Gee:What is Literacy?
Please post your thoughts, concerns, insights and questions regarding Gee's definition of literacy and what impact his ideas have on the classroom. Particular attention should be paid to Gee's discussions regarding learning and acquisition. How does DV fit into this discussion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Matthew Gasquez
James Paul Gee (1991) defines Discourse as, “…an ‘identity kit’ which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act and talk so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize.” We live in a world surrounded by definitions and classifications and when we do not fall into a ‘natural definition’ we become ‘othered.’ I am a feminist and at first glance feminists fall into this ‘other’ category by walking against the wind and not allowing male heterosexism to define them. But feminism really is just another Discourse. Discourse cannot function outside of Discourse; thus although as a feminist I am rebelling against the dominant heterosexist hegemonic force I am still defined within those forces, Gee writes, “The discourse we identify with being a feminist is radically changed if all male discourses disappear.” Can we ever escape Discourse? I don’t believe so as Discourse is an unavoidable defining tool in our society. And just as feminism relies on a male dominated heteronormative society to define itself New Literacies rely on old literacies. This is not a negative or crippling dependency, it is a relationship that must be fostered into a ‘give-and-take’ compromise. Gee states that “Learning should enable all children to critique their primary and secondary discourse.” Multimodality in the classroom allows for this critique (authentic learning) to occur. Just as feminism should not be about normalizing the feminist (because after all that would be its sad finish) ‘New Literacies’ is not about becoming ‘The Only Literacy’ it is about expanding our acquired and learned discourse in conjunction with traditional literacy practices.
Alicia Morath
I first have to admit that I needed to read parts of that article more than once to make sure I understood. According to Gee's definition, language used in the classroom setting is a secondary discourse of literacy. Children are learning to control their language while in an environment "second" to the home and primary interactions ("intimates"). I suppose this is a point made by others, only now by Gee in a linguistic’s point of view. Teachers are always working with a foundation built at "home", no matter in what condition that foundation may arrive.
When reading about acquisition and learning, I immediately thought of this class and Keith's discussion regarding how he could go through and "teach" us about all of the functions of i-movie and DV, but that through our use of it, we "acquire" a greater understanding. Students in a classroom are going to learn much more in this way also. Learning obviously needs to go hand in hand with acquisition, but there needs to be an exploration and "jump in" attitude to allow students to really experience a topic and personally develop a greater understanding. This along with a teacher's guidance and instruction will allow for greater learning in my opinion. How many teachers do you know who have spent an entire semester or year lecturing to students? How much of that information do you think is fully understood or retained? Have you ever had a teacher like that? How much did you learn? Especially with the upcoming generation, we as teachers need to be mindful of how our students will best acquire and learn and how we can best facilitate that learning and acquisition.
Literacy takes on many other forms besides having the ability to read a book. We need literacy in so many realms just function and not feel like a foreigner to our own lives. And along with these literacies comes a bunch of discourses and vernacular that may only exist in that situation. In music, there are descriptors for dynamics and various words to describe techniques in guitar playing like hammer-on and pull-off that you would need to know in order to play the instrument. According to Gee, in the classroom setting, the students come in with this "identity kit" that compartmentalizes them into something. And the particular discourse a student has affects the way they learn in the classroom. For instance, a book I read in another class by a former UB professor (Finn), talked about the different discourses based on social class. Middle class students need more explicit directions and teachers often use implicit language, thus the disconnect that sometimes presents itself in the classroom. Sometimes we just assume that students will know what we're talking about, that they have similar backgrounds as us but that is very naive. In DV, we certainly can't pretend that a student will have the same discourse as the teacher. Open Apple T? Firewire port vs. USB port? Quicktime vs. media player? Export? Import? What??? We need to be careful of the words we throw around lest our students become horribly confused.
I have read Gee before and feel that I have similar questions that arise when I read it again. I think it makes sense that people have various discourses which allow them to interpret and understand the world and that this serves as a person's identity and in some cases multiple identities. It is altogether critical to see that a person's literacy, is not just reading and writing, but is gaining control of the "language" of a particular discourse. The understanding of the languages within these discourses can empower someone and help to place them on top of that discourse so that they may become experts within that group. What I always have difficulty with is regarding the issues associated with learning and acquisition. It is understood that learning occurs through formal instruction and meta-cognitive development whereas acquisition is the subconscious learning achieved through hands-on experience or exposure. I am always compelled to think that acquisition is paramount in that the skills students learn (such as through DV) are more valuable and useful to their discourses, however, I believe that meta-cognitive learning is also important to making the individual truly "literate" within society's discourses. In our classrooms, where should the focus lie? Obviously there must be a healthy mix between the two. Students cannot simply acquire all of the skills and information they need without the formal instruction. How can we ultimately encourage students' individual discourses to develop in positive ways? What sort of ideas can we, as educators, share about how to integrate these philosophies into our classrooms?
Gee expresses that literacy takes on many different forms depending on our discourses. In relationship to this course, this means that we see literacy as being much more than just reading and writing. "Traditional reading classes like mine encapsulated the common-sense notion of literacy as 'the ability to read and write" (intransitively), a notion that is nowhere near as coherent as it at first sounds." (Gee, 7) If we take on the traditional form of thinking, then we are limiting ourselves, and "stressing" our already struggling readers and writers. I like Matt's point that "New literacies rely on old literacies" and this relationship between the two "must be fostered into a...compromise." The best way to forge this compromise is not through learning, but through acquiring both primary and secondary language, as Gee also states.
Diane DeMarco says .......... There are many cultures that comprise the school district I work in. So many children all converging in to one place that bring with them their acquired Discourse. As Gee states, "Some cultures highly value acquisition and so tend simply to expose children to adults modeling some activity and eventually the child picks it." It's difficult, then, for a child to accept other Discourses other than their own. It becomes a defining tool as to who they are. As a teacher, we should not be bias to certain Discourses but be respectful and accepting of all students and their Discourses.
As discussed in class, with the word “literacy” being thrown around in conversation and printed in newspapers, many people are not truly knowledgeable about what literacy even is. In my opinion, literacy is not really a word that can be defined in a dictionary and understood as a fixed and solid thing. As Harste (2003) describes, literacy is not “an entity (something you either have or don’t have),” but is, “a particular set of social practices that a particular set of people value,” and perhaps most important, literacy can be “revolutionary” (p.8). Literacy is fluid, it changes as we as a society changes. People are misled or unaware that literacy is not just an issue for the English class room and is certainly not just about reading and writing. It is so multifaceted and ever changing that researchers and academics are constantly trying to figure it out.
After reading Gee, I have a better understanding of how the research surrounding discourse helps define literacy in the 21st century. There are so many discourses, making individuals literate or not only in relation to each discourse, and in relation to other opposing discourses (Gee, 1987, p.4). The discussion about discourse, when focused on in a personal light, is ultimately about identity. I am a twenty-two year old, Caucasian, middle-class, aspiring teacher, German, heterosexual, female, human, with divorced parents who does not believe in God. With all that said, that just brushes the surface of my identity and the discourses I believe I am a part of. Identity is so multifaceted and the number of discourses is many. They are interconnected and react with one another. Alone, one does not define me in any substantial way. Together, they make me who I am.
Focusing on two personal discourses, present student and aspiring English teacher, the discussion of “acquisition” versus “learning” is very important to me (Gee, 1987, p. 5). I believe that my education, as I am sure most other’s was, a mixture of both “[subconscious] exposure to models…in natural settings which are meaningful and functional” and “conscious knowledge” with specific teaching and “explanation and analysis” (Gee, 1987, p. 5). Sometimes we learn things by experiences at home not even knowing we are gaining new information, and sometimes we are put at a desk with a worksheet and instructed by a teacher. I use my discourse of cooking as an example. I watched my father and grandmother cook often, listened to them talk about recipes and methods, and tasted the final product. Now as an adult, I find meal-making effortless and enjoyable. If I take a class or study cook books, I would have a different kind of knowledge, as Gee (1987) says, “acquisition is good for performance, learning is good for meta-level knowledge” (p. 6). As a future teacher, I would like to immerse my students in both acquisition and learning, as well as try to immerse them in and encourage them to explore different kinds of discourse.
Teri Armstrong
It took me a while to understand where Gee was going with all of his ‘discourse’ gibber jab, and to be honest, I was completely lost for a while there, but I think now that I can understand. The ‘discourse’ is set of those who have common uses of communication and understanding which in turn link them socially. SOOO…I gather that Gee is trying to make a connection between how literacy can be different when relating to different discourses. What I thought was interesting were the important points of discourse that are common place in Europe, are not used in the U.S. I read over that a few times, trying to completely comprehend the points that Gee was making… and then tried to use a situational approach by comparing discourse in Europe with that of the U.S. I didn’t get too far. I’m still a bit confused. However, I really like the definitions that he provided about learning vs. acquisitions. I had converted his definition into teaching (learning) vs. experience (acquisition). But as I read through the remainder of the article, Gee seemed to believe that acquisition was the stronger of the two in obtaining mastery- and that made complete sense to me! It also made me realize that my students will be able to understand material that is being ‘learned’ if they also use it and practice it, along with me teaching it. Hence, their levels of primary and secondary discourse will improve, as will their literacy, and mastery will be achieved!!!! YAY
Post a Comment