acknowledge students home language but do not limit their potential. Understand the difference between those who are unable to learn and those who do not want to learn a new discourse. Also, acknowledging that students can and should desire the ability to move among discourses and they should be made aware that you are here to help them do so.
This article presented some interesting points regarding the education of under privileged youth and whether or not they have the aptitude to learn certain things based on what class they grew-up. The author referred to an article written by Gee that basically said that it would be difficult for students to transition to a dominant discourse or assimilate to the society majority if they are not born into that majority. This is because discourse is not taught it is a part of who you are and how you were raise. He also thinks that there would be issue if a person tried to acquire another discourse that was very different from their own. The author gave several strong arguments that supported the notation that with the proper support and high expectations our youth can successfully assimilate to the major discourse despite their social class and be successful in life. The success stories in the articles demonstrated the power that teachers have to positively affect the future of our students. The teachers modeled and taught dominant discourse. They held high expectations for the students even when they couldn’t believe they were possible to achieve. There was a part of the article that was enlightening to me – it was regarding people that choose not to learn because it denies them the sense of who they are. Teachers have to maintain a balance when teaching to students. Students have to learn the dominant discourse in order to be successful in this world – that’s just how it is, but we need to acknowledge the culture of the students and teach the fundamentals of the dominant discourse that will help them excel in life. To deny students the opportunity to learn something that would improve their life is not fair – learning the dominant discourse is not oppressive, it is necessary! I really liked the example of the teacher that taught Hispanic students and he stated that “Math is in their blood” because their ancestors made the major discovery of zero. This was an excellent example of encouraging the student to learn by building up their sense of pride. This is something that I will definitely use in my classroom. African American students can benefit from learning more about how their ancestors excelled in mathematics and how some great people had humble beginnings that may be similar their experiences. The pride in themselves will hopefully help them realize that they are entitled to every privilege life has to offer they just have to use what they learn in school as a tool to build their road to success. I agree that there needs to be an open dialog regarding the inequalities that exist in education and as a teacher I would make it clear that learning the dominant discourse is essential to being successful in life. I wouldn’t call it cheating, I think it’s more like teaching them how to survive and thrive despite being in a system that is designed to keep them down.
James Paul Gee’s article, “Acquisition of Literate Discourse: Bowing Before the Master”, makes some strong statements regarding social discourse and its implications for poor children. The article begins with a story about a woman named Marge who was accepted into a master’s program despite her low GRE scores and poor writing skills. But, with hard work, dedications and proper support and motivation, she quickly excelled and began to flourish in her field. Not long later she was publishing papers well beyond most students’ abilities, and when funding came in she became the most sought after research assistant. This story proves to me that despite one’s current situation and social discourses available, with hard work and support one can adapt to new situations and quickly learn the norms of a new discourse. Despite this inspirational story, Gee is prominent in his stance that children who are not born into a dominant social discourse have little or no hope of ever acquiring the knowledge necessary for complete integration into a new social discourse. I can agree that it may not be easy to learn a new discourse, but it is surely not impossible. Again is falls on the teacher to set up a proper classroom culture which teaches proper discourse for a professional classroom setting, but it still acknowledges and supports students’ other discourses. For me as a teacher, this means that my classroom needs to help prepare students for “the real world” and the different social discourses they could encounter, but still they need to be allowed to explore their identity and express elements of their individualism. This means that some aspects of their home discourses will be brought into the classroom and integrated into their understanding of the new discourse of social settings. I believe that some elements of one’s primary discourse are deeply ingrained within us, but this does not mean that a new discourse is impossible to learn. It may take time and much practice, but just as Marge has shown us, with proper support and dedication one can adapt and mold to the demands of a new situation.
In the article by Delpit, she vividly tries to explain the importance of vocabulary and how it plays a role in the discourse of a particular academic community or social group. She starts off with an example of an African American student in a college institution that lacks the literacy tools needed to make it into a doctorial program. After some time of working with another student on her discourse, it is found that the student is actually highly gifted and soon becomes one of the most highly sought out researchers in the university.
Delpit uses this story to explain how discourse can aid in helping at-risk students overcome obstacles and develop higher acquisitions in higher institutions and in career paths. She speaks to the importance of how the transformation process of developing a higher acquisition can be interpreted as losing one’s’ self.
Delpit’s goal is to get teachers to understand that teaching discourse can be an empowering tool and not a tool that hinders the self identity of the student. I personally find this article to not be accurate for the youth of today. For example, she states that "acquisition of many mainstream discourses . . . involves active complicity with values that conflict with one's home and community-based Discourses" In my experience in urban schools and with urban youth, it is not that the discourse diminishes with what’s taught at home, it’s that the student themselves feel that they will never get it. It is the mentality that “there are some things that I will get and others I will not” that plagues our school system and youth. I believe that discourse is used to help the students become bilingual in the subject matter. The discourse will allow them to understand different contexts such that they will become more apt to become enlightened.
Many of the statements made in this article may have been the case sometime ago; however I do not believe that this is the case of at risk students of today. I believe that discourse is important for all students alike, and not only in a particular at-risk group. Discourse in a particular subject provides evidence of fluency and provides the framework for learning deeply into the subject matter.
Delpit's article is one filled with examples galore. I found that while the opening anecdote interesting, long. I want to get right into the focus of the literacy content.
The analysis of Gee's definition of discourse being a "saying-writing-doing- being-valuing- believing" is a good representation of how learning occurs. If students are not able to do all of the above, then that truly is discourse.
I like the idea of primary and secondary discourse. We always talk about how much the home influences our students, and how we know that rarely do we have students that actively seek out additional reading material (or should I clarify "academic") outside of our classroom walls. The argument that Delpit brings up of how there are the dominant social discourse and "if you are not already in, don't expect to get in" is a good concern for her colleague to have. I have experienced this past year some of my students feeling as though they have to follow the status quo- that this is all they are capable off and nothing more. I think that if we show them that there is another way, then our students will find that they are able to reach that higher society discourse. We need to provide examples and mentors for our students to show that it can be done. Yes it will take a lot of work, but hopefully I can make it enjoyable.
When we teach our students how to function in a dominant discourse, it is no different than teaching them the proper verbal language. There is a "business"/ "classroom" language, and then there's your home language. Same with discourse. We are just trying to give them another tool to take with them into the 21st century so that they can be contributing members of society, and actually communicate their thoughts and ideas.
As humans we mostly learn by the environment that surrounds us. We practice, follow and behave according to what we observe. The culture, the language is presented to us from the minute that we are born. Therefore, we learn to behave,to believe, care, share,communicate and connect with others according to our cultural practices that we inherit.In her writing Lisa D. Delpit states that " The status of individuals born into a particular Discourse tends to be maintained because primary Discourses are related to secondary Discourses of similar status in our society (for example, the middle class home Discourse to school Discourse, or the working class African American home Discourse to the black church Discourse). The writer explains to us that many cultures belive that the way of life relates to how we have been brought. All of us have specfic language that we use at home, school, church, or doing our daily activities.Therefore, students came to us from many different backgrounds, we as teachers should be able to know them better, work according to their needs, so we can learn more about their background,while strengthening their language skills to their capability. As teachers we have to create a great understanding and the importance of including everyone into lesson plans, daily activities and games that we practice during daily routines in our classrooms, so we can build a better working community for tomorrow. I strongly believe that this is the best way to make students progress, prosper and achieve their goals in content area of reading and literacy, be it reading, math, science or any other subject. Further, I will ask you a difficult question... have you ever been treated differently then others? If so, please let me know because I would like to know how you felt. I came to the United States of America 38 years ago, as a 17 years old, and yes I experienced this terrible feeling many times. I experienced being segregated because I spoke different language and was not able to communicate with others properly. I experienced the ugly feeling of being different, even though it was not my fault. I was born in a different country that speaks a different language and has a different culture. It was extremely hard for me to adjust to this kind of living, but I had to take it. I became bigger then that, I overcame it. Just like Marge did in her school, she is an excellent example of being left out.Therefore, I believe and suggest as teachers we must teach students to recognize and respect the characteristics of others. Each and every one of us as individuals has our own beliefs, values, race, nationality, culture, language, physical and mental characteristics. Therefore, respect, responsibility and acceptance should be built in each and every classroom so we may develop a healthy and productive community. Building a great community starts in the classroom and it is vital that all of us teachers teach students the way he/she comes to you. Regardless of race, gender, belief, culture, physical or mental ability. Reading this article by Lisa D. Delpit kind of made me share some of the terrible experiences that I endured. However, my experiences are literally too little compared with others that are still being discriminated, just because their race, color, language, skin, religion, mental or physical ability.
Acquisition of Literate Discourse: Bowing Before the Master?
This article sparked positive and negative emotions. It was initially positive to see how one woman-Marge- triumphed in getting through a Master’s program with the aid of her professor who worked with her diligently throughout the process. Marge had been labeled to be “at-risk” for not completing the program because of her deficient test scores and writing samples. The story goes on to explain that through hard work and help from her professor, Marge was able to be successful and complete the program and be sought out for her research abilities in the college that initially saw her as being incapable. Other positive aspects of the article, was how some teachers taught their poor under-privileged students “dominant discourses” despite the odds.
The article shares how literacy is considered to be part of an individuals’ discourse or identity. “Discourse in this sense is construed as something of an “identity kit,” that is, ways of saying –writing-doing-being-valuing-believing”. There are different discourses that people might identify with. Discourses range from home, school, religion, social relationships, etc. According to what was shared in the article there are primary and secondary discourses. Nonetheless, all discourses are not created equal. On page 297 of the article, “some are socially dominant-carry with them social power and access to economic success”.
The article then shared some disheartening information as it relates to literacy and one’s discourse and how some students choose to not learn because they feel that choosing to learn would make them lose a sense of their identity. As teachers we are to inspire student to want to learn other discourses as a means of enhancement and growth. Delpit shares that teachers should acknowledge the students’ home discourse in a way that broadens their capability. Also, teachers could “saturate the Dominant discourse with new meanings” in a way students could maintain a sense of themselves.
I am glad that I share with Tamara the experience of having teachers that did not find it impossible to use the acquisition of discourse in their classrooms. It is my goal to be a teacher that motivates students to do their best to help them learn other discourses that will help them be better communicators and citizens of society. To do this as Delpit suggests, I have to acknowledge students’ home discourse and share dominant discourses with students with new meanings that allow them to not lose sense of themselves, but as an opportunity to improve themselves.
This was a very powerful article, and judging from the blog posts, it resonated with just about everyone in the class. It certainly resonated with me. Delpit's article brought back the discussions our cohort had last summer about "currencies" and helping students acquire multiple currecies without devaluing the currency of their own environment.
Like may of my classmates, I recoiled at Delpit's paraphrasing of Gee's deterministic view that those not born into the dominant culture have little or no hope of mastering the dominant discourse.
At the same time, as I read the article, clear pictures of many kids I met during student teaching this year came to mind - the kids who had chosen to "not learn", the sheer number of kids who were clearly not mastering multiple discourses, some of the teachers I observed who did not require students to learn beyond the "mechanics". I could understand after just one semester how easy it would be to not expect as much of students. It can feel very overwhelming. Nevertheless, feeling overwhelmed does not excuse not trying. So much of the research we've read over the last year supports the importance of teacher expectations - in fact that having high expectations and working with students to meet or exceed expectations is one of the most important factors affecting student success.
The article brought many images to mind in my own life: the insistence by my parents that their children master the "lingua franca" of the realm, my mother's insistence on clear and grammatically correct communication in English, even though she only went as far as the ninth grade, the kids in school who said they didn't want to sound like "Paddy's(in my neighborhood we used an old slang word for Irish to denote anyone who wasn't Latino)". I am pleased that the prevailing point of view is that we can teach students to master another discourse without rejecting that of home. In my mother's day, during the Depression (the one in the LAST century), choosing to master the tools of the dominant culture did mean rejecting one's own culture. Richard Rodriguez's memoir "Hunger of Memory" comes to mind here. I have had my own struggles as well.
Oh for the day when the only thing that matters in education is making certain that students are fully equipped to succeed in the world around them (locally and globally). When it no longer matters what race or socio-economic background they hail from, but all that matters is the fact that they need to master “content a” to move on to “content b” and ultimately continue on their path to greatness. That will be a day worth celebrating!
ReplyDeleteIt enrages me to hear people discuss “black English” as if it is anything other than another dialect within the English language. It makes me equally angry to think that there are those who still think that by failing to expose poor children and children of color to standard English, classic literature and the like that they are doing them some sort of favor! It’s just as bad as me refusing to teach my students about Evolution because I happen to believe in Creationism. How absurd!
There really is nothing new under the sun and the more I read articles in the education world, the more I realize we have been attempting to fix the same broken system repeatedly making some of the exact same mistakes. For teachers to still believe that allowing a child’s dominating culture to be the sole basis of everything they learn as if this will somehow propel them out of their current situation is to me absurd. I agree with the author when she said “rather, the acquisition can provide a way both to turn the sorting system on its head and to make available one more voice for resisting and reshaping an oppressive system” In fact, I believe it is the only way! If we limit our children only to what they already know, then how will they ever adapt to the world around them? How will they ever be prepared to meet opportunities or even recognize them successfully? How will they locate their horizons, let alone expand them? When did teaching children to think outside of the four walls of their current situation, speak and write Standard English and communicate on multiple playing fields become oppression? If we have sense enough in business to realize that we need to learn Japanese or Spanish or German to communicate with global partners and grow corporations, why do we expect things to be any different for a child’s life through the tool of education?
Yes, every child needs to understand that who they are is valid and the language and habits of home life mean something, but they cannot be allowed to remain unlearned concerning other languages and habits if they are to succeed outside of their homes. Like Ruby Payne says, there is a language at home, one at work and one when you’re out with friends. Children must be taught each language and how to maneuver through each dynamic so that they are not locked into self-imposed limits of ignorance and failures to communicate. It may not be in our job description as teachers, but yes we need to be just like those teachers of old and constantly remind our students that they are better, can be better and must do better than what mere statistics have to say about their situations. If we have to feed them, give up prep periods and lunch breaks, stay after school and visit homes to ensure they are literate and able to function successfully in any genre then that’s what needs to be done. That’s the kind of “no child left behind” that we need in American education. Like the author said, “When teachers are committed to teaching all students, and when they understand that through their teaching change can occur, the chance for transformation is great.”
Aria,
DeleteJust want to say that I really enjoyed reading your post. If I could copy and paste it for mine I would lol.
Aria, if it makes you feel any better (and I'll address this in more detail in my own post), I felt like Gee's comments were quite out of date based on what I explored as a graduate student in linguistics in the 1990s. Much of what Alycia has discussed with regards to respecting the language of the home but balancing it with the notion of currency (needing to be "dressed up" in the business world, as it were), which the article also addresses, is certainly consistent with both my own attitudes and the attitudes I was exposed to. I feel rather that Gee's attitude that what he calls (misleadingly, in my view) "Discourses" are fairly immutable is wrong and counterproductive.
DeleteThanks Jordan.
DeleteI wholeheartedly agree Paul. I know the author respects some aspects of Gee's thinking, but for the most part I just found myself pretty much disgusted. In fact, I almost forgot what the article was about.
The article started out with a lady named Marge who was hesitantly accepted into a master’s degree program. Her writing skills and GRE test scores were low, so she was assigned support by Susan. Long story short, even though Marge still had low GRE scores, she was writing papers at levels about the rest of the students in the program, and was publishing research. “The point is, people, when given support, can “make it” in culturally alien environments”, the article stated – even if their standardized test scores are low.
ReplyDeleteThe article discussed literacy as a larger entity called “discourse.” Gee argues that discourse are ways of saying, writing, doing, being, valuing, and believing – all of which are in different contexts. I agree with this statement. People need to know how to be literate in differing contexts. Students need to know how to speak like students, teachers as professionals, lawyers as lawyers, etc. People need to know how to differentiate speaking with family, friends, professionals, colleagues, church etc.
The article discussed that Gee argued that, “people not born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse…discourses cannot be “overtly” taught, particularly in a classroom” I have to disagree with this statement (and disagree with Gee in most of the article). Teachers can teach their students about discourse. For example, in the classroom, the teacher should act as a professional, and expect the same from the kids. Students need to be held accountable in not only doing their required schoolwork, but also acting as a professional student would. They have to learn to write scholarly (not in slang, or text, etc). The teacher CAN do this. Depending on the teacher, they can require different professional approaches of their students, like requiring a handshake at the classroom door before entering. These are some things that can be done to address discourse in a classroom.
What really frustrated me is when the article said that, particularly poor students would be locked into their place due to their genes in their lower-class status by their discourse. What is even more disturbing to me is when educators say similar remarks. Education is one route to help people move between classes, and between discourses. It is our role to help the students see this, and to help them get there. It is the students’ role to do it. We have to show students how to speak academically appropriate, remind students how to write scholarly, and have student practice these in the classroom, even in mathematics and science courses.
Particularly, in my classroom, next year I am going to apply these models more. We will speak properly in the classroom. Students will be required to write scholarly on their classroom blogs, journals, papers, etc. Also, students will be required to act as professional students. I would like to implement the hand shaking before entering the classroom. I think it will instill a “this is business” sort of attitude – but I have to make this clear to my students those first couple weeks of school. Some student may be apprehensive of the above, but if the tone is set, it will work. Also, as the article said on pg. 7, teachers also need to acknowledge and validate home language, as their main language is vital to their sense of self and community. A teacher is not to take this away and chastise it.
On the 6th page of the article, that first paragraph said that progressive teachers of literacy empower disenfranchised students by having them develop literacy within the language and style of home discourse. I am just going to say it, but this is stupid. The whole point is to differentiate between the ways we speak at home, the way we speak with friends or colleagues, and the way we speak professionally. By doing what these “progressive” teachers are doing, we are instilling in the children exactly what we aren’t supposed to be doing. There’s a time an a place for using your home dialect, text language, slang, etc. If a scholarly paper allows this, then sure! Do it! IF it doesn’t, it doesn’t. People need to learn and have access to the dominant discourses. This is what will help people move the social ladder – literacy is everything.
DeleteI want to look at Gee's original articles before concluding what he actually said; most of Delpit's references are paraphrases, which can be dangerous things. :)
DeleteThat said, not to respond to Gee specifically but to characterize what is an appropriate distinction, there's a difference between acting in a particular way and truly embracing those ways of being in one's soul. We teachers can and ought to model appropriate cultural behavior, in as much as "this is how lawyers act" and "this is how professionals act", and so forth, but I would agree with the premise that, once you've been fully enculturated into one system of thinking, it's difficult to shake that and learn another one. There will almost always be some mannerism, some philosophical expression, *something* that will give you away as being a "Pretender" to someone who's looking hard enough.
Perhaps (and again, I haven't Gee's original works) a stumbling block is over how it ought to be in the first place. I don't think people *should* adopt a dominant "Discourse" that is antithetical to their own identity. I want my students to succeed to the extent that they want to in mainstream society, but only in the upper echelons does that require abandoning their authenticity in all contexts. Each individual in a complex society has to find their own point at which they're willing to compromise their own identity for the sake of success in the greater community, although it's easier for people whose identity is more in line with what the currently dominant mainstream wants (history is littered with tragedies of people who found themselves in the dominant mainstream one month and staring at the wrong part of a guillotine blade after a violent shift).
In reply to: "I am just going to say it, but this is stupid. The whole point is to differentiate between the ways we speak at home, the way we speak with friends or colleagues, and the way we speak professionally."
DeleteI like to compare language to clothing. There's a wardrobe we wear to work, a wardrobe we wear to social events, a wardrobe we wear just chillaxin' at home. Likewise, that's how our language is: There are things we just don't say here, there, or wherever.
However, I'm old enough to remember when it would have been unheard of for a male to go a job at most corporate offices in anything other than a suit. Now, only a handful of decades later, suits are in the definite minority. People who didn't like wearing suits just kept pushing the envelope to see what they could get away with. "Casual Fridays" spread out. Now older, conservative HR and manager sorts complain that some young workers (particularly female) wear flip-flops to work... but the flip-flops stay anyway.
The point being, dominant paradigms shift constantly. Yes, we should give our students guidance on how to succeed in what now happens to be the dominant way of communicating, but we shouldn't do it at the expense of them losing their home identities. Poetry, especially, should be a place of exploration of identity: If a student wants to write a piece, prose or narrative, on what it feels like to be caught between the worlds, I say that should certainly be encouraged. That's what I took Delpit to be saying. If the exercise is to write a letter to a company president (for instance) asking for something, that letter should be written in the register appropriate for the president; if, on the other hand, the exercise is to explore through writing a student's understanding of content in a way that their friends might connect with it, that should likewise be written in an appropriate register.
Paul,
DeleteI understand the point is to differentiate between the ways we speak at home, the way we speak with friends, etc... I was referring to the fact that some teachers, according to the article, don't believe in students navigating in and out of discourses.
Also, as you mentioned "...would have been unheard of for a male to go to a job...in anything other than a suit", there are cultural shifts of course. Also, regardless of cultural shift, many companies do require the "suit and tie."
You said that we shouldn't do it [give our students guidance] at the expense of them losing their home identities. I agree, and this is what I meant in my post. Students can still explore their identity in the classroom, but they still should understand the varying means of discourse. As you said, and as I mentioned in my post, students can do this in many different ways within a classroom. This is what I was saying in my post. Depending on the context of the classroom, learning, assignment, blog, etc., students need to know how to move in and out of discourses appropriately.
Tamara said it perfectly in her post. Helping students learn a second discourse by acknowledging and validating students’ home language without using it to limit students’ potential; recognize students’ home discourses and the discourse in the classroom; saturating the dominate discourse with new meaning; and acknowledging the unfair “discourse-staking” that society encourages. :)
DeleteJordan wrote: "I was referring to the fact that some teachers, according to the article, don't believe in students navigating in and out of discourses."
DeleteCan you cite this in the article? I read the first paragraph on the sixth page, as well as the surrounding paragraphs, and I don't see this being said. I see Delpit promoting pretty much what we're saying: "Teachers must acknowledge and validate students' home language without doing it to limit students' potential."
Scratch that then...I must have read it wrong - must have been too heated when reading the article haha.
DeleteI'll keep the statement as valid for those teachers who are not doing it. I have witnessed too many in the classroom. Scratch my reference to the article - my bad you guys.
'Scool with me, Jordan. :) I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
DeleteThis is great conversation, here. How does discourse contribute to the notion of education being only for white people? Many students associate education with acting, speaking, and thinking, "white" and being "black" is often identified with being lawless, using reference to the word, "nigga" repeatedly and to being offensively aggressive. What implications do these notions have on your ability to recognize these type of discourse as white educators yet at the same time break through these so-called American traditions that are deeply embedded into the fabric of our schools and institutions?
DeleteFirst, a preamble; then, a commentary.
ReplyDeletePreamble: My first reaction, hinted at in my comment to Aria above, was to conclude that Gee is some sort of deterministic bigot. I had forgotten one of the prime directives in critical reasoning: Consider the source. I don't know for sure what Gee has or hasn't said about what he calls Discourse; I've ordered the cited articles from WSU to read them. I realize it's unfair to make conclusions about someone's position based on a few paragraphs written by another person. My interpretation of what Gee is saying is likely to be different than Delpit's.
One thing I'm particularly curious about, as a linguist, is why Gee uses the term "Discourse". Other references I've found (such as http://elateach.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/gees-discourse/) indicate he means to distinguish between discourse in the linguistic sense (the totality of the substantive communicative content of a single conversation between individuals, including words, grammar, body language, intonation, and so on) and Discourse in the sociolinguistic sense (the totality of information needed and used to identify individuals within particular groups or communities). If this is accurate (and Delpit's summary doesn't contradict it), I find "Discourse" to be an unfortunate term to be using. The concept of register (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)) seems closer to me to what Gee is getting at, so perhaps "periregister" would be a more apt term.
Be that as it may, I'm of mixed opinion whether a periregister (Discourse) can be explicitly taught effectively, and of mixed feelings about whether one ought to be. For me, the crucial challenge for an educator is how to prepare students, particularly those from cultures traditionally marginalized by the dominant powers, to be competitive within the greater mainstream without undermining their own cultural identity.
As Frank Smith discusses at length in The Book of Learning and Forgetting (among many other sources, including Delpit), membership in an identity group is crucial to the human experience; if we use our position as educators to suggest that the student's existing positive group identities are flawed, we risk pretty severe psychological damage on several fronts. First, the students may become hostile towards us; second, the students may become hostile towards themselves or the community identity they feel is holding them back. A scene from the film Stand and Deliver comes to mind: Calculus teacher Jaime Escalante visits the restaurant owned by the father of a student who's dropping his class. There's an altercation, in which Escalante talks about what the girl can do with an education beyond working in a restaurant, which sets of a tirade from the father. Escalante's error is in implying that there's something wrong with restaurant work; regardless of his own opinion on the subject, his implication of that belief effectively shuts down any further civil conversation on the subject. Even though the girl does return to the class, I do wonder about the long-term impact of the conversation.
As Delpit discusses, perhaps one of the most important things that a teacher can do is acknowledge the unfairness of the way in which cultural identities manifest in power structures. She limits it to "our society", but the reality is that any sufficiently large human population creates layered periregisters that accompany their subcultures. Japan, for instance, has entire vocabulary sets and grammatical structures that are to be used only in certain groups. It's simply not fair, no, but it is the system that we all have to find a way to work within, if we expect to be successful beyond our personal neighborhoods. At the very least, we need to learn the register (if not the periregister) of the dominant paradigm long enough to subvert it.
Truly, I’m grateful that I had teachers that did not view the acquisition of a new Discourse in a classroom impossible to achieve. I learned how to navigate in and out of a discourse throughout my educational experience.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, while I was still residing with my parents, if someone called our home, my parents could identify my relationship with the caller based on the type of name he/she used. For instance, if the caller asked to speak with “Tamara”, then this was typically a person calling for a business purpose (e.g. job or bill collector). If the caller asked to speak with “Tam”, then this was a family member or a friend. But if the person asked to speak with “Tami”, then this was usually an acquaintance from school or a co-worker. So, based on my personal experience, I disagree with Gee’s notion about dominant discourses. Mainly because, I have the ability to use different voices for various settings. Without doubt, I acquired this skillset based on the expectations and influences of my elementary and secondary education teachers.
Furthermore, I know it is possible to maneuver through different discourses, so I plan to be a teacher that strikes down the notion that Gee argues. Especially since, I am a living witness that it is possible for teachers to help students acquire a discourse in which they weren’t originally born into due to socioeconomic status.
Therefore, I will take the advice of the author to help students learn a dominant secondary discourse in the classroom by using the following strategies: acknowledging and validating students’ home language without using it to limit students’ potential; recognize students’ home discourses and the discourse in the classroom; saturating the dominate discourse with new meaning; and acknowledging the unfair “discourse-staking” that society encourages.
Sent in email earlier:
ReplyDeleteLanguage discourse is something that we learn from the circles of people we belong to. The home is the primary learning space for children and so it is dominant. The second area would be the institutions or outside groups that one attends regularly. A child does not attend school until about five years of age and so the language discourse that he/she might learn there would take more time and effort to establish. Teachers must work with students at there level of language and gradually elevate it. This will validate the student’s home language, give a sense of community and also educate them in a new discourse.
Conflict may arise as a student is taught new words to use in dialect because it is natural to have discomfort in new beginnings. Teachers must not give up on students, even when they do on themselves. They need to know that they are capable in achieving success. Brilliant minds are sometimes illiterate but if they are given the help they need, they can "make it."
Reading the article, Acquisition of Literate Discourse, was very inspiring. Sometimes it is easy to forget that as educators we must never give up on the children. In the world today, some students can be difficult to work with. It becomes easy to only give attention to the successful students than the ones who need it most. All children have the ability to elevate to higher levels of education, language discourse, and successful achievement. Believing in them is the push they need.
Each subject within a school has its own set of vocabulary that at first might not be know by students. Even though my classroom is not a writing class, I must include vocabulary, reading and writing into my course to expand literacy in my students within the art realm. As my class reads articles together, I will encourage my students to underline or circle words that they do not know the meaning of and have discussions about them so they will understand more clearly. I also will have writings which need to include ‘art words’ with correct meanings. Thirdly, I will also have tests where students will list ‘art words’ such as principles of design. The words must have correct spelling in order to receive full credit. All of these activities will increase understanding, promote literacy and give my students a new, stronger language discourse of art.
I believe that the ways students are assessed is the key to the issue of bowing before the master. In my experience in my own classroom it is very clear that students do not all learn the same way and really can't be assessed in the same way. I have kids who really seem to understand the material and can talk about it, but if they have to take a written test they do not do well at all. There are certain ways that they can express themselves best and they should be assessed in that way. Unfortunately, there is no way to assess a country full of students in the ways that they are assessed best, so they must assimilate to one method whether or not it is accurate. I wish I could offer a better way to do it, but there isn't much of a way to make it "fair" enough to suit a large population like that of the United States or other countries.
ReplyDeleteThe, “Acquisition of Literate Discourse: Bowing Before the Master”, looks at James Paul Gee’s notion that literacy goes beyond reading and writing and has relates much more to an individual’s discourse. Discourse could be looked at as an identity that one gains from situations or experiences that shape what you believe or value. One gains different discourses in their home settings, institutional settings, and group settings. Not every discourse will carry equal status in one’s life.
ReplyDeleteThe article discussed Gee’s belief that one is limited to their own dominant discourse unless they have access to another type of discourse. This is cause for concern because it locks individuals into a status without accounting for personal desire to change their discourse. As an educator this is difficult to digest. It is my belief that the role of an educator should not be limited to teaching a student another discourse but also teaching them skills that help them to obtain another discourse on their own. If students are limited to the discourse of their home or surroundings and have no physical access to another discourse, what would be the point of educating that student?
I feel that no matter what your status, culture, race, or educational needs you want to if obtain another discourse it should be obtainable based upon your work ethic and desire to achieve that goal. In education this is an important frame of mind because the alternative locks you into a very narrow window of opportunity when working with your students.
Another important part of the article discussed the ability for different professionals to use a primary discourse (such as a home language) and a secondary discourse (such as an educational language), in their professional practices. While it is understandable that some literacy professionals would applaud this practice and encourage it, I feel that those who applaud this practice have been limited to only one dominant discourse, in particular one that is highly academic.
The last part of the article reviewed some suggestions as to what teachers can do when trying to help students acquire different discourses and transform them. While the article did provide a lot of insight into the notion of language as a discourse, I think that most of the suggestions should be intuitive for most teachers. Acknowledge students home language but do not limit their potential. Understand the difference between those who are unable to learn and those who do not want to learn a new discourse. Also, acknowledging that students can and should desire the ability to move among discourses and they should be made aware that you are here to help them do so.
This article presented some interesting points regarding the education of under privileged youth and whether or not they have the aptitude to learn certain things based on what class they grew-up. The author referred to an article written by Gee that basically said that it would be difficult for students to transition to a dominant discourse or assimilate to the society majority if they are not born into that majority. This is because discourse is not taught it is a part of who you are and how you were raise. He also thinks that there would be issue if a person tried to acquire another discourse that was very different from their own.
ReplyDeleteThe author gave several strong arguments that supported the notation that with the proper support and high expectations our youth can successfully assimilate to the major discourse despite their social class and be successful in life. The success stories in the articles demonstrated the power that teachers have to positively affect the future of our students. The teachers modeled and taught dominant discourse. They held high expectations for the students even when they couldn’t believe they were possible to achieve. There was a part of the article that was enlightening to me – it was regarding people that choose not to learn because it denies them the sense of who they are. Teachers have to maintain a balance when teaching to students. Students have to learn the dominant discourse in order to be successful in this world – that’s just how it is, but we need to acknowledge the culture of the students and teach the fundamentals of the dominant discourse that will help them excel in life. To deny students the opportunity to learn something that would improve their life is not fair – learning the dominant discourse is not oppressive, it is necessary!
I really liked the example of the teacher that taught Hispanic students and he stated that “Math is in their blood” because their ancestors made the major discovery of zero. This was an excellent example of encouraging the student to learn by building up their sense of pride. This is something that I will definitely use in my classroom. African American students can benefit from learning more about how their ancestors excelled in mathematics and how some great people had humble beginnings that may be similar their experiences. The pride in themselves will hopefully help them realize that they are entitled to every privilege life has to offer they just have to use what they learn in school as a tool to build their road to success.
I agree that there needs to be an open dialog regarding the inequalities that exist in education and as a teacher I would make it clear that learning the dominant discourse is essential to being successful in life. I wouldn’t call it cheating, I think it’s more like teaching them how to survive and thrive despite being in a system that is designed to keep them down.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames Paul Gee’s article, “Acquisition of Literate Discourse: Bowing Before the Master”, makes some strong statements regarding social discourse and its implications for poor children. The article begins with a story about a woman named Marge who was accepted into a master’s program despite her low GRE scores and poor writing skills. But, with hard work, dedications and proper support and motivation, she quickly excelled and began to flourish in her field. Not long later she was publishing papers well beyond most students’ abilities, and when funding came in she became the most sought after research assistant. This story proves to me that despite one’s current situation and social discourses available, with hard work and support one can adapt to new situations and quickly learn the norms of a new discourse. Despite this inspirational story, Gee is prominent in his stance that children who are not born into a dominant social discourse have little or no hope of ever acquiring the knowledge necessary for complete integration into a new social discourse. I can agree that it may not be easy to learn a new discourse, but it is surely not impossible. Again is falls on the teacher to set up a proper classroom culture which teaches proper discourse for a professional classroom setting, but it still acknowledges and supports students’ other discourses. For me as a teacher, this means that my classroom needs to help prepare students for “the real world” and the different social discourses they could encounter, but still they need to be allowed to explore their identity and express elements of their individualism. This means that some aspects of their home discourses will be brought into the classroom and integrated into their understanding of the new discourse of social settings. I believe that some elements of one’s primary discourse are deeply ingrained within us, but this does not mean that a new discourse is impossible to learn. It may take time and much practice, but just as Marge has shown us, with proper support and dedication one can adapt and mold to the demands of a new situation.
ReplyDeleteIn the article by Delpit, she vividly tries to explain the importance of vocabulary and how it plays a role in the discourse of a particular academic community or social group. She starts off with an example of an African American student in a college institution that lacks the literacy tools needed to make it into a doctorial program. After some time of working with another student on her discourse, it is found that the student is actually highly gifted and soon becomes one of the most highly sought out researchers in the university.
ReplyDeleteDelpit uses this story to explain how discourse can aid in helping at-risk students overcome obstacles and develop higher acquisitions in higher institutions and in career paths. She speaks to the importance of how the transformation process of developing a higher acquisition can be interpreted as losing one’s’ self.
Delpit’s goal is to get teachers to understand that teaching discourse can be an empowering tool and not a tool that hinders the self identity of the student. I personally find this article to not be accurate for the youth of today. For example, she states that "acquisition of many mainstream discourses . . . involves active complicity with values that conflict with one's home and community-based Discourses" In my experience in urban schools and with urban youth, it is not that the discourse diminishes with what’s taught at home, it’s that the student themselves feel that they will never get it. It is the mentality that “there are some things that I will get and others I will not” that plagues our school system and youth. I believe that discourse is used to help the students become bilingual in the subject matter. The discourse will allow them to understand different contexts such that they will become more apt to become enlightened.
Many of the statements made in this article may have been the case sometime ago; however I do not believe that this is the case of at risk students of today. I believe that discourse is important for all students alike, and not only in a particular at-risk group. Discourse in a particular subject provides evidence of fluency and provides the framework for learning deeply into the subject matter.
Delpit's article is one filled with examples galore. I found that while the opening anecdote interesting, long. I want to get right into the focus of the literacy content.
ReplyDeleteThe analysis of Gee's definition of discourse being a "saying-writing-doing- being-valuing- believing" is a good representation of how learning occurs. If students are not able to do all of the above, then that truly is discourse.
I like the idea of primary and secondary discourse. We always talk about how much the home influences our students, and how we know that rarely do we have students that actively seek out additional reading material (or should I clarify "academic") outside of our classroom walls. The argument that Delpit brings up of how there are the dominant social discourse and "if you are not already in, don't expect to get in" is a good concern for her colleague to have. I have experienced this past year some of my students feeling as though they have to follow the status quo- that this is all they are capable off and nothing more. I think that if we show them that there is another way, then our students will find that they are able to reach that higher society discourse. We need to provide examples and mentors for our students to show that it can be done. Yes it will take a lot of work, but hopefully I can make it enjoyable.
When we teach our students how to function in a dominant discourse, it is no different than teaching them the proper verbal language. There is a "business"/ "classroom" language, and then there's your home language. Same with discourse. We are just trying to give them another tool to take with them into the 21st century so that they can be contributing members of society, and actually communicate their thoughts and ideas.
As humans we mostly learn by the environment that surrounds us. We practice, follow and behave according to what we observe. The culture, the language is presented to us from the minute that we are born. Therefore, we learn to behave,to believe, care, share,communicate and connect with others according to our cultural practices that we inherit.In her writing Lisa D. Delpit states that " The status of individuals born into a particular Discourse tends to be maintained because primary Discourses are related to secondary Discourses of similar status in our society (for example, the middle class home Discourse to school Discourse, or the working class African American home Discourse to the black church Discourse). The writer explains to us that many cultures belive that the way of life relates to how we have been brought. All of us have specfic language that we use at home, school, church, or doing our daily activities.Therefore, students came to us from many different backgrounds, we as teachers should be able to know them better, work according to their needs, so we can learn more about their background,while strengthening their language skills to their capability. As teachers we have to create a great understanding and the importance of including everyone into lesson plans, daily activities and games that we practice during daily routines in our classrooms, so we can build a better working community for tomorrow. I strongly believe that this is the best way to make students progress, prosper and achieve their goals in content area of reading and literacy, be it reading, math, science or any other subject. Further, I will ask you a difficult question... have you ever been treated differently then others? If so, please let me know because I would like to know how you felt. I came to the United States of America 38 years ago, as a 17 years old, and yes I experienced this terrible feeling many times. I experienced being segregated because I spoke different language and was not able to communicate with others properly. I experienced the ugly feeling of being different, even though it was not my fault. I was born in a different country that speaks a different language and has a different culture. It was extremely hard for me to adjust to this kind of living, but I had to take it. I became bigger then that, I overcame it. Just like Marge did in her school, she is an excellent example of being left out.Therefore, I believe and suggest as teachers we must teach students to recognize and respect the characteristics of others. Each and every one of us as individuals has our own beliefs, values, race, nationality, culture, language, physical and mental characteristics. Therefore, respect, responsibility and acceptance should be built in each and every classroom so we may develop a healthy and productive community. Building a great community starts in the classroom and it is vital that all of us teachers teach students the way he/she comes to you. Regardless of race, gender, belief, culture, physical or mental ability. Reading this article by Lisa D. Delpit kind of made me share some of the terrible experiences that I endured. However, my experiences are literally too little compared with others that are still being discriminated, just because their race, color, language, skin, religion, mental or physical ability.
ReplyDeleteAcquisition of Literate Discourse:
ReplyDeleteBowing Before the Master?
This article sparked positive and negative emotions. It was initially positive to see how one woman-Marge- triumphed in getting through a Master’s program with the aid of her professor who worked with her diligently throughout the process. Marge had been labeled to be “at-risk” for not completing the program because of her deficient test scores and writing samples. The story goes on to explain that through hard work and help from her professor, Marge was able to be successful and complete the program and be sought out for her research abilities in the college that initially saw her as being incapable. Other positive aspects of the article, was how some teachers taught their poor under-privileged students “dominant discourses” despite the odds.
The article shares how literacy is considered to be part of an individuals’ discourse or identity. “Discourse in this sense is construed as something of an “identity kit,” that is, ways of saying –writing-doing-being-valuing-believing”. There are different discourses that people might identify with. Discourses range from home, school, religion, social relationships, etc. According to what was shared in the article there are primary and secondary discourses. Nonetheless, all discourses are not created equal. On page 297 of the article, “some are socially dominant-carry with them social power and access to economic success”.
The article then shared some disheartening information as it relates to literacy and one’s discourse and how some students choose to not learn because they feel that choosing to learn would make them lose a sense of their identity. As teachers we are to inspire student to want to learn other discourses as a means of enhancement and growth. Delpit shares that teachers should acknowledge the students’ home discourse in a way that broadens their capability. Also, teachers could “saturate the Dominant discourse with new meanings” in a way students could maintain a sense of themselves.
I am glad that I share with Tamara the experience of having teachers that did not find it impossible to use the acquisition of discourse in their classrooms. It is my goal to be a teacher that motivates students to do their best to help them learn other discourses that will help them be better communicators and citizens of society. To do this as Delpit suggests, I have to acknowledge students’ home discourse and share dominant discourses with students with new meanings that allow them to not lose sense of themselves, but as an opportunity to improve themselves.
This was a very powerful article, and judging from the blog posts, it resonated with just about everyone in the class. It certainly resonated with me. Delpit's article brought back the discussions our cohort had last summer about "currencies" and helping students acquire multiple currecies without devaluing the currency of their own environment.
ReplyDeleteLike may of my classmates, I recoiled at Delpit's paraphrasing of Gee's deterministic view that those not born into the dominant culture have little or no hope of mastering the dominant discourse.
At the same time, as I read the article, clear pictures of many kids I met during student teaching this year came to mind - the kids who had chosen to "not learn", the sheer number of kids who were clearly not mastering multiple discourses, some of the teachers I observed who did not require students to learn beyond the "mechanics". I could understand after just one semester how easy it would be to not expect as much of students. It can feel very overwhelming. Nevertheless, feeling overwhelmed does not excuse not trying. So much of the research we've read over the last year supports the importance of teacher expectations - in fact that having high expectations and working with students to meet or exceed expectations is one of the most important factors affecting student success.
The article brought many images to mind in my own life: the insistence by my parents that their children master the "lingua franca" of the realm, my mother's insistence on clear and grammatically correct communication in English, even though she only went as far as the ninth grade, the kids in school who said they didn't want to sound like "Paddy's(in my neighborhood we used an old slang word for Irish to denote anyone who wasn't Latino)".
I am pleased that the prevailing point of view is that we can teach students to master another discourse without rejecting that of home. In my mother's day, during the Depression (the one in the LAST century), choosing to master the tools of the dominant culture did mean rejecting one's own culture. Richard Rodriguez's memoir "Hunger of Memory" comes to mind here. I have had my own struggles as well.