Bartholomae, David. “Writing on the Margins”. Boston; Bedford St. Martins, 2005.

Eckert, Lisa S. “Bridging the Pedagogical Gap: Intersections between Literacy Reading Theories in Secondary and Post Secondary Literacy Instruction”. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy; Volume 52:2, 2008.

Mellix, Barbara. “From Outside In”

After these readings, I walked away with the simple, albeit nagging question: What do we teach for? Dr. Boland asked a question about why we read, that is, what are we looking to accomplish in our reading? I couldn’t help wondering the same about teaching. I found myself questioning what my desired outcome will be as a teacher. Should our goal be teaching skill based how-to’s or exploratory ‘what-if’s and why’s? Do we teach competency or do we go beyond the surface to teaching the language of academia? Bartholomae, Eckert, Melix, they all opened my mind to questions about teaching and learning practices that left me wondering. I suppose I should start with the readings though.

The excerpt from Bartholomae’s book “Inventing the University” takes a look at the connection between writing and discourse as it relates to incoming college students. He says that “a student has to appropriate (or be appropriated by) a specialized discourse, and he had to do this as though he were easily and comfortably one with his audience. What he essentially claims is that students must assume a false sense of solidarity (one who knows the language of the land) long before they become full members of the community. Where I come from, we have a jibe that says “you fake it until you make it”. That’s the concept that Bartholomae is suggesting—that students fake proficiency in the language of academia until they understand it fully.

I have to be honest, this idea as it relates to literacy bothered me for a while, because to me it means that we all have to fake or falsify who we are in order to learn something new. I’m a fan of learning, always have been, but I’m not a fan of faking or inventing so the combination of the two got under my skin. I wondered why can’t I be a learner, an “apprentice” without sounding like some sort of wannabe? It didn’t and still doesn’t sit well with me. But the more I think about it, it’s probably just Bartholomae’s terminology that is unflattering. I mean, when a baby is babbling simple phonemes no one says “look at that baby, fake talking…pretending to be a talker”. No, we don’t do that, we say the baby is learning to talk, or talking ‘baby talk’. I guess I would have taken it better if Bartholomae had called it ‘freshman talk’ or something stage/age specific. However, the Mellix story helped to smooth things out a little.

The Mellix story was a narrative example of a woman’s struggle to truly forge an identity through her writing. It is an almost first-hand account of what Bartholomae suggests about writing. Not only was this reading a welcome switch in genre from the blah,blah, blah of literacy scholars, but it gave a real world look at how each one of us attempts through some form of compromise to establish ourselves as competent writers. I could see myself in Mellix’s shoes. Coming into college, I had been trained so vehemently in the art of scholastic writing, and I kept a journal of my own personal thoughts and experiences. The two were separate, but not equal in my world. I could competently accomplish scholarly writing, but I got more enjoyment out of writing my own memoirs. So when asked in school to write about myself, I faced an unforeseen barrier. The language of academia was too rigid—my own language too loose. The result was a different language entirely that, in all honesty, seemed forced and foreign. It’s tough to explain but, it made me wonder whether we lose ourselves in trying to fit the formulaic ‘student’ mold in writing. It also added more depth to the sometimes black and white world of literacy and text and how the two are connected.

In Eckert’s article, she introduces the concept of a ‘pedagogical gap’ between secondary and post secondary learning. What she asserts is that the level of competency being taught at the high school level is not consistent with the competencies students will need when they reach the college level. Eckert puts it this way: “there is very little evidence-based practice specifically designed to scaffold student progress from one level to the next…[this]forces students to make a prodigious leap from reading to interpretation”(111). This gap or disconnect is what leads to a ‘college culture shock’ if you will. In a different way, Bartholomae asserts the same idea with his “appropriation” concept. He says that student’s must appropriate a new construction of writing because of the unknown expectations that college level writing imposes.

I found a LOT of similarity between Bartholomae and Eckert. She makes a distinction between high school ‘reading’ and college level ‘interpretation’. She makes it clear that reading is more than ‘decoding words’ at the college level, it consists of “critically engaging with textual materials and assuming an interpretive stance (111). Bartholomae takes the same point of view, but he uses writing as his focus. He draws a distinction between ‘basic’ writers who ‘approximate’ the language (64) and ‘expert’ writers who have a command of the language and can “both imagine and write from a position of privilege” (64). They are both concepts of higher and lower forms of reading and writing. A student can read at a lower level and simply grasp concepts. Just as a student can write at a lower level and just mimic the voice of those who have authority on the subject. Although their classifications seem a bit unbecoming, they do offer (still similar) strategies on how to bridge the gap between simpler levels of literacy and more advanced levels.

Eckert argues that the best way to bridge the gap is to marry the concepts of literacy theory with teaching and reading strategies. What she creates is a hybrid cross between the research of Kenneth Goodman and the theory of Wolfgang Iser. Essentially she believes teachers in high schools should teach literacy in interpretation simultaneously in order to make it easier for college bound students to face the demands of college level interpretive reading (112). Bartholomae says the same…that educators should “be more precise and helpful when they ask students to think, argue, describe, or define” (70). They both believe educators can and should show students the underlying language of academia—be it reading or writing. For Bartholomae this would eliminate the need for students to approximate language, and for Eckert this would be the pedagogical bridge over the cognitive gap between high school and college. These are interesting ideas that challenged my own concepts of teaching literacy.

Like I said, I walked away from these readings wondering what am I going to teach. What are we teaching? When we see literacy and life as a discourse—as a language it makes the question of what we are teaching grow clearer and foggier at the same time. I’ve been taught the how’s of literacy: how to form a sentence, how to make meaning of text, on and on… These things are helpful, but I guess really they’re not enough. Superficial criticisms of grammar, punctuation, syntax is just not enough. Are we and should we teach the how-to, or the why’s, and can we do both at the same time? I feel like I should teach the language of academia, the language of literacy…and that means the ‘why’s and not just the how’s. To me it’s not about making students competent, but critical, (like Giroux says). And I don’t know if we can do that if we only teach the how-to method of literacy. But then again I wonder, what about the value of the journey? I mean if students are lead down the path of ‘why’ does that take away from the unique experience of learning? Isn’t there some inherent strength in unchartered self discovery? I mean, I think on some level that is what Mellix did. Through her rhetorical journey she taught herself how to bridge the gap, and write beyond the surface. And for her the journey was a part of discovery. How to, why, showing the way, leading the way…So really, what do we teach?

Think About it…or write about it:

Think back (however far that may be) to when you first started college…Was it easy or tough for you to ‘jump’ into the level of writing, interpretation that your professors were requesting from you? Why do you think it was easy/hard?

Is reading a verb or a noun? What I mean is, do you agree with Eckert’s idea that reading is either “decoding words” or “interpreting”? Can it be both?

On what level do you believe what Bartholomae suggests (that we ‘fake it till we make it”)?

Can you identify with Melix’s story of her linguistic transformation through her writing? Have you had any similar experiences?

What do you think of Bartholomae’s (borrowed) concept that ‘writers don’t write, they are written by existing texts”?

Do you believe Eckert’s miscue analysis assignment is an effective way to help students read more interpretively?

Discourse, Identity, and Power

James Paul Gee. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction”

Gee defines language as a “saying doing” combination. That is that the grammatically parts of language are not the only part of language. One must also master how to use this language in different situations.

He identified discourse as an “identity kit.” Different costumes and instructions are needed in different roles to take. How one talks, writes, and acts differs per social situation.

“We must say or write the right thing in the right way while playing the right social role and (appearing) to hold the right values, beliefs and attitudes. What is important is not language, and surely not grammar, but saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations. These combinations I call Discourses.” (Gee, 6)

We all have primary Discourse which is a Discourse developed from early home life. This discourse helps us make sense of the world and is the start of our interaction with other people. It is our first sense of identity and is the foundation for later discourses acquired.

Secondary Discourses are acquired throughout life as we interact with other social networks. Schools, churches, workplaces, community groups, etc provide us with socialization that is not home-based. We develop networks at these places and form Discourses with them.

Discourses are divided into dominant and nondominant Discourses. Dominant and nondominant Discourses are secondary Discourses. Dominant Discourses brings social goods: money, status, and prestige. However, nondominant Discourses social goods only are acquired under a particular social group and are not at a wider status. An example of Dominant Discourse is President of the United States. An example of nondominant Discourse would be class president. We have numerous amounts of Discourses and some cause conflict with another. This conflict will affect the mastered discourse in different situations.

“Each of these social institutions commands and demands one or more Discourses and we acquire these fluently to the extent that we are given access to these institutions and are allowed apprenticeships within them.” (Gee, 8)

Society has constant “tests” of the fluency of a Discourse. According to Gee, the tests are to separate the “natives” and use “gates” to exclude “non-natives.”

The “tests” of Discourses is the most interesting point in the Gee article. The level of comprehension of a Discourse is to categorize people into levels, thus showing a hierarchy. Those that mastered the Discourse have power over those who are beginners to the Discourse.

As humans, we tend to want to create bonds. However, by being part of a group, we also seek the exclusion of “outsiders.” This test reminds me of social clicks. Even the clothes/brands we wear shows that we are part of a certain group and adhere to the literacies of that social network. An example would be a group of people that wear the brand Quicksilver. This particular brand is associated with the network of the surfing lifestyle. When someone wears this brand that is not part of the “group” they are judged by the group and called a “poser.”

I also saw it at the point of view of apprenticeship. There can be a beginning surfer (apprentice) who is getting introduced in the surfing world wearing Quicksilver. Those that have embraced this particular lifestyle (mastered) would teach the newly apprentice of the new world. However, there is still a hierarchy of master having more power than the apprentice.

I find it interesting that human kind needs to form groups to bond and to exclude. It almost seems like an anthropological aspect of humans. We must adapt, morph, and change ourselves in different situations in order to “bond” with others and not be the “outsider.” It almost seems like natural selection. Those that are able to change themselves to the “ideal” according to the circumstances/situation will survive, or in our case succeed.

Gee argues that we need to be superficial in molding doing/saying the right thing in the right time. However, this is stereotypical costume/acts we must put on for a short amount of time. This does not change our main Discourse on our self identity. We will not lose our: culture, values, beliefs, etc, but sometimes we do need to “Mushfake.” We are not losing our identity but keeping the bonds with others in this process.

Questions:
What do you think about Gee’s ideas of “Mushfake?”
Can you think of an example where you used an “identity kit” to fit in?

Reading Texts, Literacy, and Texual Authority

Literacy is so much more than simply reading and writing. It includes, but is not limited to the way a text is interrupted and the effects of that interpretation – effects o the individual doing the work, and those who are privy to the outcomes. It seems that this is the point Henry Giroux is making in his article, “Reading Texts, Literacy, and Textual Authority.” He dissects his point, breaking into smaller chucks which serve as building blocks, finally reaching his final call to action.

To introduce his article, Giroux pulls quotes from others who have gone before him in the effort of explaining literacy and making assumptions about the place of text in society. He weaves in and out of their assertions to show the underlying power we willingly give texts over our lives. He explains that simply what texts are chosen and the meanings they are given as well as their very subject matter are what give them their power and authority. Finally, the tie to reading and writing he constructs in based on the way all these texts inform the very teachers who educate children in these skills, saying that the overwhelming outcome is making learners ‘passive customers.’(86)

As a starting place, Giroux picks at the texts which are chosen for curriculum. It seems it serves as a common place to begin, as many students experience the same set of core literature in their schooling. But this is exactly Giroux’ point: many students are given a set list of recommended and assigned books. He calls these the ‘great books’ (87), also referring to the set cannon. The thing about these carved out lists of ‘must reads’ is that someone – or rather a group of someones – is (are) choosing for the rest of the population. It seems that a particular group gets to decide what the rest should value above all others. And that is what this set list is doing for us – making the choice of what we should consider great literature, without ever consulting us for our actual opinion. It serves as a form of elitism – forcing a particular set of views upon the masses. Because only a select few are privy to this list making, then only the few are considered and inherently choose topics which represent what they hold to be true, rather that allowing for the variety of values and thoughts and cultures which are represented in the mass of readers.

In not allowing this variance to shine through, there is an inherent authority tied with political agenda in these choices – in the cannons themselves. In this system, there is created a hierarchy, a power structure in which it is about the power instead of learning. Not only is there now a set of books which are required, there is an inherent ‘right’ or ‘correct’ reading of these texts, to which are learners are expected to subscribe. It seems that not only are the books given, but so is the message and political agenda. Such a platform is handed down and thus the power structure is firmly in place. This kind of system places more value on the correct reading than the method of arriving at any kind of interpretation. Instead of valuing the tools and skills it takes for students to think on their own, the end result is the only piece under scrutiny. This alone creates issues, but then it also forces learners to buy into a strict way of thinking, one which values certain ideals above others.

In valuing certain cultural practices – and in fact, certain cultures altogether – above others, the system created is teaching people to become oppressed, asserts Giroux using the words of Rockhill. (92) Basically, the end result is either people become oppressed and fall inline with the assumptions of the learned culture, or they realize the attempt at brainwashing and instead make history. It seems a great divide of a choice, and nonetheless it is a choice which must be made. In doing nothing, in subscribing to the manufactured political voice handed out in English classes, the student is handing over his/her voice to that of the privileged class of people who are proclaiming the cannon as gospel. Instead, the opposition takes the prescribed books and predetermined analysis and forces back against it to provide room for differing opinions and various looks at what is being shaped in the world of literature (and beyond).

Later, the pedagogy of texts is considered in this same vain of oppression versus making a stand and Giroux suggests that it is either black or white – people are either included or excluded when using the cannon. In setting a particular group of works above all others, those agreeing are showcasing a particular set of cultural norms, believes, and values as well as particular voices, histories and experiences as better than others. This inevitably translates, according to Giroux, to a particular class, race, ethnicity, gender etc as rising to the top above those viewed as less. It seems that the texts themselves, as he shares, are the ‘sites’ of the ‘political struggle.’ (96) The texts raise questions which pedagogy can answer, depending on which side you fall on. It seems these arguments are placed inside the very texts in question, which may be the very reason they are chosen (or not).

In the end, Giroux calls for action on the part of the political leaders, but also on the part of each citizen. He talks about social reality within texts, calling each person to decide for him/herself how s/he will make critical decisions. It seems as though he is emphasizing the choice each reader has – either to conform to the given structure, or to forge a new view. In this argument, he calls each citizen to look at the society around them and read them as any would a text. It is here that we are forced to chose: blind obedience or outward thinking.

This call is the summation of pages of arrangement, but somehow doesn’t come as a shock. From the get go, the article serves to push a certain generally accepted way of doing things under the microscope for further examination. It seems to accept the cannon and the cannon’s what of interpreting itself would be the same as believing everything we are told and only thinking what we are told is the only thing happening. It is viewing the grand vastness of life through a small straw and being content because no one ever though to put down the straw and try a pair of binoculars, or better yet – why not an unobstructed view?