As it is with many of these types of books, I find the first few chapters of Local Literacies to be the most engaging on a theoretical level. Because I've been interested in these kinds of studies for a long time, I've found so much to ponder in the chapter 1 "Understanding Literacy as Social Practice".
(Now, in my mind, my knowledge of academic discourse wants me to disclaim that although I'm writing about chapter 1, I have read the rest of the book. I'm just choosing the ponder on points from chapter 1. :)
The following two quotes stick out to me because of my recent job experiences.
"People are active in what they do, and literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goals and cultural practices" (p. 11).
"Literacy practices are culturally constructed, and, like all cultural phenomena, they have their roots in the past. To understand contemporary literacy it is necessary to document the ways in which literacy is historically situated: literacy practices are as fluid, dynamic and changing as the lives and societies of which they are a part" (p. 13).
In class when we talked about the variety of Discourse communities we participate in, I thought a lot about my difficulties adjusting to the middle school teachers in our district. I've had continual struggles speaking with them, which I didn't expect. It's so intangible I can't quite explain it, but my high school teaching/grad student mentality just doesn't work for them. They don't like ambiguity; I believe that decisions should be constructed as a group and that might take time and complexity. They believe their students need strict rules to writing and reading; I maintain these skills are more fluid and multi-faceted. It has been a continual struggle in my job, but I've realized that part of the problem is also understanding how other curriculum specialists have communicated with these middle school teachers in the past. Once I tried to understand those communication patterns, I have been better at 'bridging' the middle school teachers from their historical discourse into possibly a more critical way of talking about literacy and pedagogy.
Of course, this is just my opinion, and they are nice folks. They might be nodding and smiling while they think I'm a idiot.
I understand that the quotes I took from the book are more about broader cultures and communities; however, reading and reflecting on them has brought some clarity to this area of confusion that I face.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lynn, your comments regarding the dissonance you've experienced with some of the teachers you work with resonates with me. During my doctoral studies I have taken several masters level courses with students working towards their masters degrees. It seemed as if some (certainly not all!) of the students had a much different mindset about learning than I. The doctoral program encourages students to think about concepts in diverse ways. Learning might be messy,imperfect, and have varied outcomes. This is not necessarily the same mindset of masters students who have been required to complete the program as a way to keep their licensure (and continue to be employed). When I went to grad school and worked towards a masters in reading, it was because I wanted to become a better reading teacher. (Okay,admittedly the higher pay scale was a nice bonus!) Is this scenario we are discussing another fallout from the government's meddling in education yet again? Are your teachers so concerned about getting it right that the ambiguity is just too daunting to consider?
ReplyDeleteYou're so right Liz. This is exactly what I'm talking about. (I wonder if that's why Bill said he didn't enjoy teaching Masters degree students as much as undergrads or Ph.D.s?)
ReplyDeleteI've tried to figure out if these middle school teachers already had these types of personalities (need of structure, etc.) OR if teaching middle schoolers shaped their personality and pedagogy this way....
What came first, the chicken or the egg?!
ReplyDelete