In his article "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities fro Transformation," Jonathan Alexander argues for the inclusion of online gaming--and the written elements included in the gaming experience--within the composition classroom. According to Alexander, there are multiple opportunities for students to incorporate their gaming literacies into academic literacy, teaching the instructor about their literacies as well as learning something new from the instructor.
Alexander argues that "incorporating a strong consideration of gaming into composition courses may not only enliven writing instruction for many of our students, but also transform our approach to literacy" (37). The multimodal nature of students increases their ability to relate and incorporate classroom skills in the world outside of the class--in other classes or in a career. Also, Alexander argues that gaming increases critical thinking (36), a skill necessary for any career. By incorporating the literarcies a student already knows, say gaming, with new, rhetorical literacies taught in the classroom, a student will be more prepared to learn further and apply his or her knowledge in other situations; for example, students may be better understand culture through a game: "games and new media experience can promote not only a toleration of and even interesting in cultural difference, but also an understanding of the role of communication in mediating that difference and the role of literacy in working collaboratively with cultural differences in mind" (Alexander 49). The collaboration of people working with others and learning about different groups (the French Canadian learning what slang terms actually mean) can improve intercultural knowledge, understanding, and possibly acceptance. For a real life example of meeting new people and learning of different cultures, I will briefly explain the relationship of my teammate Luke and his girlfriend Rian. He is from Washington, and she lives in Texas. Through WOW, they met by fighting in the same Guild. Months after meeting, they have visited each other; her learning about the Pacific Northwest and he learning of the South. Is this an example of communication that Alexander promotes? Or is this a just an interesting story?
As these literacies of new media have implications for the academic classroom, I also think of other literacies of my own and potentially of other students that could be included in the composition classroom. For example, I know how to read music and understand an eight-part choral composition. In a different area, I am also literate in the languages of international track and field as well as that of western horsemanship. However, I speak nothing of any gaming language, unless you count Oregon Trail (Yes, I would like to raft down the river!) If Alexander is correct to promote the use of online gaming--World of Warcraft, in particular--how am I to understand, relate, or include this type of literacy in the classroom? Furthermore, how are other students whose literacies do not include gaming join in the conversation? I suppose this is where Alexander's assignment suggestions may be utilized and, perhaps, this is where I would learn something new from my students.
Doug Hesse and Cynthia L. Selfe discuss certain aspects of writing in the classroom, particularly what should be taught in the classroom. They counter each other in regards to various questions; in particular, this question stands out to me: "Whose interests should the composition class serve?" (Hesse 603). Selfe also asks, "What is the proper subject matter for composition classes?" (606). I, too, wonder. Can gaming be included in the curriculum and stand as a form of writing? And does it actually include a rhetorical situation that is complicated, critical, and applicable in academia? (In the reading, the rhetorical situation is defined as "the rhetorical situation is the situation in which we all write" [611].) Overall, if gaming is a literacy in itself and promotes writing, reading, communication, and critical thinking, it should be available for students to utilize as a tool for learning. Selfe suggests that educators are "obliged to teach [students] how to compose with modalities that may be unfamiliar and difficult but expected of educated citizen within workplaces" (608). If a student learns to communicate through multiple mediums, problem solve in groups, and write in a clear, purposeful manner, his or her education was successful... I hope.
Works Cited
Alexander, Jonathan. "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom." College Composition and Communication 61:1 (September 2009): 35-63.
Hesse, Doug. "Interchanges: Response to Cynthia Selfe's 'The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing.'" College Composition and Communication 61:3 (February 2010): 602-605.
Selfe, Cynthia L. "Response to Doug Hesse," College Composition and Communication 61:3 (February 2010): 602-610.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Orality and expression
Despite the growth of literacy and widespread use of writing in the United States, oral culture still exists. It has survived public education and Web 2.0, and will likely continue to affect students and educators alike. As oral culture and tradition is passed from generation to generation, whether intentional or not, stylistic elements and approaches to writing that are characteristic of orality show through even the most literate students. As shown by in his chapter “Some psychodynamics of orality,” Walter Ong delves into the details of characteristics of oral culture, based on thought and expression. Similarly, in her article “Plateau Indian Ways with Words,” Barbara Monroe discusses these characteristics by focusing on how they manifest in a focused group in the American Northwest.
Monroe lists characteristics of writing by students with a background of oral culture such as the Plateau Indians, including using “personal experience as supporting evidence and high-affect techniques, such as hypothetical dialogue, humor, and sardonic tone” (322). More broadly, Ong shows that oral discourse is embedded in context: “Written discourse develops more elaborate and fixed grammar than oral discourse does because to provide meaning it is more dependent simply upon linguistic structure” (38). Oral culture is dependent on adjectives, elaboration, and attributions—“aggregative” language (Ong 38). As narrative is related to storytelling and performance, oral culture requires elements of speech, elements that students incorporate into their writing. By understanding this relationship to performance, it may be seen that the audience is of utmost importance. As speakers repeat themselves so that their listeners do not lose interest or forget importance elements, so do writers repeat themselves to a point of apparent “redundancy” (39-41). However, it is not a fault if this repetition is seen as an organizational tool necessary to maintain the attention of the audience. The personalization of writers from oral backgrounds is used as evidence to support their arguments or stories (Monroe 329-330); this support is built on their our characters, or the characters of their parents—ethos. In a similar manner, the use of emotional language to elaborate and improve their writing shows an understanding of pathos and how it affects an audience.
Ong’s work further explains oral culture by examining the effects of literacy on thought processes; for example, even the small exposures to reading and writing of the slightly literate change the manner in which a person responds to questions (Ong 42-43). Oral culture is tied to human nature, it maintains a relationship with reality and the constructs of the present. In contrast, writing—and literacy—allows people to think abstractly, naming shapes by their geometric names and not their real-life counterparts (Ong 43). Literacy, and writing in particular, allows people to spend more time on things not related to memorization, such as writing a list of groceries for the weekend, rather than remembering it all week. This saves energy that can be used elsewhere. Monroe discusses these variations in thinking by comparing and contrasting analytic versus holistic thinking (334). Holistic thinking allows for multiple voices; to oral cultures, multiple perspectives are important and valued. Analytic thinking values a strong argument where the writer supports one perspective. Attempts to switch between the two thought processes is likely difficult, if not impossible to compartmentalize one or the other. I wonder, can the two be effectively combined? If not, which is appropriate for students in a university setting?
Is it possible for a student of an oral culture to switch between the two discourses of persuasion, of orality and academic discourse? Monroe notes that translation can weaken an argument or meaning, particularly when translating from an oral, narrative context to a straightforward purpose (325). Perhaps the use of modern media, technology, and varied rhetorical mediums can ease the transition between the two, meshing them together, ever so slightly. At the end of her article, Monroe urges educators to employ computers and varied media—visual rhetorics—that contextualize learning through the use of popular culture and technologies that may enhance writing (338-339). Also, these alternative teaching methods may reduce power relations of the teacher held by certain students, making the teacher more approachable or accessible. By incorporating new mediums into the classroom and in assignments, teachers may learn to teach old tricks using modern methods.
From personal experience as a student, I have found that modern technology and mixed media enhanced my learning and broadened my perspectives as a student and as a global community member, so much that I am earning a double degree in English and Digital Technology and Culture. Perhaps other students may too benefit from multiple medias, adding alternative literacies to their home literacy.
Works Cited
Ong, Walter. "Further characteristics of orally based thought and expression" in Ch. 3of Orality and LIteracy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Routledge, 1988. Pp. 36-57.
Monroe, Barbara. "Plateau Indian Ways with Words." College Composition and Communication. 61 (September 2009): W321-W342.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Identity: is it "worth it"?
In the readings for this week, I found that the authors both worked to define the meanings of identifying a person as "American Indian" or "mixedblood." In his introduction to the book American Indian Rhetorics of Survivance: Word Medicine, Word Magic, Ernest Stromberg explores the meaning of rhetoric in terms of American Indians, and how it applies to the discourse communities of American Indian students. From a different perspective in his article "Indians, Mixedbloods, and 'White' Academe," Scott Lyons considers how the identity of "mixedblood" people affect their writing, as well as the perception of the academic world.
To begin, Stromberg questions a definition of rhetoric for his topic: American Indians. By taking into account historical contexts and various voices influencing his writing, Stromberg states: "a definition of rhetoric as the use of language or other forms of symbolic action to produce texts (in the broadest possible sense) that affect changes in the attitudes, beliefs, or actions of an audience" (4). This definition set the groundwork for how I looked at his description of how rhetoric affected writers, in addition to being affected by writers.Within a discourse, writers must address the audience; this can be even more effective when using the language of the audience, that of the discourse community. Where Kenneth Burke defined rhetoric as a "process of establishing 'identification' between self and other(s)" (3), Stromberg takes into account that American Indians are often seen as "the other" in the United States, a culture different from the Western majority. Noting this difference between cultures may be the first step to communicating between and within communities.
Crossing discourses--from Western rhetoric to that of American Indians--is vital to understanding writing of multicultural students. As a writer considers the audience, perhaps readers need to consider the writer and his or her background and context for texts. As Stromberg notes, the "rhetoric of the victor is what we usually remember, despite the frequently superior logic and eloquence of the vanquished" (9). As the white majority is the historically powerful group in the United States, a reader outside of the the American Indian community must work to understand their writing, style, and perspective to fully appreciate the text.
Similarly, the author must establish a sense of identity in order to speak to the audience. This, however, is much more difficult that it sounds. Lyons suggests that "we translate lived experience into narrative; conversely, we rely on narratives to live our lives, make sense of our worlds, engage in production, relate to others, and construct and assert our identities" (88). The narratives of Indian students collect their cultural and personal histories, intelligence and learned knowledge, and ideas into identity which, in turn, is seen in their writing. Identity becomes difficult for students when they are considered mixedblood: " a term [Lyons] uses to refer to humans, texts, language, and consciousness emphasizing duality-as-wholeness" (Lyons 89). Identifying oneself as mixedblood may be difficult due to the perceptions of self and others--what belongs in the community and what is outside of the community. In a multicultural community, defining an identity for a member is difficult and, perhaps, impossible. Multiple identities can be found within one person, as Gloria Anzaldúa expresses due to the fact that she may belong to many communities--is this a type of mixedblood writer?
The term "mixedblood" brings up questions for me. To begin, does Lyons include multicultural people outside of Native Americans to be mixedblood, or is it specific to one group? When a person is choosing to identify himself of herself within the confines of race, ethnicity, or other defining entity, does this choice create definitive boundaries for the person? By choosing a discourse community, does this limit in what a person may participate? Using Anzaldúa's logic, Lyons asserts that mixedbloods must live within boundaries, yet notes that "the mixedblood is mobile (yet excluded) and flexible (yet caught)" (90). Looking back to James Gee's analogy that a discourse is like a map; to me, a map has rigid boundaries. Here, a writer may feel captive in his or her own identity, stuck to the cultural expectations of oneself and others; the perception of one's identity is criticized through actions, as well as physicality (Lyons 96, 105). The story of Dick Lyons, the author's father, saddens the reader because the man was unable to continue working for the people of his culture because he "'burned out'" in his community (Lyons 95). The inability to fully "assimilate" into white culture stressed his work as an educator, but his inability to fully participate in his cultural history also pulled at his work. In the end, Lyons didn't know if it was "'worth it'" (95).
To me, identity is something I struggle with, particularly cultural identity. However, I find the struggle to be worth it. Perhaps, with further education and understanding, other students, writers, and educators will also find the merits of personal and community identities and how they influence themselves and others.
Also, to follow up from our discussion last week, here is a link to to La llorona told by Joe Hayes. This is the version I grew up with--it scared the heck out of me. I preferred his The Day it Snowed Tortillas. I'm working on finding the actual audio, but it's hard to find online....
Works Cited
To begin, Stromberg questions a definition of rhetoric for his topic: American Indians. By taking into account historical contexts and various voices influencing his writing, Stromberg states: "a definition of rhetoric as the use of language or other forms of symbolic action to produce texts (in the broadest possible sense) that affect changes in the attitudes, beliefs, or actions of an audience" (4). This definition set the groundwork for how I looked at his description of how rhetoric affected writers, in addition to being affected by writers.Within a discourse, writers must address the audience; this can be even more effective when using the language of the audience, that of the discourse community. Where Kenneth Burke defined rhetoric as a "process of establishing 'identification' between self and other(s)" (3), Stromberg takes into account that American Indians are often seen as "the other" in the United States, a culture different from the Western majority. Noting this difference between cultures may be the first step to communicating between and within communities.
Crossing discourses--from Western rhetoric to that of American Indians--is vital to understanding writing of multicultural students. As a writer considers the audience, perhaps readers need to consider the writer and his or her background and context for texts. As Stromberg notes, the "rhetoric of the victor is what we usually remember, despite the frequently superior logic and eloquence of the vanquished" (9). As the white majority is the historically powerful group in the United States, a reader outside of the the American Indian community must work to understand their writing, style, and perspective to fully appreciate the text.
Similarly, the author must establish a sense of identity in order to speak to the audience. This, however, is much more difficult that it sounds. Lyons suggests that "we translate lived experience into narrative; conversely, we rely on narratives to live our lives, make sense of our worlds, engage in production, relate to others, and construct and assert our identities" (88). The narratives of Indian students collect their cultural and personal histories, intelligence and learned knowledge, and ideas into identity which, in turn, is seen in their writing. Identity becomes difficult for students when they are considered mixedblood: " a term [Lyons] uses to refer to humans, texts, language, and consciousness emphasizing duality-as-wholeness" (Lyons 89). Identifying oneself as mixedblood may be difficult due to the perceptions of self and others--what belongs in the community and what is outside of the community. In a multicultural community, defining an identity for a member is difficult and, perhaps, impossible. Multiple identities can be found within one person, as Gloria Anzaldúa expresses due to the fact that she may belong to many communities--is this a type of mixedblood writer?
The term "mixedblood" brings up questions for me. To begin, does Lyons include multicultural people outside of Native Americans to be mixedblood, or is it specific to one group? When a person is choosing to identify himself of herself within the confines of race, ethnicity, or other defining entity, does this choice create definitive boundaries for the person? By choosing a discourse community, does this limit in what a person may participate? Using Anzaldúa's logic, Lyons asserts that mixedbloods must live within boundaries, yet notes that "the mixedblood is mobile (yet excluded) and flexible (yet caught)" (90). Looking back to James Gee's analogy that a discourse is like a map; to me, a map has rigid boundaries. Here, a writer may feel captive in his or her own identity, stuck to the cultural expectations of oneself and others; the perception of one's identity is criticized through actions, as well as physicality (Lyons 96, 105). The story of Dick Lyons, the author's father, saddens the reader because the man was unable to continue working for the people of his culture because he "'burned out'" in his community (Lyons 95). The inability to fully "assimilate" into white culture stressed his work as an educator, but his inability to fully participate in his cultural history also pulled at his work. In the end, Lyons didn't know if it was "'worth it'" (95).
To me, identity is something I struggle with, particularly cultural identity. However, I find the struggle to be worth it. Perhaps, with further education and understanding, other students, writers, and educators will also find the merits of personal and community identities and how they influence themselves and others.
Also, to follow up from our discussion last week, here is a link to to La llorona told by Joe Hayes. This is the version I grew up with--it scared the heck out of me. I preferred his The Day it Snowed Tortillas. I'm working on finding the actual audio, but it's hard to find online....
Works Cited
Lyons, Scott. "A Captivity Narrative: Indians, Mixedbloods, and 'White' Academe. In Outbursts in Academe: Multiculturalism and Other Sources of Conflict. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1998. Pp. 87-108.
Stromberg, Ernest. "Rhetoric and American Indians: An Introduction." American Indian Rhetorics of Survivance: Word Medicine, Word Magic. Ed. Ernest Stromberg. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006. Pp. 1-14.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Identity is a remolino, a vortex of writing
In his "Introduction [to "Symposium: Comparative Rhetorical Studies in the New Contact Zone: Chinese Rhetoric Reimagined,"] C. Jan Swearingen offers a cultural comparison between the understanding of rhetoric in the United States, using Socratic and other Greeks' methodology, and the Chinese understanding of rhetoric that employs Confucius and Mencius, among others. Swearingen asserts "we can better understand the habits of speaking, writing, and thinking that Chinese students bring with them to the composition classroom" (33). Like with any student from a culture that is different from the mainstream, teachers and other students must pause when looking at writing; culture influences what a person writes, and each culture, each student is different.
To explain the differences in Chinese and English rhetorical writing styles, Swearingen describes the difficulties with translating words and their meanings from Chinese, a logographic language, to English, a phonemic language, and vice versa (Swearingen 34). While translations between any two languages lose certain amount of meaning due to a loss of contextual information within the primary language, the differences between Chinese and English are sometimes greater because of the nuances of the characters for certain words. English rhetoric is based on Greek philosophy, drawing from minds like Socrates and Plato; in contrast, Chinese rhetoric looks to Confucius and Mencius. While these two teachings have obvious differences, from history to philosophy, these two teachings overlap, too. The Chinese xiuci "aims to establish one's integrity" (Swearingen 35), which can be seen as a type of ethos. Similarly, it emphasizes the appropriate use of language, the timing and content--kairos.
Overall, Chinese rhetorical principles, the ci and yan, encourage getting the message from the speaker to the audience: "using rhetoric to seek truth and condemn the manipulative and deceitful use of discourse" (Swearingen 35). In the United States, the negatively perceived "rhetoric" is understood as disingenuous, the Chinese, too, see flowery language as manipulative or purposefully confusing language as a poor use of rhetoric. Where high school students in the United States learn the five paragraph essay, Chinese students may learn the eight-legged essay (Swearingen 37). Similar to the former, the latter style emphasizes eight points: the opening, amplification, preliminary exposition, initial argument, central argument, latter argument, final argument, and conclusion. Teachers in the United States may examine Chinese students' writing through their own lens, but understanding even the basics of Chinese rhetoric will further one's understanding of the writing.
Similarly, Andrea Lunsford explores the ways in which culture influenced Gloria Anzaldúa, as shown in her interview "Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric: Gloria Anzaldúa on Composition and Postcoloniality." Throughout the session, Andzaldúa poignantly describes how her identity shaped her writing, and how her writing shaped her identity. As a child, she told stories and kept journals, making narrative a part of her oral and written identities (Lundsford 47). However, when Anzaldúa applied her knowledge of writing in her essays for school, teachers chastised her for not following the "rules" of composition (Lundsford 50). Ever since, Anzaldúa has worked to make her voices heard by expressing her ideas, opinions, and stories to effect change. Writing is part of identity because it is wrapped up in self-expression, a process of liberalization and emancipation (Lundsford 62).
In a similar manner, Anzaldúa says that "Identity is very much a fictive construction" (Lundsford 66). A student must use their surroundings, their cultural and geographical surroundings, what people label him or her, and what the student identifies as elements of his character. Lundsford emphasizes the importance of a student's recognition of voice, where teachers may work: "to find ways to help students recognize their own multiple voices" (59). The analogy of identity as a personal remolino, a vortex of "values, ideology, and identity" (Lundsford 71) works to describe how a student conveys his or her own voice through writing, his or her own identity.
Works Cited
Swearingen, C. Jan and LuMing Mao. "Introduction [to "Symposium: Comparative Rhetorical Studies in the New Contact Zone: Chinese Rhetoric Reimagined."]: Double Trouble: Seeing Chinese Rhetoric through Its Own Lens." College Composition and Composition 60.4 (June 2009): W35-45.
Lunsford, Andrea. "Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric: Gloria Anzaldua on Composition and Postcoloniality." In Race, Rhetoric, and the Postcolonial. Ed. Gary Olson and Lynn Worhsam. Pp. 43-78.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Relationships on Front Street
In her chapter "Putting One's Business on Front Street," Barbara Monroe discusses a certain group of Detroit high school students and their interactions with tutors from the University of Michigan during the 1990s. Through the project's span, interesting data and observations regarding the relationships of the students, tutors, and educators.
One fascinating--and understandable relationship-- was that of sexual identity and the gender relationships' effect on written communication. In particular, I found it interesting that the tutor-student relationships between females often included personal notes, or borderline "secrets" that are channels for female friendship (Monroe 48). While the male tutor-female student partnerships were the most professional and productive, the female tutor-male student dyads were the least productive. There are many social implications in the noticeable effects of this relationship; for example, there may tension between an older man and a younger woman due to the ages of each and the historical implications of marriage of older men to young women. It may be difficult to establish long-term, close relationships where personal information is shared due to legal precedence, or a least a perception of what may be seen as "wrong." As for the female tutor-male student dyads, it does not surprise me that they were less productive; however, I imagine that their relationship was more personal than the male-female pairs as there is less of a social stigma or likelihood of misinterpretation of their relationship. Personally, I have found a slight difference between females and males with my work in the Writing Center. Female students appear to be more comfortable when sitting down with me for a tutorial than males; perhaps this is due to similar communication styles between women or due to my ostensible authority over them or their work where males may feel defensive. Or, perhaps, this is merely an attempt to find similar relationships in Monroe's project within my own experiences.
Another fascinating aspect to the tutor-student relationship was the conscious and unconscious attempts to break stereotypes, from tutors de-emphasizing their "richness" and students' attempts to show their success in school through GPA (Monroe 46-47). In order to establish a relationship, many of the participants actively bring themselves out of their stereotyped role; often, however, unconscious comments sometimes show more than intended. However, the relationships broke stereotypes simply through communication; the two groups would not have likely worked together without the help of the project. In and of itself, the unconscious elements of the relationships and work established through the project did more to break stereotypes than the conscious, planned attempts.
Lastly, the relationship between Standard American English (SAE) and African American English (AAE), as well as the written Edited American English (EAE) show the importance of code-switching and style-switching within the students' oral and written practices. The students clearly knew when to use each according to what was appropriate for each situation and to whom the student was speaking. Style-switching seemed to be necessary for students' reputation in social circles, while code-switching was necessary for school, church, or professional situations. How each student spoke--or wrote--was directly associated to their audience, demonstrating awareness of their surroundings and importance of conveying a message.
Works Cited
Gee, James. "Tools of Inquiry and Discourses." Ch. 3. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. New York: Routledge, 2005. Pp. 20-35.
Monroe, Barbara. "Putting One's Business on Front Street." Ch. 2 in Crossing the Digital Divide, pp. 31-69.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Discouse as a dance
Throughout his chapter "Tools of inquiry and discourses," James Gee uses extended metaphors or examples to characterized and explain his definition of "'Discourse,' with a capital 'D'" (21). It incorporates language into action, situation, and acceptance--it is highly contextual and social. Gee uses the example of the who and what in a discourse allow for a person to belong, such as the "real Indian" (23-26). To further investigate and clarify his notions, Gee turns to references of dance, cartography, and even Barbie dolls. All of these examples seemed repetitive at first, but I found that I had a greater understanding of Gee's "Discourse."
Discourse as a dance makes sense: there are styles, actions, props, motions, words, and a places where a dance may occur, all within the broad terms of Discourse (Gee 28). People in a dance take roles similar to that of the teacher and student--the lead and the follow. Dance may be local or universal; it may be learned and, when learned, expressed through the accepted elements of the certain type of dance. People learning a dance do not belong to the discourse community, yet they are trying to learn all of the elements so that members--"real"--may accept them. (This makes sense to me because I am taking a social dance class right now--my first dance class ever. I am clearly an outsider, trying to learn the elements of the dance community.)
The idea of acceptance into a certain community brings up the issue of identity, and how many identities a person may have--a mixed discourse, perhaps. Gee notes that belonging to a Discourse involves "recognition" (26) by others in the community. Additionally, a person in a Discourse must act "in the 'appropriate way' with the 'appropriate' props at the 'appropriate' times in the 'appropriate' places" (26). Discourse is about belonging and being accepted. Moving into a new Discourse is difficult and, at times, impossible.
Barbara Monroe discusses what is seen as appropriate and acceptable within certain cultures in her chapter "Storytime on the Reservation." Due to their socialization at home, students of certain cultural backgrounds approach writing and narrative differently, telling a story in concordance with what they know is acceptable in their home (Monroe 100-101). While story-telling is one of the greatest aids for young students to excel in school, it is typical of white families, definitely not typical in Latino, Mexican-descent households (Monroe 97-98). How students talk is directly related to their socialization--what is appropriate for their culture. Similarly, the simple act of storytelling or bedtime reading teaches students to think beyond the present or the facts; storytelling teaches children to ask why, to elaborate, and to think of potential outcomes. Monroe describes these as discourses similar to academic discourse.
While the comparison of Discourses to dance and kits (Barbie doll kits) work for me, I struggle with Gee's use of a map to describe Discourse (28-30). While he notes that discourse does not have clear boundaries, a map does. To amend for this, Gee's "map" becomes a grid, or a map with flexible boundaries. Boundaries create borderlands, which in turn may create mixed discourses; however, a boundary also attempts to draw a line where an identity must end. Gee states that "A given Discourse can involve multiple identities" (33); this may be understood as Bizzell's "mixed" discourses. However, as a Discourse is highly contextual and subject to those within the discourse, can identities be flexible and fluid? or are they fixed?
Lastly, as a note on his writing style, Gee uses a plethora of quotation marks in his writing. While he notes that the use of these marks may be due to his inability to claim membership within a certain discourse; for example, he uses the notation to clarify that he is referring to certain terms like "real Indian" and not claiming the "right" to use the term (Gee 23). In effect, Gee is distancing himself from certain terms because he does not belong to the social situation--is an outsider--and is not comfortable using certain terms. However, Gee also tends to use quotation marks when referring to terms in discourses in which he may belong or may understand; he continually sets apart words like "appropriate" (26), "recognition" (27), and even "discourse" (33). Perhaps Gee does not want to claim ownership to certain words in context; perhaps he is marking the difference between his words and those of a separate discourse.
Lastly, number two: Storytelling is huge. My mom always said that she read to us each night so that we--my siblings and I--would learn to read and learn to appreciate reading. I'm so interested in discussing this in class--my mom would be so excited that research supports her theory!
Works Cited
Discourse as a dance makes sense: there are styles, actions, props, motions, words, and a places where a dance may occur, all within the broad terms of Discourse (Gee 28). People in a dance take roles similar to that of the teacher and student--the lead and the follow. Dance may be local or universal; it may be learned and, when learned, expressed through the accepted elements of the certain type of dance. People learning a dance do not belong to the discourse community, yet they are trying to learn all of the elements so that members--"real"--may accept them. (This makes sense to me because I am taking a social dance class right now--my first dance class ever. I am clearly an outsider, trying to learn the elements of the dance community.)
The idea of acceptance into a certain community brings up the issue of identity, and how many identities a person may have--a mixed discourse, perhaps. Gee notes that belonging to a Discourse involves "recognition" (26) by others in the community. Additionally, a person in a Discourse must act "in the 'appropriate way' with the 'appropriate' props at the 'appropriate' times in the 'appropriate' places" (26). Discourse is about belonging and being accepted. Moving into a new Discourse is difficult and, at times, impossible.
Barbara Monroe discusses what is seen as appropriate and acceptable within certain cultures in her chapter "Storytime on the Reservation." Due to their socialization at home, students of certain cultural backgrounds approach writing and narrative differently, telling a story in concordance with what they know is acceptable in their home (Monroe 100-101). While story-telling is one of the greatest aids for young students to excel in school, it is typical of white families, definitely not typical in Latino, Mexican-descent households (Monroe 97-98). How students talk is directly related to their socialization--what is appropriate for their culture. Similarly, the simple act of storytelling or bedtime reading teaches students to think beyond the present or the facts; storytelling teaches children to ask why, to elaborate, and to think of potential outcomes. Monroe describes these as discourses similar to academic discourse.
While the comparison of Discourses to dance and kits (Barbie doll kits) work for me, I struggle with Gee's use of a map to describe Discourse (28-30). While he notes that discourse does not have clear boundaries, a map does. To amend for this, Gee's "map" becomes a grid, or a map with flexible boundaries. Boundaries create borderlands, which in turn may create mixed discourses; however, a boundary also attempts to draw a line where an identity must end. Gee states that "A given Discourse can involve multiple identities" (33); this may be understood as Bizzell's "mixed" discourses. However, as a Discourse is highly contextual and subject to those within the discourse, can identities be flexible and fluid? or are they fixed?
Lastly, as a note on his writing style, Gee uses a plethora of quotation marks in his writing. While he notes that the use of these marks may be due to his inability to claim membership within a certain discourse; for example, he uses the notation to clarify that he is referring to certain terms like "real Indian" and not claiming the "right" to use the term (Gee 23). In effect, Gee is distancing himself from certain terms because he does not belong to the social situation--is an outsider--and is not comfortable using certain terms. However, Gee also tends to use quotation marks when referring to terms in discourses in which he may belong or may understand; he continually sets apart words like "appropriate" (26), "recognition" (27), and even "discourse" (33). Perhaps Gee does not want to claim ownership to certain words in context; perhaps he is marking the difference between his words and those of a separate discourse.
Lastly, number two: Storytelling is huge. My mom always said that she read to us each night so that we--my siblings and I--would learn to read and learn to appreciate reading. I'm so interested in discussing this in class--my mom would be so excited that research supports her theory!
Works Cited
Gee, James. "Language and Identity at Home." Ch. 3. Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. New York: Routledge, 2004. Pp. 21-38.
Monroe, Barbara. "Storytime on the Reservation." Ch. 4 in Crossing the Digital Divide, pp. 85-114.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Mixed Forms and Dynamic Discourses
To continue our discussion of hybrid/alternative/mixed discourses from last week, we read Patricia Bizzell's "The Intellectual Work of 'Mixed' Forms of Academic Discourses;" this article seems to be the next step in her defining of non-traditional academic discourse where she further explores the influence and importance of new voices in traditional academic writing and language. In this article, Bizzell reiterates the confines of the traditional academic community, the languages of a certain class and status that previously defined "what's real, normal, natural, good, and true" (Bizzell 1). Bizzell asserts the evolution of academic writing with her introduction of "'alternative' forms of academic discourse," (1) including the writing of minority groups, lower social classes, and women.
With these new discourse groups entering academia, Bizzell asserts that both the audience and the content of academic writing is evolving, changing to include a broader audience:"These new discourses enable scholarship to take account of new variables, to explore new methods, and to communicate findings in new venues, including broader reading publics than the academic" (3). Bizzell's name for these new discourses evolve from hybrid to alternative to mixed which shows the reader how these cultural discourses are being scrutinized and--potentially--accepted in the academic community. As a teacher, Bizzell notes the importance of expectations of students, such as how it is a mistake to expect a certain discourse from a certain student: "it is a mistake to expect something like traditional academic discourse from all the students who appear racially white or who self-identify as white" (5). This may be taken a step further to students of different cultures by assuming short-comings or inability to switch between discourse communities. Students may be uncomfortable in unfamiliar situations such as certain classroom environments or when assigned certain style of writing; non-traditional work may be foreign to students and instructors alike. However, as Bizzell notes, it is important to encourage and accept "a diversity of intellectual approaches" (9) through student exercises and acknowledgment of individual experiences.
In her article "Academic Discourses or Small Boats on a Big Sea," Jacqueline Jones Royster's work builds upon the Bizzell readings from class. Royster explores the connections between academic and nonacademic settings, the influence of new discourse communities on traditional academic discourse. A short-sighted perception of literacy is simply reading and writing; however, literacy connects "cultural, social, political, and economic implications and consequences" (Royster 23) and focuses on the various expectations and values of particular discourse communities, both by those in the community--educators, writers--and by those who are outside looking in--readers, students. Royster notes the exclusivity of traditional academia, the singularity of "the language, the discourse... other languages and discourses" (24). This notion of "the other" emphasizes why students may be uncomfortable in a foreign community or why non-traditional styles of writing may be difficult for certain writers. Despite this exclusive aura of traditional academia, Royster suggests that academic is changing, evolving, and dynamic; what is "correct" is a matter of acceptance in a static discourse community due to
"sets of values, expectations, protocols, and practices" (24-25). The hierarchy of traditional academia limits new voices or different styles of writing.
In education, it is possible to open the door to academic writing to different styles and ideas by using knowledge dynamically, enhancing previous experiences of writers by incorporating their personality into their writing. Royster states: "We envision the work of classrooms as dynamic, multidirectional engagement with the expectation of of dynamic rewards, rather than as places where the goal is mainly to match the norms and to replicate ordinary outcomes" (27). By re-thinking roles in education, students may become more than vessels for teachers to fill with knowledge; similarly, teachers may be taught by students' personalities, knowledge, experiences, and culture. If educators "help students to forge connections between what they already know as language users," (Royster 28), both students and teachers will learn from these connections and further build upon their knowledge, growing through the experiences of others.
With these new discourse groups entering academia, Bizzell asserts that both the audience and the content of academic writing is evolving, changing to include a broader audience:"These new discourses enable scholarship to take account of new variables, to explore new methods, and to communicate findings in new venues, including broader reading publics than the academic" (3). Bizzell's name for these new discourses evolve from hybrid to alternative to mixed which shows the reader how these cultural discourses are being scrutinized and--potentially--accepted in the academic community. As a teacher, Bizzell notes the importance of expectations of students, such as how it is a mistake to expect a certain discourse from a certain student: "it is a mistake to expect something like traditional academic discourse from all the students who appear racially white or who self-identify as white" (5). This may be taken a step further to students of different cultures by assuming short-comings or inability to switch between discourse communities. Students may be uncomfortable in unfamiliar situations such as certain classroom environments or when assigned certain style of writing; non-traditional work may be foreign to students and instructors alike. However, as Bizzell notes, it is important to encourage and accept "a diversity of intellectual approaches" (9) through student exercises and acknowledgment of individual experiences.
In her article "Academic Discourses or Small Boats on a Big Sea," Jacqueline Jones Royster's work builds upon the Bizzell readings from class. Royster explores the connections between academic and nonacademic settings, the influence of new discourse communities on traditional academic discourse. A short-sighted perception of literacy is simply reading and writing; however, literacy connects "cultural, social, political, and economic implications and consequences" (Royster 23) and focuses on the various expectations and values of particular discourse communities, both by those in the community--educators, writers--and by those who are outside looking in--readers, students. Royster notes the exclusivity of traditional academia, the singularity of "the language, the discourse... other languages and discourses" (24). This notion of "the other" emphasizes why students may be uncomfortable in a foreign community or why non-traditional styles of writing may be difficult for certain writers. Despite this exclusive aura of traditional academia, Royster suggests that academic is changing, evolving, and dynamic; what is "correct" is a matter of acceptance in a static discourse community due to
"sets of values, expectations, protocols, and practices" (24-25). The hierarchy of traditional academia limits new voices or different styles of writing.
In education, it is possible to open the door to academic writing to different styles and ideas by using knowledge dynamically, enhancing previous experiences of writers by incorporating their personality into their writing. Royster states: "We envision the work of classrooms as dynamic, multidirectional engagement with the expectation of of dynamic rewards, rather than as places where the goal is mainly to match the norms and to replicate ordinary outcomes" (27). By re-thinking roles in education, students may become more than vessels for teachers to fill with knowledge; similarly, teachers may be taught by students' personalities, knowledge, experiences, and culture. If educators "help students to forge connections between what they already know as language users," (Royster 28), both students and teachers will learn from these connections and further build upon their knowledge, growing through the experiences of others.
Works Cited
Bizzell, Patricia. "The Intellectual Work of 'Mixed' Forms of Academic Discourses." AltDis: Alternative Discourses and the Academy. Ed. Christopher Schroeder, Helen Fox, and Patricia Bizzell. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002. Pp. 1-10.
Royster, Jacqueline Jones. "Academic Discourse or Small Boats on a Big Sea." AltDis: Alternative Discourses and the Academy. Ed. Christopher Schroeder, Helen Fox, and Patricia Bizzell. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002. Pp. 23-30.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)