.J. Pallante
Prof. Boland
English 329
26 February 2009
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment