Nystrand, Greene, and Wiemelt have prompted many thoughts in my head. I’ll begin with a quote on p. 290 which states, “[s]tudent writers in a discipline must learn to make certain rhetorical moves if they are to contribute to the ongoing conversations of a field.” Last night in Seminar in Reading and Language Arts, Dr. Kasten mentioned that if we were to succeed in writing a conference proposal, then we needed to study other successful proposals, i.e., proposals that had been accepted. I guess this is one of the many reasons that last semester Dr. Dowdy sent us her proposal for a conference that she will be attending in the near future. As scholars in the field of Literacy, we need to learn the discourse. The Academy has specific genres which require specific ways of writing. Each has its unique structure and language. Journal articles, literature reviews and grants are to name but a few. To write correctly in each “genre” would prove “ an understanding of the issues and problems under discussion, the relevant concepts and their relationships to one another, and the research programs and methodology that a community acknowledges as legitimate” (p. 290). That is quite a tall order, but I guess we’re in the midst of learning the appropriate discourse.
I find that p. 290 hit me hard, in part because that’s where I decided to take a break from the rich text! Another quote that spurred an opinion was that there are “instructional practices that disempower and marginalize students by focusing on ‘deficits’ in their thinking rather than on differences between their own culture and socioeconomic background and those of the mainstream.” Here, I refer to grammar and high school levels rather than our doctoral program. For we, in our program, have chosen to study the Academy’s discourse whereas in the public schools, the students are expected to follow the dominant discourse, which may not have any relation to what they grew up with. Once again, I am reminded of Shirley Brice Heath’s Ways with words and how differently African-American children learned to speak and consequently write. It was not in the middle-class Anglo-American tradition yet when they went to school that is the discourse that they encountered. It was foreign to them. It is disheartening to know that the white middle-class hegemony still exists in our public schools. The public wonders why so many marginalized groups do not live up to the school’s expectations. In part, I believe this it is because the disempowered students have not learned the dominant discourse and that their discourse is not valued nor considered valid.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Blog #5: Nystrand, Greene, Wiemelt
9:34 AM — Kathleen Dunn
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kathy,
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of themes that emerged in your post that also emerged in mine this week, though I wrote about Chapter 15 from the Handbook of Research on Writing. It seems that "literacy as exclusion or inclusion" is one - for both doc students and for disenfranchised groups.
Every time I THINK I am beginning to feel more secure in the realm of academic discourse, I get a zinger that knocks me off balance. I think there is as much knowing "what to know" or even more "WHO to know" in the Academy as there is knowing how to write within the genres of the Academy. Does that make sense?
Sometimes I feel like we play "name drop sabotage" in this field. If I disagree with you, I can cite an "expert" who might undermine your thought process; and, if you are unfamiliar with that "expert’s" work, you, by default, have lost the argument. This keeps me up at night: I literally have names that swim through my head that I need to read to be accepted as a part of the Academy. The REALLY scary part is there might be a name that I SHOULD be worried about reading that I don't even know I don't know it yet!
Either way, it is the discourse of exclusion. I’ve found that every professor that I’ve encountered here has really tried to help me to become “Academy literate” – but each in his or her own unique way.
Kathy, this was another thought-provoking post. I think the idea I'd like to pick up on is when you say "there are “instructional practices that disempower and marginalize students by focusing on ‘deficits’ in their thinking rather than on differences between their own culture and socioeconomic background and those of the mainstream". This is a huge problem with education today I think.
ReplyDeleteI was reading an NCTE Policy document(2004)on the teaching of writing last week, and it clearly stated that student writers have a rich cultural background that can act as the starting point for writing instruction. The document suggested that while teachers might want to nudge students into more formal and academic kinds of writing, it should not be done at the expense of the culture and language practices of the student outside of the classroom - essentially, they are advocating that we try and teach students to become "flexible" in writing in appropriate ways. This sounds wonderful in theory, but is this really happening in the classroom? I would suggest not, simply because of the huge amount of research still being generated on how to encompass young adults' culture, background, and local literacies into the classroom.
I find it really interesting that you specifically differentiate between grammar and high school, and our doctoral program. As you say, we have decided to join the academy which definitely involves learning and synthesizing academic discourses, but should this really be at the expense of our own cultural backgrounds and local literacies? Aren't we also forced to "follow the dominant discourse" if we wish to achieve a PhD?
It makes me think once again of a student who might want to represent an art education dissertation with a series of images as opposed to a massive written document - will this ever be acceptable to the academy? I doubt it. Should it be acceptable? I think so. How can we in one breath advocate the inclusion of students' cultural backgrounds and literacies in high school education while at the same time saying that such things are not appropriate for "the academy" - in essence, aren't we saying that we don't value cultural differences and local literacies at all?
I appreciate the disourse around Academic Discourse you started, Kathy! I have to say that I'm starting to see the first tiny cracks in the prdominant academic discourse in the last couple of years. Perhaps it will be your generation of academics that will turn the traditional dissertation Discourse on its ear! Good luck with that!
ReplyDeleteWhat I continually struggle with is the fact that we choose to put ourselves in this situation where we have to learn a new discourse to survive and thrive. Minority students don't have a choice. It's so imperative that teachers are empathetic to that fact. As Ogbu points out, the 'involuntary immigrant' population, for example, has often found themselves playing Caucasian middle class games with Caucasian, middle class rules and it can provoke anger and dissonance for many. I've seen minority teachers make such a great impact because they are able to mentor students through this dissonance in a profound way that I cannot.
ReplyDeleteKathy, you bring up good points about academic genres. I was introduced to a new genre of academic writing just this week in Residency II--the letter to journal reviewers addressing their comments. I learned to write conference proposals by emulating a model proposal my cooperating teacher shared with me. I'll understand how to write journal articles by reading published pieces, but where are the models for letters to reviewers? We have books on how to write dissertations, CVs, articles, etc., but where do we learn how to write the letters that will determine whether or not our articles are ultimately accepted for publication?
ReplyDeleteMy solution: I asked the faculty presenters to share samples!