How do you establish when a student is mature enough to deal with certain texts?
I chose to respond to this particular question because I, in fact, posed this question last class period. I wanted to further explore the issue, but do not have any sufficient answers. I found that most of the texts we have read throughout this course are constructed by professionals, teachers, and researchers who believe, without question, that their students are mature enough to handle the majority of the material they discuss. Additionally, some of the writers do not mention specific texts but argue against and for certain issues pertaining to censorship with the assumption that their students are being denied something they can definitely handle (not all of the writers and texts gave off this impression). However, some of the texts I have read in my Adolescents' Literature class this semester would lead me to believe that certain students, at any age (i.e. in regards to secondary schooling - middle and high school), may not be mature enough to handle the content. For instance, we read "American Born Chinese," which I believe is an excellent book that contains value concerning race and identity issues. However, the light-hearted way in which the author handles the content may incite some immature behavior in middle and high schoolers that leads to problems in the educational environment. Furthermore, some students may not be mature enough to handle the hyperbole and irony with which the author addresses certain issues, leading them to believe that the author is encouraging the harassment of certain races, cultures, and anything/anyone that is in some way different from the norm of the environment. Therefore, I believe some of these professionals should use specific examples of texts that are banned and thoroughly justify their position in regards to why that text should be allowed in the classroom, thus giving some substance to relate to the overall argument of the text.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Responding to Gee and Delpit
Quickwrite #1:
The terms used by Gee are directly related to the overall argument concerning Dominant Discourses and Non-Dominant Discourses. He uses terms such as “apprenticeship” to illustrate the relationship Gee believes is required for one to acquire a new discourse. “Acquisition” is a term used by Gee to illustrate the process by which these different discourses are obtained; that is, in a subconscious, immersed fashion. These different terms work in collaboration with the other terms, primarily the ones related to Discourse and literacies, in order to frame Gee’s overall argument. His argument and the Survival Words used are relevant to teaching and learning considering the nature of their use. For instance, Discourse is discussed in order to establish a relationship between Dominant Discourses and “social goods,” as well as Non-Dominant Discourses and a lack there of. He discusses the inequality between Dominant Discourses and Non-Dominant Discourses with a focus on the education setting. Additionally, Gee addresses the issue of Discourse and the social situations and educational environments that may be created in order to fix the problem; however, Gee states that a social change must take place before any educational change can be effective.
Quickwrite #2:
The Survival Words used by Delpit relate to the article because of the message the terms alone convey. For instance, the terms “cheating,” “not-teaching,” and “not-learning” illustrate some of the issues Delpit wishes to address and some of the concerns or objections she has with Gee’s article. The terms are very relevant to literacy and teaching considering they deal with Delpit’s argument in favor of teaching students Dominant Discourses and her belief that his can be done. Additionally, the terms depict some of Delpit’s objections and disagreements concerning Gee’s article. For instance, Delpit argues that if teachers were to heed Gee’s advice, they would choose to “not-teach” because they would believe it somehow empowers the students. However, Delpit argues that “not-teaching” and “not-learning” do quite the opposite. She believes that students need to acquire a Dominant Discourse in order to express their beliefs and opinions to a wider audience, and therefore empower themselves by obtaining a discourse that allows them to make direct objections to the community that makes use of the Dominant Discourse.
The terms used by Gee are directly related to the overall argument concerning Dominant Discourses and Non-Dominant Discourses. He uses terms such as “apprenticeship” to illustrate the relationship Gee believes is required for one to acquire a new discourse. “Acquisition” is a term used by Gee to illustrate the process by which these different discourses are obtained; that is, in a subconscious, immersed fashion. These different terms work in collaboration with the other terms, primarily the ones related to Discourse and literacies, in order to frame Gee’s overall argument. His argument and the Survival Words used are relevant to teaching and learning considering the nature of their use. For instance, Discourse is discussed in order to establish a relationship between Dominant Discourses and “social goods,” as well as Non-Dominant Discourses and a lack there of. He discusses the inequality between Dominant Discourses and Non-Dominant Discourses with a focus on the education setting. Additionally, Gee addresses the issue of Discourse and the social situations and educational environments that may be created in order to fix the problem; however, Gee states that a social change must take place before any educational change can be effective.
Quickwrite #2:
The Survival Words used by Delpit relate to the article because of the message the terms alone convey. For instance, the terms “cheating,” “not-teaching,” and “not-learning” illustrate some of the issues Delpit wishes to address and some of the concerns or objections she has with Gee’s article. The terms are very relevant to literacy and teaching considering they deal with Delpit’s argument in favor of teaching students Dominant Discourses and her belief that his can be done. Additionally, the terms depict some of Delpit’s objections and disagreements concerning Gee’s article. For instance, Delpit argues that if teachers were to heed Gee’s advice, they would choose to “not-teach” because they would believe it somehow empowers the students. However, Delpit argues that “not-teaching” and “not-learning” do quite the opposite. She believes that students need to acquire a Dominant Discourse in order to express their beliefs and opinions to a wider audience, and therefore empower themselves by obtaining a discourse that allows them to make direct objections to the community that makes use of the Dominant Discourse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)