I still remember the lecture from the first day of class and the time line of notes we took that gave us a background to our historical figures, who we first became familiar with through hours of reading in Norton. But through the family tree it all makes sense.
Not necessarily the putting together of the family tree (or sky), but just the research and figuring out who fits with who really gave insight into the class as a whole. As I got deeper into my research, I was able to pin-point exactly when I came upon a major figure. I actually knew who these people were! Not only that, but I felt connected to these people and the field in a way that I have never felt before. It is amazing to see the connection between all these people, and actually find a trail that leads to me. To all the teachers, you are actually a part of the knowledge, because you are inspiring and influencing your students with your own knowledge that actually links back to Aristotle. Doesn't that make you feel smarter? It certainly makes me feel closer to this vast library of knowledge.
But I actually think this project started at the beginning of class, and has been continuing throughout the semester. I am refering back to the lecture, and talking about the presentations that could have been even more helpful for this project, had I been thinking about it at the time. The lecture gave us the link to Aristotle, but the presentations allowed us to gain knowledge on these people who have all inspired us in some way and all who have been inspired by "rock stars" before them. During my research I was able to connect a lot of the people we discussed in class together, which I thought was an important task because it directly related to the class.
I know a lot of our research was not put on the final project, but we just didn't have the time or space to include everything. A good project for the years to come would be to expand on the starts and make the connections between the ones we have already placed. I would like to see the tree expand, and I think it would be a valuable asset to the entire field. Great job everyone! Now, how about those papers...
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
There ain't no such thing as that
I'm going to try to make this as non-anecdotal as possible, but this topic of teaching black people proper English really makes me mad. Barbara Schneider starts her article by telling us how the different types of black people separate themselves based on clothes (economical standing). I immediately thought: where would I sit? Well, she placed me right, In the middle of the classroom, in the front, wishing I had sat closer to a cute guy who needed tutoring. Though interesting, this is not the main part that got my attention.
Further in the article she refers to something called "Black English." "In their reading of the 1979 Ann Arbor 'Black English' court case, Ball and Lardner explain that the plaintiffs succeeded in establishing that teachers' negative attitudes toward the children who spoke African American English created a nonstructural barrier that interfered with the education of African American English-speaking children" (925). Wow. When a Hispanic, Chinese, Italian, German, basically any other truly non-English speaking student makes a mistake with their English, a teacher would have every right and responsibility to correct them. But, since a black student is struggling, the negative attitudes are hindering their education in some way. I really do not understand.
What is worse is that there is no Black English. Since the beginning of my college career I have heard this term, describing the way some black people talk (and also most teens of all races) as a different type of English altogether, a whole new language. This is what irritates me. I have done no scholarly research on this subject, but being black, I think I can say with certainty that there is no Black language that other people can't speak, or wouldn't understand if I spoke it in front of them. This language is not a language at all, but slang, which in the world of academia should be stomped out and corrected immediately.
Lisa Delpit brushes on the same topic, but presents it in a different light. "There are two aspects of Gee's arguments which I find problematic. 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, He argues strongly that discourses cannot be 'overtly' taught, particularly in a classroom, but can only be acquired by enculturation in the home or by 'apprenticeship' into social practices. Those who wish to gain access to the goods and status connected to a dominant discourse must have access to the social practices related to that discourse" (1312). She disagrees (and I'm thinking: "Yea, you tell him!) then she gives us some rare exceptions to a widely known norm (ugh). But, her point is still valid and brings up some interesting things to think about.
First, black students can learn English, regardless of their background before entering school. If children can learn English as a second language (which they do all the time) then, I can't buy that black students would have a harder time than second language learners, when they already speak (no matter how poorly) English.
But, I want to look at the language and apply it to the gender topic. "Dominant Discourse" this screams to me: Patriarchal. Right now I am basically arguing in my paper that classrooms need to be more concerned with female students' learning, because of patriarchal elements in the classroom. But, how can I say on one hand black students should be able to learn English, despite their disadvantages, but argue for time to be taken out of "dominant discourse" to teach female students?
Further in the article she refers to something called "Black English." "In their reading of the 1979 Ann Arbor 'Black English' court case, Ball and Lardner explain that the plaintiffs succeeded in establishing that teachers' negative attitudes toward the children who spoke African American English created a nonstructural barrier that interfered with the education of African American English-speaking children" (925). Wow. When a Hispanic, Chinese, Italian, German, basically any other truly non-English speaking student makes a mistake with their English, a teacher would have every right and responsibility to correct them. But, since a black student is struggling, the negative attitudes are hindering their education in some way. I really do not understand.
What is worse is that there is no Black English. Since the beginning of my college career I have heard this term, describing the way some black people talk (and also most teens of all races) as a different type of English altogether, a whole new language. This is what irritates me. I have done no scholarly research on this subject, but being black, I think I can say with certainty that there is no Black language that other people can't speak, or wouldn't understand if I spoke it in front of them. This language is not a language at all, but slang, which in the world of academia should be stomped out and corrected immediately.
Lisa Delpit brushes on the same topic, but presents it in a different light. "There are two aspects of Gee's arguments which I find problematic. 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, He argues strongly that discourses cannot be 'overtly' taught, particularly in a classroom, but can only be acquired by enculturation in the home or by 'apprenticeship' into social practices. Those who wish to gain access to the goods and status connected to a dominant discourse must have access to the social practices related to that discourse" (1312). She disagrees (and I'm thinking: "Yea, you tell him!) then she gives us some rare exceptions to a widely known norm (ugh). But, her point is still valid and brings up some interesting things to think about.
First, black students can learn English, regardless of their background before entering school. If children can learn English as a second language (which they do all the time) then, I can't buy that black students would have a harder time than second language learners, when they already speak (no matter how poorly) English.
But, I want to look at the language and apply it to the gender topic. "Dominant Discourse" this screams to me: Patriarchal. Right now I am basically arguing in my paper that classrooms need to be more concerned with female students' learning, because of patriarchal elements in the classroom. But, how can I say on one hand black students should be able to learn English, despite their disadvantages, but argue for time to be taken out of "dominant discourse" to teach female students?
Thursday, April 1, 2010
A Well Worth It Mess
How do we incorporate everything we have been discussing in class with our rhetorical family tree? Well, first I think we need a bigger area than the board outside Dr. Souder's office!
We should incorporate all of the people, both old and contemporary scholars, who we have been presenting on in class. I know most of them will be a part of the tree in some way, but we should make a conscious effort to include them all, therefore bring that aspect of our class into the tree. After all, after all the research we have done on them, they are definitely a part of us whether we agree with them or not.
Further than that we should have bits and pieces of what a pedagogy stands for on the "tree" as well. By this I mean technology, grammar, each part that Dr. Souder stated we should cover in our pedagogy statements. Since this tree is a representation of the people who have inspired some part of us dating back to Aristotle, we could include visual parts of a pedagogy statement. What is important to us as a class? For example, technology is something none of us can evade, and its use in the classroom is essential. Dr. Souder's idea of video taping definitely falls under this category. We could start a facebook group showing our work and how we are all connected so that students after us can add on and keep an ongoing record of the connection. Even visually on the board we can go from speech bubbles representing the past to digital designs and e-mail.
I think it will be a well worth it mess when we are done with the project. I can't wait for the enjoyment of sitting back and visually understanding how information derived from Aristotle all the way back to me.
We should incorporate all of the people, both old and contemporary scholars, who we have been presenting on in class. I know most of them will be a part of the tree in some way, but we should make a conscious effort to include them all, therefore bring that aspect of our class into the tree. After all, after all the research we have done on them, they are definitely a part of us whether we agree with them or not.
Further than that we should have bits and pieces of what a pedagogy stands for on the "tree" as well. By this I mean technology, grammar, each part that Dr. Souder stated we should cover in our pedagogy statements. Since this tree is a representation of the people who have inspired some part of us dating back to Aristotle, we could include visual parts of a pedagogy statement. What is important to us as a class? For example, technology is something none of us can evade, and its use in the classroom is essential. Dr. Souder's idea of video taping definitely falls under this category. We could start a facebook group showing our work and how we are all connected so that students after us can add on and keep an ongoing record of the connection. Even visually on the board we can go from speech bubbles representing the past to digital designs and e-mail.
I think it will be a well worth it mess when we are done with the project. I can't wait for the enjoyment of sitting back and visually understanding how information derived from Aristotle all the way back to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)