|
|
Post by carolinebyrnes on May 21, 2016 23:15:37 GMT
Old Discussions from the left side of class
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinebyrnes on May 22, 2016 19:30:45 GMT
Here is a place to discuss reading 4
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelmartin1 on May 22, 2016 20:18:59 GMT
I thought Reading #4 was really interesting and thought provoking. I wanted to process all that I read in the chapter by relating it to my life. My primary Discourse, or my first social identity, was as a daughter and sister situated within a middle-class family in the suburbs. This is the base in which later Discourses were either resisted or acquired. I can identify two secondary Discourses of which I was "apprenticed" as I was growing up. The first. my church, is more of a community-based Discourse. I grew up going to Sunday School and then Youth Group as I became older and my parents participated heavily in the life of the church. This involvement with the church impacted our family dynamics and continues to impact me as an adult. The second is an obvious Discourse in the life of a child and adolescent, the public sphere of school. I grew up going to a private school and my parents were involved in our school and in our education. They brought this Discourse into the home by helping us with our homework and reading so that we would have a head start and not get left behind. I am not sure if I am interpreting Discourses correctly but it helps for me to put it into the perspective of my life so that I can more easily understand the material.
As I was reading the chapter, I thought about another Secondary Discourse that I am currently in the midst of: becoming a School Psychologist. According to the chapter, "Discourses are mastered through acquisition and not learning." I thought about this past year of graduate school and had the though that so far have had more learning than acquisition. I am in classes where the professors are teaching us the concepts so that when we enter our practicum and internship, we can acquire the skills we need to be good school psychologists. I am ready for "scaffolded and supported interaction" with individuals who are already mastered in this particular Discourse in an apprenticeship type manner. This probably goes for the students in the room who are studying to become classroom teachers as well. It always made sense that practicing a skill and learning from others who are more experienced than you led to true mastery, but now I have words to explain why.
In addition, the chapter mentioned that anyone who teaches themselves concepts of a Discourse on their own can not become an "insider" or "member of the profession." This reminded me of our conversation in class about becoming an "insider"and it is interesting that Jim Gee assumes you can not be an insider if you did not have more experienced individuals aid you in the acquisition process. It makes sense because we can learn a lot from individuals who are more experienced than us in whatever Discourse we are trying to master. This made me think about the Ghazvini Learning Center. The students are trying to recover credits for classes through a computer system in which they read information and take tests. This is aiding in the learning process solely, and not the acquisition process. Hopefully we as tutors this summer can be individuals that will enhance their learning experience and maybe not explicitly teach them, but provide scaffolded and supported interaction so that they can become masters in this particular Discourse, school.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicadiazr on May 23, 2016 5:11:57 GMT
Rach, you make really good points! While I was reading the chapter, I too began to relate it back to my life. What stood out the most to me was the secondary discourse that we are currently in: becoming school psychologists. I too began to see when we were learning and when we were going to begin to acquire skills. So I also realized that for the past year we have been learning, and in practicum and internship we will be acquiring the skills to become "insiders" of the school psychologist profession. The chapter states that classrooms should properly balance acquisitions and learning to benefit all students. It made me reflect on our program and the way it is set up. I feel like it does strike a balance between learning and acquisition; with two years of classes (learning) and 1 year of practicum and 1 year of internship (acquisition).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiffani on May 23, 2016 16:49:23 GMT
This article definitely relates to our graduate experience in the school psychology program. It can be seen very clearly the way that Jessica broke it up! It also makes me think of professions like nursing, where a large part (if not all) of the acquired skill is actually attained from working in the hospitals doings clinical work. It would be impossible for a nurse or surgeon to embody the secondary discourse of the profession by only learning within the classroom (or in other words, not being given the opportunity for acquisition). These individuals would also not been seen as insiders, though they may be extremely knowledgeable about the field. This makes me think of first year interns and the view that residents may have of them on their first day (Grey's Anatomy talk, haha).
I found it interesting that the article clearly states, "discourses are mastered through acquisition, not learning." This makes me question if any types of discourses can be mastered by simply learning the information, and not actually doing it.
I also found it interesting that the article states that [literacy] is the mastery of a secondary discourse. I am curious just how many educators might disagree with this statement. Is mastering information and being literate in it the same thing? I think someone can be considered literate without having mastered the information through acquisition.
This also makes me think about the importance that this information has for educators. Are educators aware of primary and secondary discourses? Are they aware that "true" mastery of a discourse is attained through acquisition, and not just learning? I think that educators need to be explicitly made aware of this so that they can incorporate ways for their students to gain secondary discourse and mastery of the information through opportunities of acquisition. These students need time set aside in the curriculum of a content area in order to practice acquisition.
|
|
linda
New Member
Posts: 30 
|
Post by linda on May 24, 2016 11:58:21 GMT
I appreciate how Jessica gave an example of learning/acquisition within her program. I can see the relationship between learning and acquisition in Language teaching. In language teaching, the objective is for students to learn the language but also absorb it, in order to successfully use it in ways that benefit them. In my past K-12 school experiences in taking language classes there was a concentration on vocabulary and grammar which resulted in a disjointed knowledge of Spanish. Even mastering a language in school doesn't transfer to being able to function in that language if you were find yourself in that country. Language teaching has been moving towards acquisition of a language in order for successful production of it for a student. I never thought to wonder why a student takes a language, what their end goal was. For ELLs, I think it is more for survival, both in their new culture socially and academically in their new school setting. For 2Ls the goals are more varied, maybe for travel, for the challenge of speaking in another language, for communication with family or for future employment.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamestgardiner on May 24, 2016 15:06:41 GMT
The first thing I think about as I reflect upon the reading is something Tiffani hit on in the third paragraph of her post. The author defined literacy as the acquisition of a secondary discourse. He also mentions that secondary discourses are acquired and not learned. Therefore, literacy is only acquired and not learned. I think this is quite different than how most people view literacy, at least who do no study it as a profession. I believe most people understand literacy as learning how to read and to write. It is interesting to see a different viewpoint from the author.
I also think back to my primary and secondary discourses. I can relate to both the middle-class discourse but also the African-American and/or low SES discourse. My primary discourse would be a typical small-town, church-going, white, middle-class family upbringing. I see now that I acquired this discourse by modeling those around me. But, when I was 8 years old, I started playing for a pee wee football team in my hometown. Every player and coach on the team was African-American except for me. No one told me or taught me that the communication between African-Americans versus those of the white people would be different. So, by indulging in the culture and through watching and modeling my teammates, I acquired a secondary discourse. As I reflect, I always remember how my secondary discourse impacted my primary discourse, as the author mentioned. I can remember parts of the discourse I was watching at practice starting to shape my primary discourse. I started to use different words and different phrases. I also used words and phrases from my primary discourse while in the atmosphere of the secondary discourse. Not only did I pick up on African-American discourse, but, since it was football practice or games, I also picked up on football-type discourse as another secondary discourse. I can now see how this has shaped the discourse I use now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelica on May 24, 2016 15:53:40 GMT
I really appreciate that this reading defined its own terms. One theme I've noticed is that these definitions and distinctions aren't intended to be hard and fast rules, "... not meant to me airtight and unproblematic" because no two people are alike. These terms are complex and heavily nuanced because everyone has a unique experience and perspective. However, these ideas give us valuable guidelines and push us to introspect our own development of Discourses so we can make sense of the patterns around us. These are some questions I began to think of:
1. Can you identify any areas of your life where the boundaries between primary and secondary Discourse aren't so clear?
2. Can you think of a time or moment that triggered a conscious reflection of your status as an outsider? Or perhaps an incident that gave you "meta-knowledge" and a keen awareness of what your were doing and how you were learning a particular skill?
3. When I was reading over the term "mushfake" I thought of the phrase, "Fake it 'til you make it". Have you ever been in a situation where you have had to use a mushfake Discourse to be successful or participate in a secondary Discourse?
4. How can educators begin to breakdown the often subtle and covert forms of "fluency tests" that exclude non-natives within a dominant Discourse?
These are a few of the examples that I could think of: 1. Similar to the example from our text, it is hard for me to categorize my religious faith into a primary or secondary Discourse. My parents raised me with distinct Christian values, behaviors, and practices as far back as my memories begin. They modeled the lifestyle so seamlessly and raised me among a like-minded community that I did not realize until I was in elementary school that not everyone lived the same way we did. Those practices were developed at home first, in a natural and meaningful setting, so my fluency feels acquired. As I grew into adulthood and became independent of my parents' instruction, I continued to pursue this faith or Discourse. And doing so in my own volition made me aware of its practices and complexities in new ways. I learned how it operates, how insiders work, how outsiders might see it, and even how my parents have taken community-based Discourse practices and applied it into our family-based socialization. Outside of the comforts of my home, I had to ultimately rediscover this Discourse and re-shape my primary Discourse (as the text describes sometimes happens). 2. I wanted to share a fun example. I began learning how to play tennis last month. My teachers were friends who've played competitively since young children. They had "acquired" the literacy in tennis while I was "learning". In my first few lessons, my friends would repeatedly model a smooth body movement for hitting the ball. I had difficulty thinking about what my feet, my shoulders, my head, and my arms were all doing at the same time. I was aware of my status as an outsider because I was confused about where to position myself, uneasy of my body movements, and I had to ask for clarifications on the terminology. I was clueless when I heard terms like "rally", "topspin", and "backhand". I was amazed when they would get a ball off the ground with one swift movement using their racquet and foot to pull the ball towards them, while I had to bend down and pick it up with my hand. To push this example further, I had another friend on the court who was just a beginner also. But I think his overall athleticism, acquired from a previous discourse like his sharp hand-eye coordination and speed, enabled him to pick up the sport faster and have an easier transition in comparison to me who lacks overall athleticism (hehe)  |
|
|
|
Post by tom56omara on May 24, 2016 18:48:46 GMT
By “mushfake Discourse” I mean partial acquisition coupled with metaknowledge
and strategies to “make do”.
Angelica's question that she proposed.
3. When I was reading over the term "mushfake" I thought of the phrase, "Fake it 'til you make it". Have you ever been in a situation where you have had to use a mushfake Discourse to be successful or participate in a secondary Discourse?
Answer: I personally do not think that the term mushfake directly supports the phrase, "Fake it 'til you make it" because mushfake still requires "some" knowledge of the subject or discourse. Therefore, I will give an example of when I had to make my own knowledge "make do". When I worked for publix supermarkets I was a produce clerk working with all the fruits and vegetables. One day my boss decided to give me the closing shift and I was the only one in the department that night. While so many customers came up to me and asked questions about certain fruits and vegetables, I had to let my current knowledge "make do" of the situations. I don't truly know how long tomatoes last sitting on the counter, but from some minor knowledge I gave the customer my best educated guess.
With the "No Child Left Behind Act", I now see why some children enter high school without proper knowledge (or what we view as standard) of the subject or discourse. I think it is certainly acceptable to teach a student by first understanding the students level of discourse in a way that is not discriminatory. Although I have an overall feeling of emotion for those who have a combination of factors that prevent them from learning in our education system
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelica on May 24, 2016 22:42:49 GMT
Tom, thanks for answering one of my questions and for clarifying "mushfake Discourse". A key phrase in your response is "... my best educated guess." Having the ability and the confidence to make and share those educated guesses are so important! I think that is a practice that teachers need to instill in their students in every content area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiffani on May 25, 2016 1:55:59 GMT
I have been considering the answer to the following question posed to us: "Why don't people acquire disciplinary knowledge?" I was thinking that individuals with particular primary discourses may be unable to integrate certain information of secondary discourses into their already created schema (much like Piaget's explanation of "accommodation" on the topic of assimilation/ accommodation). Individuals with certain backgrounds may have an easier time than others accommodating the information, or assimilating the information into their already created primary discourse schemas. I believe that this relates back to the "non-mainstream" students referred to in the Jim Gee article. This article states that these non-mainstream students often gain just enough mastery to ensure that they continually mark themselves as “outsiders." What can teachers, administrators, and school psychologists do to support these students in acquiring secondary discourses in academic-based content areas?
Individuals may also not acquire disciplinary knowledge because they are not given the opportunity for acquisition. Many people may be unaware of the importance that acquisition has in relation to learning and acquiring a discourse in a content area. Should something be done at the systems level within schools to communicate the importance of this to educators?
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinebyrnes on May 25, 2016 15:41:55 GMT
Here is a place to discuss reading 5
|
|
|
|
Post by jamestgardiner on May 25, 2016 18:56:20 GMT
As I read the last section of Chapter 14 for Readings 4 and 5 about "Mushfake", I relate to the feminist who is having issues with feminist discourse and academic discourse, but in a different way. The Southern discourse of politeness, small-talk, etc. does not seem to quite fit into the academic realm of discourse. I would identify my primary discourse as the Southern discourse I was raised in. Even though I have been in the Academic discourse of college and above for over five years, I am still not quite adjusted to it yet. I can definitely relate to the tension between discourses. I appeal much more to my primary discourse than the secondary academic discourse. After reading the section about "mushfake", I might even say that my academic discourse is "mushfake." I make the most of what I have acquired over the years, but I would not say that my discourse is quite real yet academically speaking.
Does anyone else feel like they should have acquired a discourse they have been around for quite some time but not have fully picked up on it yet? I am wondering what is holding me back. I think it is mainly the tension I feel between the discourses. They happen to be quite different from my experience. I am not comfortable with indulging in full academic discourse because it does not feel quite right to me which creates tension between the discourses.
|
|
|
|
Post by ataylor617 on May 25, 2016 21:27:00 GMT
I suppose I am a little confused with the definitions of primary and secondary discourse. I know that the author defined the terms in her article, but like Angelica I struggle with the blurred line between the two discourses. Are we stuck with our primary discourse? Can it change? I feel as if school was never a part of my primary discourse, but over time it has become more of a part of it. It seems to me that our primary discourse shapes how we view and approach our secondary discourses. My primary discourse will affect how I view secondary discourses. For example, my American worldview would affect my ability to assimilate into the culture of another country.
Sometimes I think that discourses can interfere with each other. I am in graduate school for education policy, but I am taking a class in the school of teacher education. There are times when I tend to view what we discuss in class from a policy perspective which is not always appropriate. I feel Angelica's description of mushfake is accurate because there are times where I feel that I am behind in teacher education discourse and I often feel like I'm "faking it til I make it". I think this happens commonly across areas. People mushfake (is it a verb?) all the time to fit in.
The idea of acquisition vs. learning is important for teachers because I think sometimes teachers can rely on one without the other. In the U.S. and based on my personal experience I do not believe that teachers focus enough on acquisition. It seems that teachers try to pour their knowledge into students as opposed to inviting them to learn with teachers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ataylor617 on May 26, 2016 0:08:09 GMT
I accidentally read ahead last from chapter, but I am glad we are having a more in-depth discussion about "Mushfake". In my last post I briefly described the tension I feel in teacher education classrooms. My graduate degree is in education policy and my undergraduate degree was in International Affairs. I am used to looking at educational issues with a very broad lens and I typically do not view issues at the classroom level. However neither of these discourses are my primary discourse. I suppose my main question about this article is about the tensions between secondary discourses. Does anyone else have these experiences?
I agree that students who are not a part of the primary discourse can provide a unique perspective in the classroom. One of the things I look forward to the most about a being a teacher is understanding how students are relating to subject material based on their primary discourse and then embrace the challenge of teaching in ways that they would understand. When I think about teaching history I get excited about learning about different perspectives from students. I am scared about "guarding the tower" (thank you Dr. Boggs) and protecting my primary discourse (white, male, middle-class) which also happens to be the mainstream discourse of the United States. I want to make room for students to use their "outside" perspective to their advantage in the classroom. I am curious to know how the rest of you guys will handle the difference between your discourse and that of your students. What strategies will you use?
What do you guys think about Gee's idea that mastering a discourse is political? I don't appreciate that this idea was tacked on at the end of the article (perhaps Gee explains more in the next chapter of the book), and I'm struggling to see the connection.
|
|
