response

Response to abstract...
the idea of having to manipulate your language to reach a varying audience is something that becomes apparent when you enter school....especially college. The idea of altering your writing to emulate your superiors, use a different lexicon database within your work to reach a specific audience and that being tied to a loss of voice does not seem to connect. For me, even if you are altering your voice and style to manipulate your audience you never truly lose your voice or insight on a particular matter. Becuase you will always bring your understanding of the differernt interworkings and facets of a topic, you can never truly lose your voice.... this piece did not seem to ring true through and through. I agree on some elements, but not all

Preh Cee # 3

A.J. Pallante
Prof. Boland
English 329
5 March 4, 2009

Precis #3

Haas, Christina. “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in
College.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Cushman, Ellen et al, eds. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2001.

Of the many ways to study\draw conclusions about the acquisition of literacy, the most successful consists of observation and interpretation. Christina Haas, in “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College,” presents her conclusions and insights gained from monitoring “Eliza,” through four consecutive collegiate years. Before introducing the reader to Eliza, Haas begins “at the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field (Haas 358). This is important to recognize, as it serves as a reminder that pursuit of literacy is never finished, it is constant and unending. Though it may seem that once a student enters college he or she does not need to strive to maintain literacy, as if he or she has arrived at an ultimate understanding. However, this could not be further from the truth. In an institution where education is held to a higher standard, the requirements for literacy are also held to the same standards, requiring more practice. To measure this endeavor, Hass “focused primarily on her [Eliza’s] reading processes and practices (Haas 360).
As Haas followed Eliza through freshman, sophomore, junior and senior year, Haas made some interesting observations concerning how Eliza processed and understood text. Haas found that during Eliza’s freshmen year “her [Eliza’s] processes consisted of mostly linear reading […] if she had trouble comprehending, her strategy was usually to reread, and she made extensive use of a highlighter, sometimes marking whole paragraphs […]” (Haas 363). Throughout the observation Haas was permitted to observe Eliza’s growth as a student, concluding with senior year where “Eliza […] now spent a great deal of time and effort going over figures and tables in texts as she read […] she also exhibited a greater awareness of the intertextual nature of discourse” (Haas 368). Though the study was conducted over a series of years, one can see Eliza’s growth when her freshmen and senior year are held in comparison. From this Haas concludes that “indeed, it is interesting to contemplate how different our views of students might be, and how our teaching might differ as well, if we were able to learn about our students over a period of years rather than weeks” (Haas 375).
Though teaching is an important endeavor, equally important is the capability to remain realistic. When examined in terms of time, the given hours we have with students pale in comparison to the hours students spend on their own, developing their own theories. This said, it is important to understand that, though we as teachers can teach our students some concepts, it is impossible to teach them all the concepts expected of them to learn. By recognizing this, in accordance with the short amount of time allotted in the classroom, it becomes necessary to then focus on growth and accomplishment, rather than amount, quality over quantity.

Prey Sea # 2

A.J. Pallante
Prof. Boland
English 329
18 February 2009
Precis #2
Many times, as teachers, we forget how difficult the processes of learning can be. We may understand certain concepts, which seem simple, failing to recognize that we have been polishing our skills in that subject for years. This is the context in which many students find themselves in, having to learn from an instructor who does not teach, rather expects learning to occur. In David Bartholomae’s “Inventing the University,” such issues are addressed. He begins by making an interesting speculation regarding the manner in which “students have to appropriate (or be appropriated by) a specialized discourse, and they have to do this as though they were easily and comfortably one with their audience …” (Bartholomae 511). This endeavor to reconcile what they know with what they are expected to learn is how students often “invent the university.”
As developing thinkers\writers, Bartholomae points out that, it is difficult for students to “code switch” between the language that they are familiar with and language used in an academic setting. It is the inability to make this switch that causes students to fall short in their composition. Many teachers regard this failure to “code switch” as negative progress. However, though their wording may be imperfect, it is important to realize that they are not wrong. Error and a lack of vocabulary are two different principles. Students may understand concepts, but finding the words to express their comprehension may be a futile endeavor. Bartholomae believes that “sentences fall apart not because the writer lacks necessary syntax to glue pieces together but because he lacks the full statement within which these key words are already operating” (523). This is important to keep in mind when dealing with students who are new\developing writers.
As a student, too much responsibility is placed upon test scores and standards, while the emphasis on comprehension and literacy is null. Memorization is not the same as actual comprehension. This is a universal concept that can be applied to both reading and composition. Especially in the secondary school settings, when identities and interests are still being formed, students can face great difficulty attempting to write something that sounds academic. This is where many multi-syllabic mishaps\misuses occur. It is important for teachers to understand that students are fairly new to the concepts of what learning is, and what it is not. By remaining sensitive to the student, within reason, it is seemingly possible that the transition between “everyday” speech, and what is spoken in a specified institution, can be one free of unneeded strife.

Brilliant response to preee-seee

I thought it was interesting to read about the different discourses and to see how they are defined. So clearly it seems they can be divided, but when taking fieldnotes and looking into my military people's communication and lifestyles I have noticed that they have, in some ways, replaced their primary discourse with their second. Military language, priorities and etc. have become ingrained into them. “Gee maintains that there are the primary discourses, those learned in the home, and secondary discourses, which are attached to institutions or groups one might later encounter. He also argues that all discourses are not equal in status, that some are socially dominant-carrying with them social power and access to economic success-and some nondominant” (Delpit 546). I think that by taking into consideration that some discourses hold more power than others, it makes sense that some people would want to completely embrace the military discourse. Military most definitely holds power, prestige and inherent respect. One of my people that I am studying has completely embraced the military discourse and lifestyle- to the point where she has replaced her family with the military. Her family is not her number one priority, the military is. This is fascinating to me...that the alteration in language-she learned from the Marine institution- has completely altered her priorities and ideologies. This situation probably affects many others as well....this is saddening, but interesting...

A.J.'s PRAY SEE

.J. Pallante
Prof. Boland
English 329
26 February 2009

Politics, Politics, Politics

Written as an argumentative counterpoint to James Paul Gee’s “Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics: Introduction” and “What is Literacy?,” Lisa Delpit’s “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse” offers new insight as to literacy development in the context of primary and secondary discourse. On one side of the argument, “Gee maintains that there are the primary discourses, those learned in the home, and secondary discourses, which are attached to institutions or groups one might later encounter. He also argues that all discourses are not equal in status, that some are socially dominant-carrying with them social power and access to economic success-and some nondominant” (Delpit 546).
The problem with this statement, as recognized by Delpit is that “if teachers were to adopt both of these premises suggested by Gee’s work, not only would they view the acquisition of a new discourse in a classroom impossible to achieve, but they might also view the goal of acquiring such a discourse questionable at best” (Delpit 547). Introduced in the initial pages of her essay, and discussed throughout the remainder of the text, Lisa Delpin highlights two areas in which Gee’s argument becomes faulty. The “first is Gee’s notion that people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible to acquire such a discourse […] The second aspect of Gee’s work that I [she] finds troubling suggests that an individual who is born into one discourse with one set of values may experience major conflicts when attempting to acquire another discourse with another set of values” (Delpit 546).
While I agree that it can be difficult for individuals endeavoring to acquire a secondary discourse, I also understand that it is not impossible. This is important to recognize when in the context of classroom instruction. The answer to this dilemma is to make the student aware of the fact that “acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but are shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them […]” (Delpit 552). This can be accomplished in many ways, as can be observed in Prof. Peter L Patrick, PhD work in the field with African-American Vernacular English. In this case, he introduced a secondary discourse to a classroom of primary discourse elementary students. By making small amendments to the game of Jeopardy, he was able to make the acquisition work.
What this all comes down to is a matter of understanding. Every student, every group, is different and requires different attention. This is seemingly the flaw in most public education systems. Due to the “standards” that standardized testing seeks to measure, the emphasis in not placed on learning, rather on a form of programming, where the information is memorized but never truly learned.

Gee's Key Points

Sherman Aspacio
24 February 2009
Precis #3

Gee begins his piece by defining Discourse. He defines it as "a sort of 'identity kit'" that defines a person's behavioral patterns and particular role (526). A person can (and does) have many discourses. Gee goes on to designate said discourses.
Gee argues that Primary discourse is the freebie we all get as human beings, the language in which we interact within the home element, the language we think in, etc. This is the only discourse with which we can be truly fluent (as it is attained through acquisition). This language is acquired and later expanded upon through learning.
Secondary discourses are those that come into an individual's life after acquisition of the primary discourse. A secondary discourse that is mastered that promises potential attainment of social goods within communities is called a Dominant Discourse. A discourse that is mastered that only brings harmony with the individual and the social network without promise of said goods is called a nondominant discourse.
Gee also brings up the tension and conflict aspect of mingling discourses. Often, one will take on secondary discourses that may not share values across the board with the primary discourse. This often causes a non-literacy of the secondary discourse and in stressful situations can be “socially disastrous” (528). Thus, Gee defines literacy as “the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary discourse” (529).
Secondary discourses are also handy in gauging the primary discourse in providing meta-knowledge. When one masters a secondary discourse, one attains a new perspective to evaluate one’s own primary discourse, or meta-knowledge. This self-observation is only critical when a secondary perspective is available, when one is literate.
Gee holds two theorems with his definition of literacy. 1st: You are either in or out. There is no middle ground, only fluency of the discourse or non-fluency. As Gee so eloquently put it, “There is no affirmative action for Discourses,” only speakers and apprentices (529). 2nd: All primary discourses are limited.
Literacy also has a gating function. Through superficial “trivialities,” people can be evaluated as a nonpartisan of a certain discourse and denied the social goods inherent. These trivialities cannot be learned through secondary discourse, Gee argues, rather, they must be attained through submersion into the discourse.
“Mushfake” is the pretension of a discourse through taking elements of the discourse and coupling it with a person’s reserve of meta-knowledge to make do (533).
“Filtering” is the process of taking values from different secondary discourses and applying them to the primary discourse (534). A child who does this, as apparent in the reading, will seem to have talent or native ability in secondary discourses simply through a long amount of practice.
One must not assume that bringing in and ingesting whole secondary discourses will benefit a young learner, though. Often times, a young learner will eat the plate along with the food, if you will, absorbing “a whole system of thought, embedded in the very linguistic devices she uses” (536). This was exemplified through a child who narrated a fight she was involved with, assuming that the unnatural elements of the situation were natural. In this case, one can readily observe the values that can filter into primary discourse through mastery of a secondary one.
Gee goes on to elaborate on all of these concepts in the second part of his piece. It is curious to wonder, what will happen to primary discourses? Are they as flexible as literacies? Can they change radically from generation to generation to create gaps in communication and understanding? How will subjective values mingle amongst different interest groups as more and more people absorb secondary discourses.
I hope this precis was helpful for you. Thanks for reading.

response!

Fantastic! This concept is something that I am most interested in. I want to be able to approach my research paper via the idea that, as you states, "Work, church, home, school shape literacy, but political social and economic structures limit people. All of these factors web together to create a unique tapestry that is an individual’s literacy. Work allows literacy to grow in a specific field, depending on the nature of the job, of course." Within my research I am looking at the functionality of military rhetoric, but I am also looking at the "individual's literacy" and how it is so key to survival in the work force....how intellectuals and scholars need to expand on their ideas of what literacy entails, what needs to be taught to our children and how we should go about incorporating new ideals into the schooling process that will benefit students in a more practical way....