Sponsors of Literacy

Sponsors of Literacy

Deborah Brandt

In Sponsors of Literacy, by Deborah Brandt discusses how individuals acquire discourse through the use of sponsors, who "are any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy--and gain advantage by it in some way" (page 556, Sponsors of Literacy, Brandt). Individuals throughout are history have come across sponsorship in some form or another, either by machine or person.

Individuals who we consider to be sponsors are anybody who you obtain literacy through such as "teachers, older relatives, editors, etc" (page 557, Sponsors if Literacy, Brandt). The reason individuals for literacy acquisition are critical is because they have the means of supporting and bridging the gap between individuals that already have the discourse in which you desire to have. Having access to higher discourses can led individuals to obtaining "social goods," that bring about power and prestige, valued in society.

You as the sponsored, benefit because sponsors are "powerful figures who bankroll events or smooth the way for initiates" (page 557, Sponsors of Literacy, Brandt). The goal of the sponsored is to have a smooth transition from your dominant discourse into one you aren't familiar with. Having the proper sponsorship can have such a powerful relationship changing the way you think, write, and read.

However, the relationship between sponsor and sponsored is a two-fold relationship in which the sponsors "lend their resources or credibility" (page 557, Sponsors of Literacy, Brandt). But the sponsors also stand to gain from the relationship as well "either by direct repayment or, indirectly, by credit of association" (page 557, Sponsors of Literacy, Brandt). The sponsors teach with the reward of having the sponsored gain advantage in society giving praise to the individual (s) who contributed to the success of that particular individual they taught.

The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse

The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse

Lisa Delpit

The essay written by Lisa Delpit describes how certain aspects of James Paul Gee's essay entitled Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy introduces different types of discourse, with differing factors into obtaining the dominant discourse, which brings about acquisition of "social goods" (money, prestige, status, etc.). Delpit contends that Gee is wrong in two areas about discourse. First, that individuals who aren't born into dominant discourses can't be taught these particular discourses. Secondly, by having control over a dominant discourse a constant conflict emerges between another discourse in which you had acquisition to.

With regards to the first argument I agree with Deplit that individuals can "overtly" learn a dominant discourse in the classroom setting. Being part of a "mainstream" discourse deemed necessary for acquisition of "social goods," I still didn't have access to my dominant discourse, I was seen as a pretender or beginner ( Page 529, Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy, Gee). It wasn't until I was "overtly" taught by a speech teacher in my elementary school the tools necessary for acceptance into the privileged group.

So, I believe that even though I was born into a "mainstream" dominant discourse it wasn't until further teaching that I fully acquired it. By having firsthand knowledge for the argument presented above I have to disagree with Gee that you can't acquire a discourse in the classroom. I agree with Deplit in her second argument that just because you have a dominant discourse doesn't mean conflicts with another. During my tenure at UWM I have come across many secondary discourses with students, professors, etc. in which they have influenced me greatly. In hindsight though I never truly lost my identity when it came time to revert back to my primary language. I feel as though I could have command of secondary discourse with professors and students of academia and still be able to have control of dominant discourse talking amongst my family and friends.

In closing I believe Gee even in his article proves valid points some however without further dissection by an individual can be proved entirely false. Two of the aspects Gee states in his article I have dealt with in my lifetime. Through teachers, family, friends, professors, etc. have shaped the means in which I acquire, learn, and speak a given discourse.

What Is Literacy?

What Is Literacy?

James Paul Gee

James Paul Gee explains that the two ways in which individuals get a discourse necessary for society is by either acquisition (acquiring something subconsciously by exposure to models and a process of trial and error) or through learning (involves conscious knowledge gained through teaching). However, when beginning your task of gaining discourse, both acquisition and learning become intertwined together. Through each of these methods listened above "acquirers usually beat learners at performance, while learners usually beat acquirers at talking about it" (page 540, What Is Literacy, Gee).

That acquirers when using a particular discourse have the abilities for manipulating an "identity kit" better. It's as if your putting on a play for society to see. You know that your just trying to act the part, but feel that is necessary to gain acceptance of a dominant discourse. Learners, are better able to articulate the words they are using. They can mold their words to due what you want them to say. You have the critical consciousness to begin breaking down your word structure, so everybody can understand.

One of the key factors individuals use to shape their discourse around is not only through primary discourse (i.e. parents, relatives, friends) but through "secondary institutions" (i.e. schools, workplaces, boardrooms, stores, etc.) Individuals begin to change their primary discourse because each of the "secondary institutions" requires a different discourse for each of these situations. Even though you have the tools it's through interaction with others that you hone your skills, seeing how you stack up against other individuals in society.

Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction

Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction

James Paul Gee

In the above essay written by James Paul Gee he describes the term "language." For him using "language" was to board a term and had to be broken down into parts. "Language" becomes a tangible object, that defines "not just what you say, but how you say it" (page 525, Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction, Gee).

Language in essence becomes a "Discourse," with a capital D, and are used for "ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs...." (page 526, Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction, Gee). A key quote dealing with Discourses is how "middle-class mainstream (ers) begin to use it as "carry (ing) with them power and prestige (page 531, Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction, Gee).

After reading the quote and how Gee explained it in his text shows me that without having prior knowledge of the dominant discourse one is excluded from the group in which power and prestige are of high value. Society is mainly middle class, including myself, were I've been taught the verbiage necessary to be included in such a privileged group. However, others are not permitted to enter because they haven't been trained properly to begin using it.

Language turns oppressive I believe for the fact that some people are included while others are excluded. Without somebody mentoring you through the process of acquiring a a given Discourse, individuals begin to see you as an outsider or beginner, someone not completely comfortable interacting with individuals that have had years of acquiring it.

I Just Wanna Be Average

I Just Wanna Be Average

Mike Rose

In I Just Wanna Be Average, by Mike Rose, discusses how leading students on the vocational track can have negative impacts on their future. Like Rose, states in his introduction you learn dead end-skills from teachers who are often unprepared or incompetent. I had special stake in the reading because I wasn't necessarily in a vocational education setting, but at my high school I was definitely placed in classes other then my peers. It was if I was being separated from my peer group and felt ashamed and stupid that I wasn't equal to my classmates.

A quote in the essay states the feelings I had being placed in the "lower track" as opposed to the "higher track" my classmates were in. "The vocational track, (lower track) however, is most often a place for those who are just not making it, a dumping ground for the disaffected" (page 166, I Just Wanna Be Average, Rose). I felt like my high school was basically giving up on me because I didn't meet up to their standards. Instead of figuring out the best way to teach someone "different" they just said "we'll stick him here, and whatever happens, happens." All to often the educational system cares more about meeting requirements then helping students.

One key term that appears often throughout the essay is "vocational track" (page 163, I Just Wanna Be Average, Rose). The educational system just lumps together the students of "lower tracks" into one classroom and provides a watered down curriculum. By having less requirements to be meant then the "higher tracked" students I felt complacent and lazy. All I had to do was be average, because that's all that everyone excepted of me. I figured why go out of my way to be better when doing so was going to do nothing but keep me on the same path I was on.

By reading the essay it gave me a better understanding of how high school felt about me. I was an object that never met up to their standards. Instead, of trying to figure out the problem and remedying the situation they basically made it more difficult for me to become something then just average. I felt as though I was stuck in the same "low track" and was never going to stack up against my classmates.

For to often school systems fail many students just like me. Schools lump all these students together, give them unqualified teachers, easy curriculum, and a "make do with it" attitude. After, being one of these students myself I can understand students feelings every time they go to school. It isn't until you come across a teacher who, completely changes your outlook about things. Like Mr. MacFarland was for Mike Rose, Ms. Miller was for Andrew Hart. To this day I am forever grateful, since she saw nothing of an "average, low track" student.

The Banking Concept of Education

The Banking Concept of Education

Paolo Freire

Reading The Banking Concept of Education by, Paolo Freire, he infers the importance of how gaining knowledge and consciousness can be used as a form of overcoming oppression. Having the understanding of oppression then and truly then can one stand up, fighting for equal status among the powerful. Instead of living in a world of powerful vs. weak, knowledge gives people insight into how to change their current situation.

Freire uses the analogy of a banking system of education for understanding the traditional way of teaching. Freire states that students "turn (s) them into "containers," into "receptacles" to be "filled" by the teacher" (page 75, The Banking Concept of Education, Freire). Everyone has been taught in the traditional way of education. Students are just required to restate what was taught to them in various forms of examinations and essay's. In order for one to become "knowledgeable" in this system means having a passing grade. A form that can oppress individuals not benefited by the traditional teaching method.

A key term is "banking" that appears throughout the essay (page 75, The Banking Concept of Education, Friere). The reason I believe the central term is important is how students begin to turn robotic in nature. Teaching in this matter I believe you are just making carbon copies of students. Instead, nobody is truly able to think differently hence the cycle continues between the powerful vs. weak.

I enjoyed the article because it focuses on the tribulations of how having a traditional education can led to further separation from society as a whole. Individuals begin to become disconnected from learning by only benefiting a select few, dominating the minority. It focuses more on individuals in society not how the individual fits in with society. In order to disestablish domination of one group over another individuals need to begin to reflect upon themselves in order to transform society.

Challenging traditional education can be an overwhelming task. However, in order to bring justification to an unjust society you need to identify the problem, figuring out reasons by gaining knowledge. Beginning to understand and shape your place in society. Focusing on the beneficial effects of being truly knowledgeable one can never afflict change. The old saying is true that "knowledge is power," it's up to the individual what to do with the power.

Engaged Pedagogy

Engaged Pedagogy

Bell Hooks

When reading Engaged Pedagogy, by Bell Hooks, surfaces is a different forum of the teacher/student stage show. Instead, of just being concerned with how smart one can become from knowledge, the pedagogy listed above focuses on the "whole" self. Engaged pedagogy is a teaching practice that embodies the "whole" human being not just the mind. A quote surfaced that exemplifies exactly what one means by "whole," by "striving not just for knowledge of books, but knowledge about how to live in the world" (page 68, Engaged Pedagogy, Hooks).

Often schools focus more on making the grade, making sure state requirements are meant, instead of teaching for a purpose. Students begin to lose focus thinking knowledge is only in books, not understanding how what is taught has meaning. Everything taught should have a reason behind it and how knowledge gained in the classroom can be applied to survival in the real world.

One central theme in the essay of importance is "engaged pedagogy" (page 69, Engaged Pedagogy, Hooks). In order for teachers to break through to students they have to begin themselves focusing on how important knowledge can be. Students need to be engaged by trying to make connections about how and why book knowledge can be transferred to the real world. For this teaching practice teachers need to realize that by including themselves in the lecture makes it more personal. Students, will be more open to offering up their own experiences as well.

The reason the essay was important to me is because schools are more concerned about how they stack up against other schools in America. Students are basically pawns in the constant chess match for supremacy. By forcing knowledge down a students throat they never truly understand what is learned and how it can be applied.

What Bell Hooks states is important how both teachers and students can both learn from each other. Practicing "engaged pedagogy" in the classroom benefits everyone by having a stake in what is learned. Individuals begin to believe that what they have to say is important and needed to the overall shaping of the "whole human being."

The Achievement of Desire

The Achievement of Desire

Richard Rodriguez

Richard Rodriguez in his essay The Achievement of Desire he describes the constant struggle to find balance between the home and school environments. While at home he longs for a past that is no longer afforded to him. With schooling he begins to yearn for the attention that knowledge brings him. When gaining knowledge he begins to assume a new role and begins to see the separation between himself and his parents. Several reasons can contribute to the problem however, one such reason explained for the case of Rodriguez. "A primary reason for my success in the classroom was that I couldn't forget that schooling was changing me and separating me from the life I enjoyed before becoming a student" (page 432, The Achievement of Desire, Rodriguez).

It shows the constant struggle that many students face, especially those of the minority status. Schooling begins to shape for them ways in which society operates, rules that guide their thought process. By gaining further knowledge one begins to challenge beliefs and attitudes that surround you in infancy. Education, with a special emphasis on knowledge begins to erode the relationship between the family and school environments.

Richard Rodriguez, uses many key terms in the text, but one such term that is important is "scholarship boy" (page 432, The Achievement of Desire, Rodriguez). Rodriguez uses the term in order to describe him as a student in the classroom setting. A "scholarship boy" is someone who balances between the home and school environments. Through the family he is given reassurance, praise, and emotional support. In school however he gains knowledge, which begins to bring into to question that schooling in some form or another is changing him. Schooling, is taking precedent to the family environment, eroding the relationship that once existed.

The essay contrast the constant struggles that individuals face when facing education. Especially, evident is people of different ethnicity were there is a constant cultural difference between that of mainstream society. Education, begins to find a place for individuals in society, but at the same time begins to wear away basic principles which guided them throughout there lifetime.

Schooling indeed begins to transform you. You begin to take on the language, thought process, jargon, in under to gain acceptance among academia. While many of us fail to grasp is how education is changing us. It's not till you sit back, relax, start to think about the past lifetime one had. Until, then one truly never attains the true goal of education--the end.

Inventing the University

Inventing the University

David Bartholomae

Inventing the University was an essay written by David Bartholomae, in which he discusses how students in academia, lack the "essential" tools necessary to write compelling papers in the university setting. Writing, turns into a costume, with the writer "trying on the discourse even though he doesn't have the knowledge that makes the discourse more than a routine, a set of conventional rituals and gestures" (page 512, Inventing the University, Bartholomae). Problems arise when "basic writers" lack the voice of authority, to begin controlling the language as if it were their own. Lacking the power of authority, rooted in years of research and knowledge, it seems "basic writers" fear the unknown, sticking to "proper writing" taught throughout high school.

In order to effectively produce "academic discourse" one must understand "commonplace," controlling ideas that are a central term to the text (page 514, Inventing the University, Bartholomae). "Commonplace," therefore is language that writers have control of, something they can call their own. As an "outsider," part of the audience, one would except to be able to connect with what the "writer" has written.

One of the many failures, I believe, that many students lack is the ability to be engaged in various projects, amongst their colleagues, in their chosen major. Usually, the time to use "academic discourse," in the college setting is when professors dictate to you what is excepted of you. Essentially, as a writer, you are confined to a set of guidelines, never able to completely show your true understanding of the material presented.

Having an issue of set guidelines, somehow can affect the "building of bridges," that writers often have to share with their audience. In effect by controlling what is written assumptions and biases that your audience may have go unnoticed, instead taking the place of gaining acceptance among a community of privilege, individuals with power.

A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing

A Kind Word For Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing

Philip Eubanks and John D. Schaeffer

Reading A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing I came across a quote that best describes ways in which individuals who aren't familiar with your area of study can construct their thought process to believe it's bullshit. "Non-academics call academic writing bullshit, they mean that it uses jargon, words whose meanings are so abstract and vague as to seem unrelated to any one's experience" (page 381, A Kind Word For Bullshit, Eubanks and Schaeffer). The reason behind this thought process is because people in their chosen field of study are going to use jargon, words that fit their topic, that nobody thinks or believe can possibly be true. For example, when someone not familiar with medical terminology, picks up a medical journal most people are going to be confused about what is being stated. Half these words I can't pronounce and somebody in that area of study couldn't even pronounce them. Hence, why without the proper knowledge one constructs jargon to be bullshit.

The central term seldom referred by Eubanks and Schaeffer is "academic bullshit" (page 375, A Kind Word For Bullshit, Eubanks and Schaeffer). When thinking about what academic bullshit means you are the author of a particular article inflating the paper with big words, terms, and situations that are relevant to your topic. However, this can led the academic and non-academic community starting to believe that you really don't know what your talking about and have just made yourself look smarter than you actually pass yourself off to be.

An idea that is key to the text is how a cycle of academic bullshit can have a domino effect, starting with the teacher, then students, and finally your audience. In regards to professors producing bullshit, many of them produce scholarly articles to be viewed by academia. Students have the opportunity to read what their professors have written and begin to construct an idea in their minds of what the professor is looking for when it involves your writing.

The domino effect has begun in that after viewing these articles students start to instead become writers who begin writing the way that the professor would want in order to receive a higher grade. Instead of writing for the audience whom it is intended for. Eubanks and Schaeffer state it best when they say "professors think that abstruse academic writing "sounds just right; it sounds professional." The audience starts to be tuned out because instead of writing for an audience you are writing for only one person who might understand, that individual is your professor.