Friday, April 20, 2007

Jerrie Cobb Scott

In "Literacies and Deficits Revisited," Jerrie Cobb Scott talks about a way to define literacy. One part in the article that I could not get out of my head is when the author explains that defining literacy as the ability to read and write would break the cultures of the world into two groups: literate and oral societies. Cobb explains that defining literacy as the ability to read and write "is inherently biased against oral culture." (206)
It's hard to disagree with this assertion, but is it possible to be biased against something as obviously inferior? That's right, I see illiterate societies as inferior to non-literate societies based upon the number of societies with literate cultures thriving as industrialized nations versus the number of orally literate cultures thriving as industrialized nations. Show me a successfully thriving culture based on Oral literacy and I'll show you 80 thriving cultures based on being literate.
It's a small point, easily skimmed over, but it stuck out to me and I had to get that off my chest.
That being said, I agree with a lot that Cobb says in the rest of the article. Cobb explains that we are presenting a sort of Utopia to our students. If the students work hard, they will be rewarded for their efforts (209). Cobb calls for us to be realistic about this sort of ideal, and I have to agree. Just look at the number of people who are laid-off when an automobile manufacturer moves to Mexico. We can't justify that all of the workers just weren't trying hard enough at their jobs, so we look the other way and tell the students that life is fair in its rewards.
But, then, how can we sell our product (a good education) if the product doesn't garner the promised results? Man, in reflection, this was a far more depressing article than any of the others we've read in class.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Issues of Attitudes and Access

Computers have become a somewhat ubiquitous thing in our lives. As college students, we rely heavily on computers for writing papers, email and internet access. I don't know about those who do not own computers, but it would be difficult for me to function if I didn't own a computer with internet access. And, this seems to be the going trend. Those who wish to succeed have to have some basic computer skills.
I see computers much the way that Richard Rodriguez sees the English language. I read Rodriguez's book, Hunger of Memory, for class. In it, Rodriguez says that it is impossible for people to succeed in America and take part in the American dream if they do not have a command of the English language. Rodriguez, for those who don't know, started speaking English in Elementary school and is an opponent to bilingual education. It's funny, because I always thought that opponents to bilingual education were racists (conservatives). But, it's hard to argue with Rodriguez. How many businesses in America are run by people who don't speak English? How many congressmen, CEOs or Doctors? Not speaking English, as pointed out by Rodriguez, is a definite handicap in America.
Like I said, this is the same way I view the internet. I've said it in class, but I lost internet access for a week while the phone company sent me a replacement modem and I nearly lost my mind. It felt god to get my email back.
Anything that familiarizes the next generation with how to navigate around the basic workings of a computer is a good thing for a classroom. When I was student teaching, I had students type up one of their papers in the computer lab. Since I know a little about word processors, I could help them out with the basics, which usually required italicizing or underlining an expletive for added emphasis. When I was in school, that sort of instruction was called "cross-curriculum" teaching, meaning it encompassed both English and computers. It was put in the same category as pointing out the Mayan counting system in math class (math/history). Nowadays, we don't even notice that division between computers and writing a paper. Heck, we probably don't notice the division between computers and daily life anymore.

Sunday, April 1, 2007

Letters from Students

So far, we have read two letters from students to teachers. On was presented last week as a persuasive letter to change a grade which had yet to be determined, and the other is described by David Bartholomae in "The Tidy House: Basic Writing in the American Curriculum" (LE-172). To me, they both represent a culture gap between the home and academic identities. This idea has been described in previous chapters. There is a definite difficulty in adjusting to college life. I've blogged about my views on the differences of college and home life before, so I won't go in to much detail. But, these two letters just show how difficult it is to adjust to being outside of the comfort (home) zone. One letter represents those who are actually trying to understand how this whole "academic thing" works, while the other represents a rejection of the entire academic system. Mina Shaughnessy hints that students reject writing because so many errors are pointed out to them. Errors are the same as failure, so they believe they are failures as writers and should stop doing something at which they consistently fail (7). Though the two letters are radically different, I wonder if both problems could be solved (or, at least lessened) by having a class which focuses on the differences in expectations and demeanor between home and academic life. Now, we all took the IDS 150 course, which showed us where the library was and how we should go see our football games. But, I like the idea that someone brought up in class about their instructor telling the students that they are now "scholars." It is okay to say an opinion as long as it is backed-up by texts and evidence. This would no doubt boost the confidence of students to nearly narcissistic (yes, misspelled) levels! I mean, the students are in an alien atmosphere, and it is difficult to understand that they have to think differently, now. They can't keep one foot at home and one foot in academia, their habits have to shift altogether. Some, as is evident in the letter we read in class last week, have trouble with the fact that they will have to learn things which will challenge their beliefs and values. Of course, at home, everyone you meet agrees with you, so it comes as quite a shock when people in academia present a differing view. In academics, this leads to academic discourse, where "academic discourse" could lead to a bar fight at home. But, that's life.