Response to E on Yagelskis's work

I think the discussion we had in class because of this text says it all. There definitely are language, power, and race relations that are constantly working within the texts we read and the words we write. Unfortunately the standard has made us believe there is one “real” or “right” way to write and I think we’ve all found it hard to distinguish what should be accepted and what shouldn’t be. It’s a really, really hard line to discern and I think that’s what makes us question different forms of discourse in reading and writing. We had a whole discussion about Celina’s work in class, whether or not it worked for the point she was trying to get across, whether it was effective and I think as teachers we’re going to need to make these distinctions. However, I think, based on the way teaching is going right now it’s hard to completely “understand” and “analyze” students text. If you have thirty to forty students in your class you’re not going to really be able to understand that “Larry’s” writing reflects an angry voice because of his “self-esteem” issues. And because of the standards placed on schools how is Celina’s voice truly going to be heard when she has to write it in a standardized testing prompt? Even if they asked for her voice, her opinion, her thoughts, there still would absolutely be a discrepancy between what “her voice” really is and what it “appears to be” based on what she has been conditioned to write to be a “successful” and “intelligent” student who can pass these exams and even be an integral and acceptable part of larger society and unfortunately I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

On Yagelski's "Writing Roles for Ourselves"

Robert Yagelski’s book involves the analysis of student works as a way of analyzing how literary discourse can be used as a way of “constructing a self or selves that can enter specific discourses ni order to act in specific situations for specific purposes—academic or otherwise” (Yagelski 92). He attempts to gain a greater understanding of his students by analyzing their works and hypothesizing about their writing choices. He does this because he is “interested in understanding better how [student’s] texts came to be… to help them claim agency for themselves and ultimately develop … a literacy based on the notion that writing and reading are part of the ongoing struggle to become ‘fully human’” (93).

Yagelski gives us some background and dismal setting for his classroom in the State University of New York at Albany. After giving a brief overview of the variety of students in his classroom, he introduces us to Celina’s essay which was a response to the prompt asking students “‘to draw on your own experiences to explore an issue or problem in education that might interest the rest of us and help us better understand education’” (95). Celina’s essay is written in what she refers to as “Black English” and argues for the validity of this language as a valid form of communication, stating “Aint nothing wrong with Black English that it aint considered par a ‘correct’ English except that the white people and ideology got everybody thinking that its only one right language and that the one they put into everything” (97). After giving us a look at Celina’s essay, Yagelski summarizes the class discussion, telling us that “the discussion was really not about Celina’s draft but about the larger issues her essay was intended to raise about language and power and race relations” (98). He tells us that on advising her about her essay, he is “not much help” and he focuses on “matters of style and tone and how these will affect her readers” (99). His basic suggestions were to retain the argument for Black English, but to bring the message more toward the use of standard English methods in order that her point may be taken more seriously.

Yagelski uses this essay as a way of discussing discourse and they may sometimes “not only contradict each other, but they contain inherent contradictions within themselves” (101). He discusses the works of Bartholomae and Bizzell regarding academic discourses and comes to the conclusion that academic writing for students “is not just an attempt to enter an unfamiliar academic discourse community, but also part of [their] effort to construct a self that can claim agency within as well as outside that community and its discourses” (103). He also concludes that “to some extent all writing is ‘personal’” (105). This is to show that the complexities of who someone is can be seen in how and what they write.

He goes on to give us another example of how personality and individual concerns can show up clearly in writing. Yagelski introduces us to Larry, a student that is described as having grammatical writing problems despite prior good grades and being near to graduation. When Yagelski makes him realize that his grammar problems matter, he explains that it is “not the ‘grammar’ as such but what it reflects about his abilities as a writer: that he hasn’t learned how to write in ways that the academy values” (113). This is apparently one of many failings for Larry as his essay examples indicate. His writings reflect a very angry voice and Yagelski analyzes the self-esteem issues that manifest themselves in the student’s work. He tells us that these styles crop up in all his writing for the semester, even in an essay that should have been less personal, Yagelski tells us that “He was to have discussed an issue or problem, but he quickly returns to his issue, his problem. And his essay becomes another effort to confront that problem and reclaim some sense of self-worth” (117). His analysis of Larry’s writings indicates again how writing is used to construct agency within discourses and become “fully human.”

I found this reading to be quite interesting and I think Yagelski makes some good points about how we are able to, in a sense, evolve by writing. I have found that writing is a useful exercise for learning; at least as useful as reading is. Being able to compose a written work requires us to analyze ourselves and our position regarding the subject matter in order to form coherent arguments or narratives. This analysis gives us a chance to reflect on our thoughts and actually organize them in a way that we will be able to better understand them ourselves.

Yagelski tells us that “Literacy can represent empowerment…only to the extent that they can use it to negotiate the challenges they face in their lives outside the classroom” (124). I find this statement to be both true and misleading. For teachers, the primary goal of education should certainly be the development of their students into functionally competent human beings that will be able to take the lessons of the classroom and apply them to other situations throughout their lives. This certainly gives the student in question an immeasurable power that allows them to better steer their own life decisions. But I believe that literacy is also empowering to some extent within the academic system. I think that Yagelski’s student analyses show that clearly. Their self-realizations that were brought about by the functions of literacy are themselves empowering. Even were they to remain indefinitely within the education system, they would still be empowered by their responses to assignments in that through their efforts, they are better able to understand themselves and how they relate to their community.

Responding to the Gap

In to response to both Magic’s “Bridging the Pedagogical Gap…” and E’s response, from my personal experiences in high school (yes, I’m aware everyone has a different background of education) there were classes that taught the students how to interpret texts. As discussed in class, the AP classes is open for any student to enroll, and in, specifically, my AP class we read countless of novels and did just about the same work as in college or “authentic reading situations.” In saying that, I too agree that the type of classes I had in high school are more intriguing and beneficial, however, as discussed in class, the positives comes with negatives (extra work load). It seems as if the gap can be bridge by the students. The focus seems to play to heavily upon the teacher and after all, the secondary teachers graduated from postsecondary schools. If the students don’t care and have their minds made up to just know the basics then how is this gap ever to be sealed?

On the "Johnny Magical" Interpretation of the Pedagogical Gap

I agree with Johnny Magic in that Eckert's ideas on reading strategies in the general English classrooms would be beneficial to younger students. I think the most critical thing a teacher can do for their students is give them a context with which to interpret the materials they are reading. “Critical thinking” is certainly the theme in higher education, but I don't see why this skill is not introduced to us at a much younger age. Even young children have the ability to analyze and gain meaning from their experiences. However, this skill is not developed in their reading practices until much later. I believe this is due to the fact that teachers place such a great emphasis on the mechanical aspects of reading. They are more interested in the memorization of facts that “education standards” require students to know, rather than developing the student's abilities of interpretation. I think I have become far more interested in texts since I have been introduced to the “college” way of thinking because I am able to interpret for myself, rather than “expecting-even requiring-teachers to explicate nuances of the text.” It would have been much more interesting to read texts in high school if I had a “literary lens” already developed. As it stands, I can't even remember most of what I was forced to memorize back then. I think it definitely makes things stick in your mind more when you learn to work with the material and search for possible interpretations of it. I think the best thing I have noticed in upper division literary courses is the willingness of most teachers to consider multiple viewpoints on a reading. Though there are still those teachers in all education levels that will stick rigorously to their imposed interpretive doctrine, I think it is much more productive to encourage analysis, and the ability to explain interpretations than it is to simply require meaningless memorization or mechanical reading.

On Lydia's analysis of Barton and Gee

First off, I think Lydia’s summary of Barton and Gee’s essays was pretty well covered. I appreciated the refresher on the material they covered and I think she did an excellent job comparing and contrasting their different viewpoints. Good job, Lydia!

I have to say that I agree with some of her interpretations, but I saw things a little differently in other areas. I think it is definitely true that “Depending on the situation, speakers change their speech discourse to an appropriate speech register,” as Lydia states. There are some things that I would discuss with certain friends that I would never bring up around other people. I think the point about how “discourse communities define themselves based on the texts they read because they identify with the texts” is also valid. I can’t picture my fiancé reading a pet magazine because that is just not the kind of person he is. He would rather read a technical computer manual. I, on the other hand, would opt for the former piece of literature because it is something I could identify with. This is not to say that he and I do not share discourse, but these particular types of discourses would be reserved more for our coworkers, since they would more easily understand what it was we would be discussing.

Lydia also brings up a valid point in that Barton “suggests that the government plays a large role [in] what society reads.” I think substituting “society” for “government” would be a little more accurate in this point though, and it would validate her expectation for “apprentice educators [to] consider the people [?] in which we will be teaching.” If the government were in charge of mandating readings, politicians would have to reanalyze their suggestions. Lucky for us, society does have a say. I think that is why over the last few decades, we have seen a steady increase in diversity of texts and curriculums are starting to include works from less mainstream authors.

I am not so sure I agree with Lydia’s exact interpretation of Gee’s work. I didn’t feel like Gee was calling for any kind of “rising up” or implying that there would be “conflict and tension within the self and a world of two or more discourses.” It seemed to me that Gee welcomed the adoption of more than one discourse. The diversity that secondary discourses bring allows for analysis of the primary form and the ability to compare and contrast different forms of communication. This ability does not imply any demand to “pick a side of the fence,” in my opinion. As pointed out earlier, speakers change their discourse according to the situation. Learning more secondary discourses would simply allow for broader resources from which to interact with others.

Indeed, “we have the choice to not allow society and politics to dictate our lives,” but if we are to interact with those around us, this choice can only go so far. It is a societal axiom that there are appropriate forms of communicating in given social settings and if someone wants to be accepted or even to get their own point across, there are standards in every culture and subculture that must be followed if anyone in that group is to take that person seriously. I don’t believe this ability to change discourse constitutes a “fake self” at all. Who you are is reflected in all that you do and if you are able to communicate in more than one vernacular, all of those diverse qualities are a part of you. I personally feel that this diversity within an individual betters them, rather than detracting from their abilities to “be true to oneself.”

Inspire Desire for Change (My revision for society and previous post)

Inspire Desire for Change
Barton explores how literacy is embedded into language. He accomplishes this by introducing general ideas about language. He points out how language is used, how language is part of discourses, and how these discourses result in texts. The next section discusses an aspect of what is meant by reading. What do readers take from texts, and how does language mediate the lives of the reader?
Barton introduces many new concepts borrowed from the branch of linguistics using a few key terms such as register and discourse. When language is spoken, depending on the context of the situation and the listener we use different registers in each occasion. For example, when your boss, whom by the way is an avid church participator, asks you how your weekend was. Your response will be limited in comparison to your response to a friend asking about your weekend (at the club). Depending on the situation, speakers change their speech discourse to an appropriate speech register.
Generally, our registers change in accordance to the discourse. Discourse is a very important term in both literacy and linguistic studies, because it represents a society within a given community. Like the previous example above, the boss and friend discourse are representatives of two individuals and two separate identities, the identity of an employee and a boss, and the identity of a friend and a co-worker. Discourses can be used as markers that identify who and how we represent ourselves as speakers within a discourse. We can find many different types of discourses throughout society. These discourses are also intertwined and overlap with each other. Discourses generally involve common interests, shared beliefs, and social norms (Barton 75). Barton implies that literacy is embedded in language, and furthermore, he states “that particular ways of using language are ways of structuring knowledge and relationships” (75).
Barton examines how discourse and literacy are intertwined with language. He further points out that discourse communities produce texts depending on the “common interests, values, and purposes” (76). Barton uses a few different examples of texts that show how to “use language in quite different ways and to achieve quite different purposes” (81). Society uses text both explicitly an implicitly, otherwise known as intertextuality. Explicitly as I exhibit by quoting Barton’s words, or implicitly in discussion of a particular discourse (80-81). Texts are historically written in standard prescriptive English and use methods of autonomous theories reflecting how language should be spoken, taught, and read “the overall effect is a consistent one positioning people and structuring their identity (Barton 81). Basically, I think he is saying that discourse communities define themselves based on the texts they read because they identity with the text.
Second, he suggests that the government plays a large role on what society reads, but they fail to acknowledge the social diversity within the United States. Studies have shown that different discourses have different uses of literacy. Literacy’s use of the traditional textbook (in schools for example) styles does not meet the needs of society any longer and that new forms of texts should be “more compatible with social views of reading” (83). This is accomplished by a list of hands on ideas as to how readers could benefit more from texts.
Last but not least, language is power because it mediates. It mediates us by helping us identify who we are as people with interests. The use of texts could be used differently and effectively. Barton implies that language “is the most common sense of language [and] as a medium in that it is a medium of communication” (85). Texts interacts with our reality of facts, ideas, hopes, and threats (85). “Communication is central to the structure and organization of knowledge and oral speech mediates our experience [or dictates knowledge upon us] when they tell us something” (85). This is in a since insulting in that it implies that if I don’t believe and follow the bits of truth told in elementary school such as Christopher Columbus is the discovery of this land and the texts failure to mention the genocide committed upon the Native Americans than I have not been structured as the text has meant for me to comply with. The problem here is not to point out the possible issues civilization created but rather in school we are only taught what the government thinks we should know. However, Barton does acknowledge (in one paragraph) “whatever way we read it, the written word is mediating our experience (86).
Gee writes, “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction,” making oppositional points compared to Barton. We have discovered the autonomous theory of literacy, as Barton points out, in textbook learning according to historical standards, and according to Gee literacy is a “social practice” (Gee 5). The difference is that Barton takes the approach of the importance of history in texts. As we all know, American history is not exactly bragged about in grammar school education. Gee acknowledges the diversity within the contemporary united states, whereas Barton points out that “they structure reality for us” (Barton 86). Gee discusses the social diversity and their discourses.
He says that language, “is not just how you say, but what you are and do when you say it” (Gee 5). People are made up from society, in other words the societies we are born into is a large factor dictating who we become as adults. It is a discourse community that in part makes up our individuality and how we say it. Discourses consist “of forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes” (6-7). All these combinations make up our identity. In every society, our identity is created and expressed through the values of our community. It determines who we are when we say it. Discourses make up societal factors that determine why we are the way we are. It determines our identity, which in turn creates how we say things. How we think. Gee suggests people’s identities consists of two main factors which are: one’s primary socialization and one’s secondary socialization. The primary socialization occurs in the home and peer groups (7). The secondary socialization occurs in the public sphere; Institutions of public offerings such as church, school, and community groups (8). He also stresses the factors of “dominant discourses” and “non-dominant discourses” by differentiating these two discourses as a “potential acquisition of social goods (money, prestige, status ect.)” (8).
Ultimately, Gee uses literacy practices to show how the dominant discourses are available to non-dominant discourses based on “vastly supported [research] by sociolinguistic literature” (10). He provides two theorems: First theorem implies that and person who is newly entering a discourse is, as history shows, either functional or non-functional. That is, they are either in or out of the dominant or non-dominant discourse. Theorem two is saying that even a person of the non-dominant discourse can fully acquire the insider “meta-elements (language, words, attitudes, values)” of another discourse, thereby faking it as their primary discourse (11). If you are not brought up into a primary discourse, and you want to learn this dominant discourse it would be considered a secondary discourse. The idea here is to make or fake this meta-knowledge. That is, pretend you are part of this discourse. You can do this by talking the talk, and walking the walk. Showing the “ability to say, do, value, believe, and so forth” demonstrates mastery of the discourse (11). “Metaknowledge is liberation and power, because it leads to the ability to manipulate, to analyze, to resist while advancing” (13). It sounds to me like Gee is suggesting that in order for the people within the non-dominant discourse to rise up, we must master particular identities with which we wish to become involved.
Gee says to “mushfake,” or rather, make do with what you have. This is accomplished by using your “meta-knowledge” and “mushfake discourse” (13). Change can only come through becoming actively involved in the dominant society and using their (the apprentice’s) literacy knowledge to make changes. The apprenticeship allows for the student to learn to become a fluent speaker of any discourse through manipulation. Once the apprentice has become a skilled and fluent speaker in the discourse, this allows the apprentices to “carry out authentic criticism” (10). It is this Metaknowledge and Mushfaking that allows fluency to make this change possible. This change causes conflict and tension within the self and a world of two or more discourses that is always changing (8). So, is he suggesting that the only way change can be created is by becoming an insider? From inside, you can advance just to resist to create change?
So, why does Gee choose to write so explicitly? I think simply because he forces people who are sitting on the fence to pick a side of the fence; people are forced to either choose the mainstream domination or stand up for the non-dominant discourse of the population. People need to realize that there are “universals of sense making that occur in nonliterary talk and writing” (15) As apprentice educators we must consider the people in which we will be teaching. We must consider the methods that education can be equally given to students based on cultural discourses. As well as, which texts will provide higher values that the children can use to mediate with the texts. If the students can relate to these texts by feeling a connection with the text it will make the literary discourse a welcomed ideology.
Barton and Gee bring up two very interesting ideas. Barton points out that history has generated the texts society reads today. If we look at the United States for example, we can see two sides of the coin. One side shows us the great diversity of discourses within the many regions across the United States. Many non-dominant discourses are a large part of the population as a whole. Yet, the large population of non-dominant discourses are extremely unrepresented. The other side represents the elite dominant discourse that has control over the politics determining what texts students should read. Take for example Joel Chandler Harris, whom is one of the few literary figures who represents a Southern Vernacular Discourse. Vernacular discourses represent a part of the United States but not much of this vernacular style of literature is read . Why is that? Can you name many texts that are written in specific dialectal vernaculars? Who is representing the non-dominant discourse? Sociolinguistic factors are studied and are proven to be communities of knowledge. Yet, education, politicians, and mainstream discourses fail to acknowledge the diversity of texts that represent the ideology of the non-dominant discourses.
Gee on the other hand, thinks with an open mind in regards to non-dominant discourses. There are a few factors at play with Gee’s ideology; he is suggesting that the issues with society are open and closed doors, but that everyone has access to enter. This can be accomplished by faking their way inside a newly learned discourse. Gee suggests that those who learn the apprenticeship of “faking” will be the ones who get to enter the “gates.” The apprenticeship learners will most likely then become in conflict with their family culture values and the “fake” self. This fake self is taught to manipulate, analyze, and resist while advancing. I had a difficult time accepting this theory since being true to oneself is largely the ultimate goal in life. But, in my experience we must become the discourse our inner self wants to become. At work, we need to be professionally skilled and show mastery of the discourse (whatever our heart pulls us to). We must say and do what’s socially expected in the professional discourse in which we work. Once we discover our true selves, we discover our discourse, our passion for life. So, the issue seems that society has this set standard of norms to fit into and ultimately if you were not born in the gate you will have conflict in your life and struggle to get in. And, it can be done. But, the important thing to remember is that we are our identity. What I mean by that is we have the choice to not allow society and politics to dictate our lives. We have the choice to make sense of the greater good of equality for all women and men alike.



Works Cited
Barton, David. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language, 2nd Ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2007
Gee, James Paul. Journal of Education, Volume 171 Number 1, 1989

Eckert’s work “Bridging the Pedagogical Gap: Intersections Between Literary and Reading Theories in Secondary and Postsecondary Literacy Instruction”

In Lisa Schade Eckert’s work “Bridging the Pedagogical Gap: Intersections Between Literary and Reading Theories in Secondary and Postsecondary Literacy Instruction” she examines the gap between secondary and postsecondary strategies concerning the teaching of literary theory and the teaching of reading strategies. Basically, she’s trying to convey that there is a disconnect between the “conception and teaching of reading and interpretation” in secondary and postsecondary schooling. Almost 50% of college professors believe that their students aren’t well prepared for college-level demands; however, only 15% of highschool teachers think this. This illustrates perfectly how there is some kind of disconnect between ideas pertaining to literacy and literature instruction amongst K-12 and higher educational classrooms. Eckerts ultimate goal is to use “specific concepts in literary theory” (111) to fill in the gap between Secondary and Postsecondary literature curricula which tends to separate the teaching of reading and the teaching of literature.
So what exactly is going on here? Well, Eckert asserts that as students moving from Language Art classes, associated with primary and intermediate level schooling, to secondary and postsecondary literature classes, aren’t prepared for the “textual content” which becomes “increasingly complex”. Secondary school teachers and college professors expect students to be able to understand the text and take an interpretive stance on it, but, they don’t explicitly give them the tools to do so. Students are trained to understand reading as a way to decode words, but, “they do not speak the language of critical literary interpretation” (111). Because of this students often come to class “expecting-even requiring-teachers to explicate nuances of the text for them” (111). They haven’t been prepared enough to understand the text critically on their own so the teacher must lay it out for them. To say the least, because this gap between reading strategies and literary interpretation exist students are forced to leap from reading to interpretation, straight away, which often leads them to be ill-prepared for college.
One of the main things that’s creating this gulf between highschool and college literacy instruction is the definition of what reading is and what it includes. Is reading simply an unconscious activity that doesn’t involve interpretation which Scholes assumes (112)? Or is reading actually a set of interpretive strategies that are the shape of reading which Fish believes (112)? Scholes thinks that interpretation is separate from reading, “it’s a higher skill than reading” (112). Highschool English teachers, therefore, should be more concerned with teaching reading as a largely “unconscious activity” and let college level classes deal with interpretation. But, Fish sees reading as something that is formulated by interpretation, the two aren’t separate, but, and integral part of eachother. Therefore, reading and interpretation should be taught in highschool since they are one in the same. These differences in ideas about reading and literacy cause rifts between highschool and college classrooms because there are so many ideas about what should and should not be included in the classroom curriculum when it comes reading pedagogy.
Eckert thinks that by integrating a “theoretical approach” to reading we can bridge the gap between highschool and college ideas concerning literature and literacy. Eckert see reading strategies implemented in highschool and college as “intentional plans that enable readers to construct meaning” (113). With this said, she believes that teachers of English, at any level, are already teaching reading skills and literary theory whether or not they’re linking it with a theoretical perspective or ideological approach (113). Eckert thinks that by teaching literary theories as a way to understand the reading in a classroom, college or highschool, it “scaffolds literacy/literature instruction, encouraging students to consider using a theoretical approach to construct meaning from a text as an intentional plan” (113). She does not see the teaching of literacy interpretation and reading as separate pedagogies like Scholes, but, more like Fish, as “crucial points of intersection” which “provide the opportunity to link concepts of reading and interpretation for students and teachers” (113).
Eckert believes that by teaching literary theory in secondary classrooms it allows students to be more critical readers, which in essence better prepares them for the demands of college. “I concluded through my own investigation of the efficiency of teaching literary theory in general secondary English classrooms and college settings, that making diverse theories of literary interpretation explicit in the practice of teaching literature at all educational levels not only builds on students prior knowledge of textual situations but also encourages them to expand their repertoire of strategies to comprehend increasingly complex and diverse material in a variety of media” (113). By using critical theory as a way to construct meaning from a text, students can begin to “clearly conceive and articulate a response” (113) to it. Using literary theory as a way to comprehend readings of literature engages the students in “authentic reading situations”, it allows students to make a smooth transfer of skills from the secondary classroom into literature courses at a college level.
Eckert’s main point of her whole essay is to emphasis that the key to bridging the pedagogical gap between literacy and literature instruction “is in explicitly teaching literary theory as a reading strategy to scaffold the transfer of reading skills to more advanced coursework which…research has shown to be effective with students in the general English classroom” (116). She see this as an effective way to bridge the divide between secondary and college classrooms because it gives students a more diverse “repertoire” of strategies for analyzing dimensions of meaning in literature. This helps them structure and formulate an articulate response to the text. She wants this to become a method which would encourage reading and make it a venue for inquiry and engagement with the text (116).
I think Eckert definitely has something important to say. I’ve felt the disconnect between how I have experienced reading in highschool and how I now experience it in college. Reading in highschool consisted of me reading a text and then writing an essay about it , which usually was nothing more than a summary and possibly my response to the text. In college I’m asked to think more “critically” about the text; to understand its symbols, metaphors, allegories, and themes. And not only must I understand the popular readings of the text but I must make my own meanings with evidence to back it up. This is always difficult, but now that I’ve been introduced to literary theory I’m able to better understand a text by looking through a critical, literary lens and gaining new meaning from it. I wish that I would have been introduced to the concept of literary theory in highschool, at least a little bit, because I know, if I was, I could have understood the texts more and probably enjoyed them much better.