The aim of art: to approach Literature in the act of teaching. Another's aimless art offers no reproach. Teaching is the artful act aimed at impossibility.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Literature, Culture, and Education
This week's readings bring together the concepts of "culture" and "education" in relation to learning theories. Feel free to write about anything in response to anything that interests you in the articles...
I read with interest Ladson-Billing's article on "Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy". Among her many questions raised, the key question for me, professionally and personally, was "how can academic success and cultural success complement each other in settings where student alienation and hostility characterize the school experience?" It would be too sweeping to assert that only (or most?) students in the Normal Technical Stream experience such alienation and hostility, but I fear that this might possibly be the case. I do not have the answer to the question posed aforementioned; rather, I am reminded of my personal assumptions and biased viewpoints each week as I strive to strengthen my pedagogical practice.
I am still trying to make the distinction clear in class between "an intellectual challenge and a challenge to the authority" (Billings-Ladson, p. 482). This is a delicate act, and any challenge needs to be constructive to result in any productive (re)construction of knowledge.
On another note, I do take issue with Ismail's and Tan's article "Snapshots from the Normal (Technical) World". While their case-study depicted "realistically" classroom behaviour/learning/teaching of the Normal Technical students, their case-study was too simplistic in its assertions and proposed solutions. For example, they state that "there is a need to look beyond the school and explore factors such as social class, assessment schemes, family resources and others as contributory elements to the problem." The devil is exactly in these details. I do not think that school administrators are unaware of these "contributory elements"; rather, how do we (all stakeholders) effect these suggestions? However, it is true that much attention has not been given to teacher education/training for Normal Technical teaching/learning.\
In retrospect, pardon my ignorance, but do we need to make learning culturally relevant, or to paraphrase, do we need to take into account students' cultural/historical backgrounds? By taking into account cultural backgrounds, are we not admitting cultural differences, which in turn suggests some form of hierarchy or privilege?
Noel, I agree with you that there is much hostility and alienation among the NT students. This may be an overgeneralisation but in my experience, they do not mingle with students from other streams, seem to have accepted the label 'NT' and will say things like 'I am NT, what?' and most seem angry with their family and have difficulty working in groups.
I do not have the solution but think that schools need to focus more attention of these students who have faced many forms of failures, have low self-esteem, may have learning disorders that impedes their literacy and numeracy skills and enable them to experience success. In order to do so, schools need more support to provide more training for staff, smaller classes and a more flexible curriculum.
Many of them crave a 'sense of community'thus involving themselves in gangs and toxic relationships. I wonder if more can be done to promote what Ladson-Billings calls 'a community of learners'.
Kodi & Noel, it is interesting to see that even in the primary school level, pupils in the Foundation stream are already emulating (if i can call it that) behaviours and perceptions of those in the NT course. In fact, even those in the weakest of the Standard classes carry similar profiles as mentioned in Ismail & Tan – short attention span, poor English command, poor studying habits and more often than not, pose disciplinary problems. A good percentage of pupils in these classes end up in NT course. From what I can see in my school, at least, they are clique-ish, they don’t mingle much with those in the other (& better) classes. But, to be fair to them, those in the better classes are not always receptive to them, some do have the elitist, “greater than thou” syndrome. When MOE removes the EM1, 2 & 3 courses, some parents and teachers applauded the move as it seemed that pupils will not be explicitly “labelled” in terms of their academic ability, but then comes Standard & Foundation courses and subject banding. Pupils are still put in classes based on their ability and they can figure out for themselves how good (or otherwise) they are. And just like in many (if not all) NT classes, the Malays make up the biggest number of pupils in Foundation & the weaker Standard classes. (Why?)
The same burning question which Noel asked plagues me. “By taking into account cultural backgrounds, are we not admitting cultural differences, which in turn suggests some form of hierarchy or privilege?” In some way or the other, we are all caught in this wheel of culture. Our culture is shaped by our surroundings and we become mere reflections of the cultural ideology that binds us. We grow up in families and societies that pass on to us a particular mind set / belief. For example, when you go for an interview, we are asked for vital information. Then in the name of professional ethics, they ask you for what race and religion you are. This question infuriates me as I wonder how religion and race matters in my productivity at work. Once we dutifully write it down, it becomes easier for the interviewer to pigeonhole us according to his / her cultural background.
In Singapore, with the influx of foreigners, origin then plays an important role in distinguishing “us” and “them”. I sometimes wonder how the “us” and “them” terms crop up when both the parties actually share the same cultural background and space. I was not aware that I was unconsciously doing the same thing. I remember, every time I told my grandmother, “I see more Indians in Singapore”, she would instantly ask me, “What are you then?” This question instigated me to think about my position in relation with the two countries – India and Singapore. Anyways, this question made me think a lot about my personal standpoint and how I viewed other people like me differently. How can I refer to them as “the other” when I myself am “the other”? Once this knowledge dawned upon me, my attitude towards them changed. Now, whenever I see another Indian – be it an Indian Singaporean or an Indian Indian (like myself), I just refer to them like “more of me”. That way I’m not distancing others like myself by terming them as “them” but just accepting that are many people like myself with their own cultural beliefs. Like the saying goes, “To each its own”
While i haven't read the articles yet (will get to them soon), I was struck by your questions on making learning culturally relevant. To 'culture' something (in the biological sense of the word) is after all to 'grow' something in suitable conditions, to produce a 'cultured being' by the cultural standards our schools/ society adopts (which are, I think - western methods?/knowledge? founded upon eastern roots). Yet the problem seems to be that we cannot possibly "culture" something well if its cultural conditions are not appropriate, hence the call for a culturally relevant pedagogy -- which is first and foremost an acknowledgement of cultural differences and backgrounds; the diversity of the study body BUT 'seemingly' (?) employed in the service to maximize a student's potential for success in terms of acquiring a specific kind of cultural capital as well as symbolic capital. So as Noel and Rashmi point out - is this ethical? Does not lead to a reproduction of cultural differences?
One of the writers some of us had to read for our visual culture assignment (due yesterday) mentioned something about "techne" and "episteme". While "techne" is the 'skill' and 'craft', "episteme" is 'to know'. I may have misunderstood what he's saying but roughly put, I think he was making the point that we have to stop thinking of images as a mere 'tool' but rather as a way of seeing and hence knowing the word. The word "tool" suggests the presence of an end-product and by implication, that 'something' is nothing more than a means to an end.
Similarly, perhaps culturally relevant pedagogy like critical thinking and like dialogue should not be seen purely as a "techne", a 'tool' for success (of whatever kind) but rather, 'valued' for its egalitarian affordances (easier said than done of course). This reminds me of Booth's challenge and the point Rashmi made earlier - to teach usefully.
To teach usefully then is, I think, is to be sensitive to the 'background' of these kids, to acknowledge their socio-cultural context, to use relevant material or talk about relevant things that are culturally accessible to the student and in so doing, use the classroom as a space within which their different cultural 'backgrounds' can interact. These multiple and messy cultural flows may end up in what Jenkins who quotes Hills in his Pop Cosmopolitanism article calls a "semiotic solidarity" (he was talking about the 'Otakus' I think). Not sure what it means (though the term somehow stayed with me), but I'm guessing it means where the construction and re-construction of knowledge is a shared task/entity(?) owned by everyone? I don't know...
This arguably will have some "positive" (or productive) 'bearing' on the individual. As Rashmi points out, a "common culture" does not necessarily mean a 'shared culture'. This was also the point another visual culture reading made (or was it the same?), where the guy argues that something is only 'shared' when it is contested. True dialogue 'saves' apparently, because (as Freire says) it requires humility (to 'name' the world, to become) and embedded within humility is the recognition that one is never in full knowledge of knowing oneself -- which is exactly the effect of the question Rashmi's grandmother posed to her - "What are you then?" In other words, dialogue with humility requires that we re-define ourselves (albeit always) in relation to our old selves and others, our fractured? "origins"? But what is the ethical point or goal here? -- the blurring of the difference between "you" and "I"? A realization that it is impossible to define "I" and "us" without violating "them"? The realization of the impossibility of self-actualization? Or on a more productive note - is it our ability to be re-define and re-create ourselves/ our 'ability' to 'think critically'/ to freely participate in dialogue (and hence in knowledge creation, and hence in the re- creation of ourselves?) that is our ethical right? Is this what it means to 'reclaim a language of freedom'? … as Brigit mentioned in class last week-- the need to resist closure? To embrace open-endedness? I don't know! And moving back to the classroom, how is this linked to what Noel, quoting our readings, points out about the difficulties of making a distinction between "an intellectual challenge and a challenge to the authority" (Billings-Ladson, p. 482)?
We're thinking in terms of visual culture now?! :) Yes, I do see your point Elizabeth which is why I think in many primary schools, there is a tendency to deploy young, Malay teachers to teach the foundation (previously known as EM3) classes. This is again is supposed to facilitate a more comfortable shared space for the students. I'm not sure how effective this had been in terms of grades but I do know that the few friends of mine who've taught these classes have been able to connect really well with the students and their parents - in terms of persuading them to come to school, etc. Again, this begs the question that you put forth on who's the 'us' and the 'them'. Would every 'Malay' teacher be able to achieve such success? Wouldn't it require the teacher to have had some shared experience in terms of 'culture' aside from race?
Deepa, I will be uncomfortable as well as if teachers are deployed merely in terms of race. ;) I feel that it cannot be the main reason as in Singapore we have such diverse cultures. Maybe the shared culture and histories do help but I am sure even among the Malay teachers and students there will be many variations in terms of their participation and beliefs as they too will be shaped by their families.
Some of the best NT teachers I know and admire have this quality that cuts across all races: they genuinely care and want to make a difference to their lifes.
Thought I will start with the reading I found most difficult….
The key ideas that I got from reading Cultural Ways of Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Practice are we should not look at students merely based on their ‘ethnic group membership’, race, language spoken or individual learning styles to group them as not everyone in the group will have ‘the same experiences, skills and interests’. In addition, it was mentioned that most of the time groups and their needs are considered homogenous and this ignores ‘the variability that exists within groups and their practices’. This is true as there is no one Indian, Chinese, Malay or Western culture. For example, within the Chinese community in Singapore, there exists many cultural groups whose cultural norms differ according the province that they were from, the dialect groups they belong to and the cultural practices that they follow to name a few. Are these taken into consideration in the classroom? The answer will be a resounding “no”.
This is what is done in most Singapore schools commonly. Teachers are encouraged to cater to their students’ diverse learning styles in their pedagogy. In fact, ‘learning styles’, ‘multiple intelligences’ and ‘differentiated instruction’ are buzzwords in schools. When planning lessons, most are told to cater to the different types of learners in their classroom. In reality, most will cater to the dominant group and culture will not be a key consideration.
Gutierrez and Rogoff propose that the focus should be on ‘cultural patterns and practices as located in individuals ’ and ‘people’s history of engagement in practices of cultural communities’. (21) The question that I had is how this can be done in the classroom. It is suggested that ‘individual development and disposition must be understood in (not separate from) cultural and historical context’ and it is ‘relevant to take into account the development of the cultural activities’. (22) This is one reason why Literature is so vital. I believe that Literature will be able to give us a glimpse into the cultural and historical context and also the development of the cultural activities as the writings constitute a repository of people’s thoughts, feelings, their lifes and their cultural practices over generations. Thus, this will and should have a bearing on the books chosen.
Honestly, this aricle has prompted more questions than answers as it has made me question the way we do things in the classroom.
“Scholars examining cultural styles have argued for a more situated and dynamic view of the cultural practices of ethnic and racial groups. Yet, the problem of overgeneralization persists, especially in attempts by schools to design learning experiences that complement the learning-style differences of particular ethnic groups.” While reading the above quote on overgeneralization, I couldn’t help but think about the discussion we had in class last week regarding the poor academic performance of the Malay community in Singapore schools. Attributing this largely to religion seemed like a generalisation to me. If this were true, the entire Muslim world have been caught in the same dilemma. However, neither is this an issue specific to minority groups. I was reading about the Christians in Pakistan who make up 1.68 per cent of the population. Yet, many of them form the top ranks of professionals in the country. Despite the fact that Jews make up for a meagre 2 per cent of the US population and 0.19 per cent worldwide, they account for a cultural group that is known for its affluence and academic success. We also spoke about the Chinese community in class last week. “However, the crucial distinction we are making is between understanding processes and locating characteristics. Without situating social practices and the histories of participants in particular communities, approaches that attribute style to membership in a group make it difficult to account for variation and change in individuals or their practices.” Teachers have already been entasked with the mammoth task of attempting to cater to students of multiple intelligences through differentiated instruction. I do hope that we can come up with solutions to help these disadvantaged pupils but not until sufficient research has been carried out by our sociologists into the causes for these detrimental results.
It is suggested that ‘culturally responsive teaching can be seen as a beginning step for bridging the gap between home and school.’(467) Through her research, Ladson- Billings highlighted some common beliefs and ideologies that the exemplary teachers who were able to have a positive impact on the lifes of African- American students. They are centred around 3 main propositions and are:
They • believed all the students were capable of academic success, • saw their pedagogy as art – unpredictable, always in the process of becoming, • saw themselves as members of the community, • saw teaching as a way to give back to society, • maintain fluid student-teacher relationships, • demonstrate a connectedness with all the students, • develop a community of learners • encourage students to learn collaboratively and be responsible for another
Their beliefs of knowledge are: • Knowledge is not static; it is shared, recycled, constructed. • Knowledge must be viewed critically. • Teachers must be passionate about knowledge and learning. • Teachers must scaffold, or build bridges, to facilitate learning • Assessment must be multifaceted, incorporating multiple forms of excellence.
As I read the article the question that came to my mind constantly was: Are these not qualities and beliefs every teacher should have and not just the culturally relevant teachers? And I am not alone as it was echoed by many practitioners. Ladson-Billings poses the question: why does so little of it seem to occur in classrooms populated by African-American students? (484) And I think this will also be the case in the Normal Technical classroom in Singapore.
Many teachers are not comfortable teaching NT classes, request not to teach them and dread having to teach them. The common complaints are they are difficult to manage, there are too many problem students in one class and that they do not have the support of the home. I believe that many try really hard but feel defeated. Furthermore, the case-study of low-track students in Singapore seems to suggest that a particular group may be in the same shoes as the African-American students. After reading the articles, I did a quick survey of the racial composition of the students in the NT and NA classes in my school and realised that it was true. Though my school is 98% Chinese, most of the students from the minority groups are in the NA and NT streams. There seems to be a real problem and we may not have gotten to the root causes yet. I never really thought about it being culturally related and wonder if more can be done.
Moreover, this article suggests that if teachers truly care about the ‘implications their work had in their students’ lives, the welfare of the community and unjust social arrangements’, they do what is right for the students even defying administration, maintain ‘pupils’ cultural integrity’, ‘help students to recognize, understand and critique current social inequalities’, they will be able to truly make a difference in their students lifes and enable them to achieve academic success while equipping them with vital life skills.
In fact, the ideas that are suggested can be witnessed in LouAnne Johnson in the movie, Dangerous Minds. She truly believes in her students, she maintains their cultural integrity through using the songs of Bob Dylan to introduce them to poetry rather than follow the curriculum dictated by the school district, she cajoles and even bribes them to do well and they are not allowed to choose failure (she does remind them that they have a choice). She does not allow bright students to be ‘society isolates’ , encouraging students to work collaboratively and also experience success. Thus, she would be a culturally relevant teacher though she is neither Hispanic nor African American.
Can this be replicated in our classrooms? I wonder...
Deepa, just like Kodi, I will be uncomfortable if they (MOE or school) really go forth and consciously deploy teachers in terms of race. In my school, there are 2 experienced Malay teachers (not young, though) who do specialised subject teaching for those in Foundation year in and year out, but that is by choice. There are teachers of other races deployed to teach them and those in the weaker classes as well. I’m not sure about other primary schools, though, but I hope it’s not the norm to specially train or deploy Malay teachers only. It’s not about race, I think, it’s about being able to connect, negotiate, support and respect.
Elizabeth mentioned, “To teach usefully then is, I think, is to be sensitive to the 'background' of these kids, to acknowledge their socio-cultural context, to use relevant material or talk about relevant things that are culturally accessible to the student and in so doing, use the classroom as a space within which their different cultural 'backgrounds' can interact.” Because Singapore is so diverse, as educators, many of us make the effort to be sensitive to the different backgrounds and beliefs of our pupils, even though there are many aspects of individual cultures and histories we might not be very sure of. But like Noel asked, is it necessary to always consciously make learning culturally relevant here? I don’t think that in Singapore we suffer / experience such extreme situations in terms of academic and cultural successes and failures as described by Ladson-Billings of African-Americans, Native Americans and Latinos in the U.S. But the dilemma (is it?) then, as Gutierrez & Rogoff mentioned, if cultural differences are denied, “cultural practices of the dominant group are taken as the norms”.
Coming back to Ismail & Tan, I believe that there is lack of support for the less academically inclined pupils and the teachers teaching them. I’ve heard teachers lamenting that they have to design assessments from scratch for their classes as there are very limited resources. Teachers have to come together quite often to create and share lessons and resources. And from the primary level, I think our education system disadvantages these pupils. It is still dependent on sit-down, pen & paper tests. The holistic assessment (bite-sized tests & alternative assessment) for lower primary pupils might have great ambitions (whatever they may be) but for English, for e.g. 75% of the overall total comes from worksheet exercises where pupils spend 30 – 45mins completing them individually. For Maths 100% and Mother Tongue 80% comes from similar tests. Teachers are encouraged to teach using C-P-A approach (concrete-pictorial-abstract) during lessons, but hands-on activities are not part of the assessment. It might be easier said than done, but I would think something practical and hands-on for those with learning disabilities might give them little successes from such a young age. Very often, those who lose out in lower primary end up struggling all the way to Pr4 and they are the ones who end up in the Foundation stream in P5 & P6 and NT in sec schools. There are pupils who have never passed Maths throughout their primary school education. We can always attribute this to many factors – lack of practice, poor number sense, poor comprehension, weak mathematical foundation, bad teaching, etc. Can I also include lack of differentiated and alternative assessment modes, rigid curriculum and “prolonged periods of time in the low-track streams” (Ismail & Tan) to the list?
Perhaps I might be reading into it too much here, but It is heartening to see how all of us are extremely animated and passionate when the focal point is the N(T) students. Reading Lankshear and Knobel, I am struck by Freire's notion of literacy, which was an "integral component of a radical, politicized pedagogy purposefully designed to stimulate action for change" (p. 6). Can the current literacy offered to the N(T) students be seen as thus? Are they equipped with such literacies upon graduation, that they may be able to effect change? Conversely, are these students offered the same kind of literacy that ironically shackles them? Just thinking aloud, that's all. Cheers Noel
Hey noel - while I'm not exactly sure what the current "literacy" offered to the N(T) students is, I believe that they should be equipped with literacies upon graduation that will allow them to effect change. After all, one of the things we all have agreed on is the idea that every single one of us is "capable of" everything and anything. As one of my students pointed out yesterday "we are all born stupid or equal", and to which another astutely replied "no, there are the lucky and the luckier". But as Nazlin right points says, the hands on approach doesn't guarantee success. And as she goes on to argue, this is because success' is defined by assessment modes that privilege a certain type of "literacy" and as you say ironically "shackles" them.
Inspired, I went off to read a few pages of Lankshear and Knobel only to find that I really like what they are saying mainly because suddenly everything is so hopeful! So basically, literacies are ways of 'doing life' (please correct me if I got all of this wrong), and they are advocating the teaching of a wide range of "literacies"/repertories so that students can gain dexterity (as the Gutierrez and Rogoff reading says) and 'do' life, to 'do' me and to 'do' the world whenever wherever -- so to put on whichever costume the performance calls for, and in putting it on, to not just perform the requisite act, but in so doing skillfully disclose something about the act and transform themselves and the world in positive and real ways such that lead to more equitable laws and policies. So linking it back to the question so many of us are asking, how we can 'help' or rather teach NT kids 'properly'? I'm also not sure but teachers and researchers as Ladson-Billings suggest, need to be think of pedagogy in terms of being "culturally responsive". This to me gestures at the need for teachers to similarly acquire different sets of competencies or literacies as well as dexterity in its execution in order to effect and affect positive changes. What would this look like in policy terms?
As Kodi points out, "pedagogy is art – unpredictable, always in the process of becoming". She also relates this to the importance of literature (which is also an art), which I think is an absolutely interesting idea! While I'm sure we've all thought of teaching as a performance, I've never thought of good teaching as a skillful and creative art! I like the idea! She also says "Literature will be able to give us a glimpse into the cultural and historical context and also the development of the cultural activities as their writings constitute a repository of people's thoughts, feelings, their lives and their cultural practices over generations. Thus this will and should have a bearing on the books chose". To take it further, literature does not just give us a glimpse, it places us within the cultural/historical/social context, it implicates us (through the act of reading and interpretation)(think The Reluctant Fundamentalist), forcing us to come to confront the Other by drawing our attention to the unsettling bits and coercing us into transformation by asking why things are the way things are or by presenting us with alternative worlds (science fiction) "why can't things be 'like that' instead" through the use of the imagination and creative writing, always "inherent" in good literature is the privileging of our moral responsibilities and the recognition of what each and every one of us are "capable of", the human potential.
I think literature is the subject most 'in-line' with critical pedagogy, culturally relevant pedagogy and new literacies (as it promotes all of the things they value) and the best part is that it is already part of our academic system! So learning from Picower, it is the perfect camouflage because it is an insider. In other words, the teaching of literature (the art of art? a metalanguage that understands Discourses as Discourses? (Lankshear and Knobel) - that is both skill and content at the same time?l that is culturally responsive, that affirms the individual as it forces him/her into questioning etc...) (for teachers) or reading/learning/studying of literature (for students, students could also teach of course) could be the "solution" for problems in the NT classroom too?? But it also means that we have to familiarize ourselves with different literacies and read 'texts' we may not usually like to read.
Yesterday, we spoke of the difficulties of carrying out culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom, citing the reluctance to share 'resources', create resources, and teachers' attitude towards knowledge as some of the factors. While I'm all for sharing and creating shared resources, sharing like everything else in this world, is more complex than it is. Another reason or perhaps excuse why 'young'/'new' teachers may not SEEM interested in sharing might be because they are afraid of how it may be received by the rest of the department, sometimes they are not confident of what they're doing (having never tried it out before) and even if they were able to back it up with scholarship, who would listen to those who do not know 'how different reality is'? The culture of fear (initially) gives way however to annoyance and frustration and finally, I think, to indifference.
Amongst the 'younger' colleagues in the office as well as my friends in the teaching force, I recognize in many of them a strong desire to learn to teach well (whatever that may mean to them individually). They all have a passion for learning and knowing, although they may ask for packages/materials and complain on Facebook. Discourses are obviously (un)equal, and so perhaps asking for packages MAY not necessarily equate to laziness? As it is culturally (ir)relevant pedagogy, the 'disconnect', that disallows N(T) students to succeed (or to succeed at the expense of being fully human), it may be the culturally ir(relevant) environment in schools that drives away young, promising and bright teachers. In light of this, is age and/or gender a type of "literacy" as well that has its own primary discourse? [Base on my own random observations, I've always thought that "guys" have a better chance of survival than women in lit departments - right Noel? ;)]
Lankshear and Knobel write that metalevel knowledge enables one to practice a powerful literacy. The point of powerful literacy is an enabling and ethical (?) one (as oppose to a 'language of lacking') : to "provide us with a reason, a basis and an alternative in terms of which we can decide to opt out of another Discourse or work to change it" (14). The key then is to acquire as many "literacies" as possible, in order (to use Gutieerez and Rogoff's term), enlarge their "repertoire". While to opt out sounds sad to me (this is a moral relativist position isn't' it?), changing it requires (to use another term of Gutieerez and Rogoff's) dexterity, which is perhaps what needs to be emphasized at the PDGE course? We are all equally to be blamed, BUT the onus automatically falls (does it? if they can opt out?) on the shoulders of people 'with' 'meta-level knowledge' (young teachers/people and experienced teachers/people) to enact change, NOT necessarily the people in power and it begins, I think, with the willingness to acquire and use skillfully, the 'literacy" and hence the primary discourse of the "judgmental" mentor/ of people in power to change things. In other words, to 'change things', you first have to submit (requires humility) to and "repeat" the Discourse (so words, actions etc …) of the thing/person/Discourse you want or hope to change in order to introduce your Discourse (which is the metaknowledge thing?) while in full knowledge that the person in power would still be able to choose between "opting out" or "changing it" or whatever else (and most significantly, to remain completely respectful of their ethical RIGHT to make what they want of it, right?)?So where exactly is the ethical situated in this 'enterprise'?
Elizabeth, I agree with you that the ‘sharing’ process is a lot more complex than it seems and I can sympathise with the reservations that younger/less experienced/’immigrant’ teachers might have about their material. And as you recognise, “Discourses are obviously (un)equal, and so perhaps asking for packages MAY not necessarily equate to laziness?” But asking for resources and relying on packaged material (ie using discourses which are perceived as valuable) is a potential site that can be exploited by parties who are perceived as being ABLE to generate these powerful discourses.
Yesterday I cited the example of how this can happen in the educational marketplace. I’m reconstructing the example for Noel’s benefit.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where a top school puts out the offer that it will offer its test papers and answer schemes to other schools. In doing so, this top school gets to position itself as a model worth emulating, but clearly it’s not entirely in its interest to let the competition catch up- so it provides partial answer schemes. And the discourse generated by the school, just because it is from such and such a school, is imbued with power.
Some discourses are more powerful than others- age, gender, class,- group membership cloak discourses with authority; perhaps undeservedly so. It is important to treat discourses, especially from powerful figures with the right amount of scepticism. In a powerful literacy, the power rests with the reader, not the text.
In using discourses, the onus rests on the user- to appropriate it skilfully (as you suggest), respectfully (by attributing it to the source), and in the case of using shared material- also feeling empowered/ literate enough to contribute.
I read with interest Ladson-Billing's article on "Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy". Among her many questions raised, the key question for me, professionally and personally, was "how can academic success and cultural success complement each other in settings where student alienation and hostility characterize the school experience?" It would be too sweeping to assert that only (or most?) students in the Normal Technical Stream experience such alienation and hostility, but I fear that this might possibly be the case. I do not have the answer to the question posed aforementioned; rather, I am reminded of my personal assumptions and biased viewpoints each week as I strive to strengthen my pedagogical practice.
ReplyDeleteI am still trying to make the distinction clear in class between "an intellectual challenge and a challenge to the authority" (Billings-Ladson, p. 482). This is a delicate act, and any challenge needs to be constructive to result in any productive (re)construction of knowledge.
On another note, I do take issue with Ismail's and Tan's article "Snapshots from the Normal (Technical) World". While their case-study depicted "realistically" classroom behaviour/learning/teaching of the Normal Technical students, their case-study was too simplistic in its assertions and proposed solutions. For example, they state that "there is a need to look beyond the school and explore factors such as social class, assessment schemes, family resources and others as contributory elements to the problem." The devil is exactly in these details. I do not think that school administrators are unaware of these "contributory elements"; rather, how do we (all stakeholders) effect these suggestions? However, it is true that much attention has not been given to teacher education/training for Normal Technical teaching/learning.\
In retrospect, pardon my ignorance, but do we need to make learning culturally relevant, or to paraphrase, do we need to take into account students' cultural/historical backgrounds? By taking into account cultural backgrounds, are we not admitting cultural differences, which in turn suggests some form of hierarchy or privilege?
Noel, I agree with you that there is much hostility and alienation among the NT students. This may be an overgeneralisation but in my experience, they do not mingle with students from other streams, seem to have accepted the label 'NT' and will say things like 'I am NT, what?' and most seem angry with their family and have difficulty working in groups.
DeleteI do not have the solution but think that schools need to focus more attention of these students who have faced many forms of failures, have low self-esteem, may have learning disorders that impedes their literacy and numeracy skills and enable them to experience success. In order to do so, schools need more support to provide more training for staff, smaller classes and a more flexible curriculum.
Many of them crave a 'sense of community'thus involving themselves in gangs and toxic relationships. I wonder if more can be done to promote what Ladson-Billings calls 'a community of learners'.
Kodi
Kodi & Noel, it is interesting to see that even in the primary school level, pupils in the Foundation stream are already emulating (if i can call it that) behaviours and perceptions of those in the NT course. In fact, even those in the weakest of the Standard classes carry similar profiles as mentioned in Ismail & Tan – short attention span, poor English command, poor studying habits and more often than not, pose disciplinary problems. A good percentage of pupils in these classes end up in NT course. From what I can see in my school, at least, they are clique-ish, they don’t mingle much with those in the other (& better) classes. But, to be fair to them, those in the better classes are not always receptive to them, some do have the elitist, “greater than thou” syndrome. When MOE removes the EM1, 2 & 3 courses, some parents and teachers applauded the move as it seemed that pupils will not be explicitly “labelled” in terms of their academic ability, but then comes Standard & Foundation courses and subject banding. Pupils are still put in classes based on their ability and they can figure out for themselves how good (or otherwise) they are. And just like in many (if not all) NT classes, the Malays make up the biggest number of pupils in Foundation & the weaker Standard classes. (Why?)
DeleteOops...forgot to put my name in my post above...Noel here by the way.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe same burning question which Noel asked plagues me. “By taking into account cultural backgrounds, are we not admitting cultural differences, which in turn suggests some form of hierarchy or privilege?” In some way or the other, we are all caught in this wheel of culture. Our culture is shaped by our surroundings and we become mere reflections of the cultural ideology that binds us. We grow up in families and societies that pass on to us a particular mind set / belief. For example, when you go for an interview, we are asked for vital information. Then in the name of professional ethics, they ask you for what race and religion you are. This question infuriates me as I wonder how religion and race matters in my productivity at work. Once we dutifully write it down, it becomes easier for the interviewer to pigeonhole us according to his / her cultural background.
ReplyDeleteIn Singapore, with the influx of foreigners, origin then plays an important role in distinguishing “us” and “them”. I sometimes wonder how the “us” and “them” terms crop up when both the parties actually share the same cultural background and space. I was not aware that I was unconsciously doing the same thing. I remember, every time I told my grandmother, “I see more Indians in Singapore”, she would instantly ask me, “What are you then?” This question instigated me to think about my position in relation with the two countries – India and Singapore. Anyways, this question made me think a lot about my personal standpoint and how I viewed other people like me differently. How can I refer to them as “the other” when I myself am “the other”? Once this knowledge dawned upon me, my attitude towards them changed. Now, whenever I see another Indian – be it an Indian Singaporean or an Indian Indian (like myself), I just refer to them like “more of me”. That way I’m not distancing others like myself by terming them as “them” but just accepting that are many people like myself with their own cultural beliefs. Like the saying goes, “To each its own”
While i haven't read the articles yet (will get to them soon), I was struck by your questions on making learning culturally relevant. To 'culture' something (in the biological sense of the word) is after all to 'grow' something in suitable conditions, to produce a 'cultured being' by the cultural standards our schools/ society adopts (which are, I think - western methods?/knowledge? founded upon eastern roots).
DeleteYet the problem seems to be that we cannot possibly "culture" something well if its cultural conditions are not appropriate, hence the call for a culturally relevant pedagogy -- which is first and foremost an acknowledgement of cultural differences and backgrounds; the diversity of the study body BUT 'seemingly' (?) employed in the service to maximize a student's potential for success in terms of acquiring a specific kind of cultural capital as well as symbolic capital. So as Noel and Rashmi point out - is this ethical? Does not lead to a reproduction of cultural differences?
One of the writers some of us had to read for our visual culture assignment (due yesterday) mentioned something about "techne" and "episteme". While "techne" is the 'skill' and 'craft', "episteme" is 'to know'. I may have misunderstood what he's saying but roughly put, I think he was making the point that we have to stop thinking of images as a mere 'tool' but rather as a way of seeing and hence knowing the word. The word "tool" suggests the presence of an end-product and by implication, that 'something' is nothing more than a means to an end.
Similarly, perhaps culturally relevant pedagogy like critical thinking and like dialogue should not be seen purely as a "techne", a 'tool' for success (of whatever kind) but rather, 'valued' for its egalitarian affordances (easier said than done of course). This reminds me of Booth's challenge and the point Rashmi made earlier - to teach usefully.
To teach usefully then is, I think, is to be sensitive to the 'background' of these kids, to acknowledge their socio-cultural context, to use relevant material or talk about relevant things that are culturally accessible to the student and in so doing, use the classroom as a space within which their different cultural 'backgrounds' can interact. These multiple and messy cultural flows may end up in what Jenkins who quotes Hills in his Pop Cosmopolitanism article calls a "semiotic solidarity" (he was talking about the 'Otakus' I think). Not sure what it means (though the term somehow stayed with me), but I'm guessing it means where the construction and re-construction of knowledge is a shared task/entity(?) owned by everyone? I don't know...
This arguably will have some "positive" (or productive) 'bearing' on the individual. As Rashmi points out, a "common culture" does not necessarily mean a 'shared culture'. This was also the point another visual culture reading made (or was it the same?), where the guy argues that something is only 'shared' when it is contested. True dialogue 'saves' apparently, because (as Freire says) it requires humility (to 'name' the world, to become) and embedded within humility is the recognition that one is never in full knowledge of knowing oneself -- which is exactly the effect of the question Rashmi's grandmother posed to her - "What are you then?" In other words, dialogue with humility requires that we re-define ourselves (albeit always) in relation to our old selves and others, our fractured? "origins"? But what is the ethical point or goal here? -- the blurring of the difference between "you" and "I"? A realization that it is impossible to define "I" and "us" without violating "them"? The realization of the impossibility of self-actualization? Or on a more productive note - is it our ability to be re-define and re-create ourselves/ our 'ability' to 'think critically'/ to freely participate in dialogue (and hence in knowledge creation, and hence in the re- creation of ourselves?) that is our ethical right? Is this what it means to 'reclaim a language of freedom'? … as Brigit mentioned in class last week-- the need to resist closure? To embrace open-endedness? I don't know! And moving back to the classroom, how is this linked to what Noel, quoting our readings, points out about the difficulties of making a distinction between "an intellectual challenge and a challenge to the authority" (Billings-Ladson, p. 482)?
DeleteWe're thinking in terms of visual culture now?! :) Yes, I do see your point Elizabeth which is why I think in many primary schools, there is a tendency to deploy young, Malay teachers to teach the foundation (previously known as EM3) classes. This is again is supposed to facilitate a more comfortable shared space for the students. I'm not sure how effective this had been in terms of grades but I do know that the few friends of mine who've taught these classes have been able to connect really well with the students and their parents - in terms of persuading them to come to school, etc.
DeleteAgain, this begs the question that you put forth on who's the 'us' and the 'them'. Would every 'Malay' teacher be able to achieve such success? Wouldn't it require the teacher to have had some shared experience in terms of 'culture' aside from race?
Deepa, I will be uncomfortable as well as if teachers are deployed merely in terms of race. ;) I feel that it cannot be the main reason as in Singapore we have such diverse cultures. Maybe the shared culture and histories do help but I am sure even among the Malay teachers and students there will be many variations in terms of their participation and beliefs as they too will be shaped by their families.
DeleteSome of the best NT teachers I know and admire have this quality that cuts across all races: they genuinely care and want to make a difference to their lifes.
Kodi
Thought I will start with the reading I found most difficult….
ReplyDeleteThe key ideas that I got from reading Cultural Ways of Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Practice are we should not look at students merely based on their ‘ethnic group membership’, race, language spoken or individual learning styles to group them as not everyone in the group will have ‘the same experiences, skills and interests’. In addition, it was mentioned that most of the time groups and their needs are considered homogenous and this ignores ‘the variability that exists within groups and their practices’. This is true as there is no one Indian, Chinese, Malay or Western culture. For example, within the Chinese community in Singapore, there exists many cultural groups whose cultural norms differ according the province that they were from, the dialect groups they belong to and the cultural practices that they follow to name a few. Are these taken into consideration in the classroom? The answer will be a resounding “no”.
This is what is done in most Singapore schools commonly. Teachers are encouraged to cater to their students’ diverse learning styles in their pedagogy. In fact, ‘learning styles’, ‘multiple intelligences’ and ‘differentiated instruction’ are buzzwords in schools. When planning lessons, most are told to cater to the different types of learners in their classroom. In reality, most will cater to the dominant group and culture will not be a key consideration.
Gutierrez and Rogoff propose that the focus should be on ‘cultural patterns and practices as located in individuals ’ and ‘people’s history of engagement in practices of cultural communities’. (21) The question that I had is how this can be done in the classroom. It is suggested that ‘individual development and disposition must be understood in (not separate from) cultural and historical context’ and it is ‘relevant to take into account the development of the cultural activities’. (22) This is one reason why Literature is so vital. I believe that Literature will be able to give us a glimpse into the cultural and historical context and also the development of the cultural activities as the writings constitute a repository of people’s thoughts, feelings, their lifes and their cultural practices over generations. Thus, this will and should have a bearing on the books chosen.
Honestly, this aricle has prompted more questions than answers as it has made me question the way we do things in the classroom.
Kodi
“Scholars examining cultural styles have argued for a more situated and dynamic view of the cultural practices of ethnic and racial groups. Yet, the problem of overgeneralization persists, especially in attempts by schools to design learning experiences that complement the learning-style differences of particular ethnic groups.”
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the above quote on overgeneralization, I couldn’t help but think about the discussion we had in class last week regarding the poor academic performance of the Malay community in Singapore schools. Attributing this largely to religion seemed like a generalisation to me. If this were true, the entire Muslim world have been caught in the same dilemma. However, neither is this an issue specific to minority groups. I was reading about the Christians in Pakistan who make up 1.68 per cent of the population. Yet, many of them form the top ranks of professionals in the country. Despite the fact that Jews make up for a meagre 2 per cent of the US population and 0.19 per cent worldwide, they account for a cultural group that is known for its affluence and academic success. We also spoke about the Chinese community in class last week.
“However, the crucial distinction we are making is between understanding processes and locating characteristics. Without situating social practices and the histories of participants in particular communities, approaches that attribute style to membership in a group make it difficult to account for variation and change in individuals or their practices.”
Teachers have already been entasked with the mammoth task of attempting to cater to students of multiple intelligences through differentiated instruction. I do hope that we can come up with solutions to help these disadvantaged pupils but not until sufficient research has been carried out by our sociologists into the causes for these detrimental results.
It is suggested that ‘culturally responsive teaching can be seen as a beginning step for bridging the gap between home and school.’(467) Through her research, Ladson- Billings highlighted some common beliefs and ideologies that the exemplary teachers who were able to have a positive impact on the lifes of African- American students. They are centred around 3 main propositions and are:
ReplyDeleteThey
• believed all the students were capable of academic success,
• saw their pedagogy as art – unpredictable, always in the process of becoming,
• saw themselves as members of the community,
• saw teaching as a way to give back to society,
• maintain fluid student-teacher relationships,
• demonstrate a connectedness with all the students,
• develop a community of learners
• encourage students to learn collaboratively and be responsible for another
Their beliefs of knowledge are:
• Knowledge is not static; it is shared, recycled, constructed.
• Knowledge must be viewed critically.
• Teachers must be passionate about knowledge and learning.
• Teachers must scaffold, or build bridges, to facilitate learning
• Assessment must be multifaceted, incorporating multiple forms of excellence.
As I read the article the question that came to my mind constantly was: Are these not qualities and beliefs every teacher should have and not just the culturally relevant teachers? And I am not alone as it was echoed by many practitioners. Ladson-Billings poses the question: why does so little of it seem to occur in classrooms populated by African-American students? (484) And I think this will also be the case in the Normal Technical classroom in Singapore.
Many teachers are not comfortable teaching NT classes, request not to teach them and dread having to teach them. The common complaints are they are difficult to manage, there are too many problem students in one class and that they do not have the support of the home. I believe that many try really hard but feel defeated. Furthermore, the case-study of low-track students in Singapore seems to suggest that a particular group may be in the same shoes as the African-American students. After reading the articles, I did a quick survey of the racial composition of the students in the NT and NA classes in my school and realised that it was true. Though my school is 98% Chinese, most of the students from the minority groups are in the NA and NT streams. There seems to be a real problem and we may not have gotten to the root causes yet. I never really thought about it being culturally related and wonder if more can be done.
Moreover, this article suggests that if teachers truly care about the ‘implications their work had in their students’ lives, the welfare of the community and unjust social arrangements’, they do what is right for the students even defying administration, maintain ‘pupils’ cultural integrity’, ‘help students to recognize, understand and critique current social inequalities’, they will be able to truly make a difference in their students lifes and enable them to achieve academic success while equipping them with vital life skills.
In fact, the ideas that are suggested can be witnessed in LouAnne Johnson in the movie, Dangerous Minds. She truly believes in her students, she maintains their cultural integrity through using the songs of Bob Dylan to introduce them to poetry rather than follow the curriculum dictated by the school district, she cajoles and even bribes them to do well and they are not allowed to choose failure (she does remind them that they have a choice). She does not allow bright students to be ‘society isolates’ , encouraging students to work collaboratively and also experience success. Thus, she would be a culturally relevant teacher though she is neither Hispanic nor African American.
Can this be replicated in our classrooms? I wonder...
Kodi
Deepa, just like Kodi, I will be uncomfortable if they (MOE or school) really go forth and consciously deploy teachers in terms of race. In my school, there are 2 experienced Malay teachers (not young, though) who do specialised subject teaching for those in Foundation year in and year out, but that is by choice. There are teachers of other races deployed to teach them and those in the weaker classes as well. I’m not sure about other primary schools, though, but I hope it’s not the norm to specially train or deploy Malay teachers only. It’s not about race, I think, it’s about being able to connect, negotiate, support and respect.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth mentioned, “To teach usefully then is, I think, is to be sensitive to the 'background' of these kids, to acknowledge their socio-cultural context, to use relevant material or talk about relevant things that are culturally accessible to the student and in so doing, use the classroom as a space within which their different cultural 'backgrounds' can interact.” Because Singapore is so diverse, as educators, many of us make the effort to be sensitive to the different backgrounds and beliefs of our pupils, even though there are many aspects of individual cultures and histories we might not be very sure of. But like Noel asked, is it necessary to always consciously make learning culturally relevant here? I don’t think that in Singapore we suffer / experience such extreme situations in terms of academic and cultural successes and failures as described by Ladson-Billings of African-Americans, Native Americans and Latinos in the U.S. But the dilemma (is it?) then, as Gutierrez & Rogoff mentioned, if cultural differences are denied, “cultural practices of the dominant group are taken as the norms”.
Coming back to Ismail & Tan, I believe that there is lack of support for the less academically inclined pupils and the teachers teaching them. I’ve heard teachers lamenting that they have to design assessments from scratch for their classes as there are very limited resources. Teachers have to come together quite often to create and share lessons and resources. And from the primary level, I think our education system disadvantages these pupils. It is still dependent on sit-down, pen & paper tests. The holistic assessment (bite-sized tests & alternative assessment) for lower primary pupils might have great ambitions (whatever they may be) but for English, for e.g. 75% of the overall total comes from worksheet exercises where pupils spend 30 – 45mins completing them individually. For Maths 100% and Mother Tongue 80% comes from similar tests. Teachers are encouraged to teach using C-P-A approach (concrete-pictorial-abstract) during lessons, but hands-on activities are not part of the assessment. It might be easier said than done, but I would think something practical and hands-on for those with learning disabilities might give them little successes from such a young age. Very often, those who lose out in lower primary end up struggling all the way to Pr4 and they are the ones who end up in the Foundation stream in P5 & P6 and NT in sec schools. There are pupils who have never passed Maths throughout their primary school education. We can always attribute this to many factors – lack of practice, poor number sense, poor comprehension, weak mathematical foundation, bad teaching, etc. Can I also include lack of differentiated and alternative assessment modes, rigid curriculum and “prolonged periods of time in the low-track streams” (Ismail & Tan) to the list?
Perhaps I might be reading into it too much here, but It is heartening to see how all of us are extremely animated and passionate when the focal point is the N(T) students. Reading Lankshear and Knobel, I am struck by Freire's notion of literacy, which was an "integral component of a radical, politicized pedagogy purposefully designed to stimulate action for change" (p. 6). Can the current literacy offered to the N(T) students be seen as thus? Are they equipped with such literacies upon graduation, that they may be able to effect change? Conversely, are these students offered the same kind of literacy that ironically shackles them? Just thinking aloud, that's all.
ReplyDeleteCheers
Noel
Hey noel - while I'm not exactly sure what the current "literacy" offered to the N(T) students is, I believe that they should be equipped with literacies upon graduation that will allow them to effect change. After all, one of the things we all have agreed on is the idea that every single one of us is "capable of" everything and anything. As one of my students pointed out yesterday "we are all born stupid or equal", and to which another astutely replied "no, there are the lucky and the luckier". But as Nazlin right points says, the hands on approach doesn't guarantee success. And as she goes on to argue, this is because success' is defined by assessment modes that privilege a certain type of "literacy" and as you say ironically "shackles" them.
ReplyDeleteInspired, I went off to read a few pages of Lankshear and Knobel only to find that I really like what they are saying mainly because suddenly everything is so hopeful! So basically, literacies are ways of 'doing life' (please correct me if I got all of this wrong), and they are advocating the teaching of a wide range of "literacies"/repertories so that students can gain dexterity (as the Gutierrez and Rogoff reading says) and 'do' life, to 'do' me and to 'do' the world whenever wherever -- so to put on whichever costume the performance calls for, and in putting it on, to not just perform the requisite act, but in so doing skillfully disclose something about the act and transform themselves and the world in positive and real ways such that lead to more equitable laws and policies. So linking it back to the question so many of us are asking, how we can 'help' or rather teach NT kids 'properly'? I'm also not sure but teachers and researchers as Ladson-Billings suggest, need to be think of pedagogy in terms of being "culturally responsive". This to me gestures at the need for teachers to similarly acquire different sets of competencies or literacies as well as dexterity in its execution in order to effect and affect positive changes. What would this look like in policy terms?
As Kodi points out, "pedagogy is art – unpredictable, always in the process of becoming". She also relates this to the importance of literature (which is also an art), which I think is an absolutely interesting idea! While I'm sure we've all thought of teaching as a performance, I've never thought of good teaching as a skillful and creative art! I like the idea! She also says "Literature will be able to give us a glimpse into the cultural and historical context and also the development of the cultural activities as their writings constitute a repository of people's thoughts, feelings, their lives and their cultural practices over generations. Thus this will and should have a bearing on the books chose". To take it further, literature does not just give us a glimpse, it places us within the cultural/historical/social context, it implicates us (through the act of reading and interpretation)(think The Reluctant Fundamentalist), forcing us to come to confront the Other by drawing our attention to the unsettling bits and coercing us into transformation by asking why things are the way things are or by presenting us with alternative worlds (science fiction) "why can't things be 'like that' instead" through the use of the imagination and creative writing, always "inherent" in good literature is the privileging of our moral responsibilities and the recognition of what each and every one of us are "capable of", the human potential.
I think literature is the subject most 'in-line' with critical pedagogy, culturally relevant pedagogy and new literacies (as it promotes all of the things they value) and the best part is that it is already part of our academic system! So learning from Picower, it is the perfect camouflage because it is an insider. In other words, the teaching of literature (the art of art? a metalanguage that understands Discourses as Discourses? (Lankshear and Knobel) - that is both skill and content at the same time?l that is culturally responsive, that affirms the individual as it forces him/her into questioning etc...) (for teachers) or reading/learning/studying of literature (for students, students could also teach of course) could be the "solution" for problems in the NT classroom too?? But it also means that we have to familiarize ourselves with different literacies and read 'texts' we may not usually like to read.
ReplyDeleteYesterday, we spoke of the difficulties of carrying out culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom, citing the reluctance to share 'resources', create resources, and teachers' attitude towards knowledge as some of the factors. While I'm all for sharing and creating shared resources, sharing like everything else in this world, is more complex than it is. Another reason or perhaps excuse why 'young'/'new' teachers may not SEEM interested in sharing might be because they are afraid of how it may be received by the rest of the department, sometimes they are not confident of what they're doing (having never tried it out before) and even if they were able to back it up with scholarship, who would listen to those who do not know 'how different reality is'? The culture of fear (initially) gives way however to annoyance and frustration and finally, I think, to indifference.
ReplyDeleteAmongst the 'younger' colleagues in the office as well as my friends in the teaching force, I recognize in many of them a strong desire to learn to teach well (whatever that may mean to them individually). They all have a passion for learning and knowing, although they may ask for packages/materials and complain on Facebook. Discourses are obviously (un)equal, and so perhaps asking for packages MAY not necessarily equate to laziness? As it is culturally (ir)relevant pedagogy, the 'disconnect', that disallows N(T) students to succeed (or to succeed at the expense of being fully human), it may be the culturally ir(relevant) environment in schools that drives away young, promising and bright teachers. In light of this, is age and/or gender a type of "literacy" as well that has its own primary discourse? [Base on my own random observations, I've always thought that "guys" have a better chance of survival than women in lit departments - right Noel? ;)]
Lankshear and Knobel write that metalevel knowledge enables one to practice a powerful literacy. The point of powerful literacy is an enabling and ethical (?) one (as oppose to a 'language of lacking') : to "provide us with a reason, a basis and an alternative in terms of which we can decide to opt out of another Discourse or work to change it" (14). The key then is to acquire as many "literacies" as possible, in order (to use Gutieerez and Rogoff's term), enlarge their "repertoire". While to opt out sounds sad to me (this is a moral relativist position isn't' it?), changing it requires (to use another term of Gutieerez and Rogoff's) dexterity, which is perhaps what needs to be emphasized at the PDGE course? We are all equally to be blamed, BUT the onus automatically falls (does it? if they can opt out?) on the shoulders of people 'with' 'meta-level knowledge' (young teachers/people and experienced teachers/people) to enact change, NOT necessarily the people in power and it begins, I think, with the willingness to acquire and use skillfully, the 'literacy" and hence the primary discourse of the "judgmental" mentor/ of people in power to change things. In other words, to 'change things', you first have to submit (requires humility) to and "repeat" the Discourse (so words, actions etc …) of the thing/person/Discourse you want or hope to change in order to introduce your Discourse (which is the metaknowledge thing?) while in full knowledge that the person in power would still be able to choose between "opting out" or "changing it" or whatever else (and most significantly, to remain completely respectful of their ethical RIGHT to make what they want of it, right?)?So where exactly is the ethical situated in this 'enterprise'?
Elizabeth, I agree with you that the ‘sharing’ process is a lot more complex than it seems and I can sympathise with the reservations that younger/less experienced/’immigrant’ teachers might have about their material. And as you recognise, “Discourses are obviously (un)equal, and so perhaps asking for packages MAY not necessarily equate to laziness?” But asking for resources and relying on packaged material (ie using discourses which are perceived as valuable) is a potential site that can be exploited by parties who are perceived as being ABLE to generate these powerful discourses.
ReplyDeleteYesterday I cited the example of how this can happen in the educational marketplace. I’m reconstructing the example for Noel’s benefit.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where a top school puts out the offer that it will offer its test papers and answer schemes to other schools. In doing so, this top school gets to position itself as a model worth emulating, but clearly it’s not entirely in its interest to let the competition catch up- so it provides partial answer schemes. And the discourse generated by the school, just because it is from such and such a school, is imbued with power.
Some discourses are more powerful than others- age, gender, class,- group membership cloak discourses with authority; perhaps undeservedly so. It is important to treat discourses, especially from powerful figures with the right amount of scepticism. In a powerful literacy, the power rests with the reader, not the text.
In using discourses, the onus rests on the user- to appropriate it skilfully (as you suggest), respectfully (by attributing it to the source), and in the case of using shared material- also feeling empowered/ literate enough to contribute.
Brigit