RIGHT SIDE ARCHIVE

Hey right side! I wanted to jump in on some of your discussion. I also think that it is more of a systems issue within the health care field. It is only ethical for specialists within a profession to support the "clients" that they provide services to with all of the adequate information that the clients need in order to benefit from the services. This can seriously span across a variety of different fields and disciplines, such as being an automotive mechanic and being expected to effectively explain vehicle maintenance to a customer that doesn't know anything about caring for a vehicle. Just like many health care professionals may think that their time would be better spent doing paperwork or "saving lives," an automotive mechanic may think that their time would be better spent fixing cars (which it might because they make money off of people that don't know how to care for their cars, but regardless), it is a part of the mechanics job to support their customers by giving them and "teaching" them information that they otherwise would not know or understand.

This is very similar to the duties of a school psychologist, or even those who work within special education services. Throughout my graduate experience thus far, I have learned the importance of collaborative consultation, and treating the parent as the expert within their domain of parenthood, and as a psychologist being the expert in the field of mental health and the array of services that can be provided to both the parent and the student. As school psychologists, we learn that it is our job to support parents by providing them with the information they need to in turn support their child's mental health. We do not expect the parent to understand the ins and outs of a given disorder or the various services that they have a right to receiving for themselves as well as their child. But we HAVE been prepared throughout our graduate experience to provide this information to parents, teachers, school personnel, students, etc. as needed. We as school psychologists are advocates for the mental health field as it is related to education. We as school psychologists are prepared to provide and teach the specialized information that we have learned throughout our schooling to those individuals who are outsiders to the field but still need the information to run their specialized profession or life smoothly.

As specialists and professionals it should be our job, regardless of the field, to be the expert within our field and support others by sharing our knowledge. Professionals who work with other individuals who are outsiders to their field should be expected to adequately provide their expertise to those who need it and could benefit from it or use the knowledge in the long run.

I found the technology article very interesting in that its nature is quite different than that previously spoken about. By that I mean that it is our job as a society and consumers of the internet/ computer-based technology, and other forms of technology to learn how to successfully navigate the technology on our own. We do not expect that when we go to Best Buy to buy a phone or laptop, that the employees working their are going to show us the ins and outs of how to use the piece of technology. It is our job to go home and learn how to successfully utilize it. (Small side thought)

However, the following quotes from the article really resonated with me (Literacy or Literacies? Knobel & Lankshear, 2008):

1) Literacy has extended its semantic reach fro meaning “the ability to read and write” to now meaning “the ability to understand information however presented”

This quote really speaks to how the definition of literacy has changed, especially in the growing world of technology. Technology allows individuals to become "literate" in topics and information that they otherwise may not have the opportunity. People who are not tech savvy and do not use the resources that technology has to offer are truly missing out, especially is the world of literacy.

2) Literacy has something to do with reading: If one has not understood what one had read, one has not read it.

I just find this interesting as a graduate student and even student in this class. I have found myself reading hefty bits of information and not taking anything from them, almost as if I never read them, simply because I cannot understand the message that this text is trying to get across.

3) From a sociocultural perspective, these different ways of reading and writing and the “enculterations” that lead to becoming proficient in them are literacies.

I really like this quote. I believe that it nicely lays out the big idea that we have been learning in this class.

The reading (Ch. 14) was really interesting and thought provoking. This is a read that started to provide a greater understanding of what discourses really are, and how they are formulated. A question I have for everyone: from the readings, do you think discourses are malleable? This might be a weird example, but this theoretical may help with my question. So, growing up with my parents and sister, and my huge extended family defines a primary discourse of family to me. So say I get married and start my own family. Has my primary discourse of family been manipulated or has that primary discourse of family set the groundwork for a secondary discourse of family? Ideas??

I found this reading extremely interesting especially the idea of mastering a second discourse. In my opinion learning a new discourse requires both acquisition and learning (which is difficult because one happens subconsciously). I believe that it is our job as educators to promote the mastery of new discourses. However, teaching discourses might be extremely difficult especially if children are resistant to the idea. What are some creative ways educators can promote the acquisition and learning of new discourses in the classroom?

I found this reading very interesting, particularly the parallel that the author drew between learning new Discourses and learning a second language. I found it very interesting when he was discussing what happens when somebody does not know how to navigate in one of their secondary Discourses, and how people make the same types of errors that they do when they are not fluent in a second language. They might try to apply their native language (primary Discourse) rules to the new discourse or overgeneralize or oversimplify the rules of the second language (Secondary discourse). This new way of thinking about Discourses as things that can be acquired as well as learned has helped me understand better what a Discourse actually is.

I was also struck by the quote "we are better at performing what we acquire, but we consciously know more about what we have learned." I also thought of second language learning when I read that quote, as I never received much formal education about the rules of English grammar (my native language), but formally learned the rules of Spanish grammar when I was learning it in school. Since English is my first language and I acquired it from birth as well as learned some in school, I am much better at "performing" English than I am Spanish, even though I may know more of the formal rules of Spanish.

The discussion of learning vs acquisition led me to wonder which subjects areas may benefit from having students acquire certain parts of the discourse vs learning them. How would teachers promote acquisition instead of learning? I imagine a lot of modeling and demonstration rather than explicit teaching.

I wanted to address this post in particular because some very interesting questions have been posed. I think one of the main ideas that the author was trying to state was that discourses in general are relatively fluid. A primary discourse may change and be influenced by secondary discourses. So while the idea in the beginning is that your primary discourse was formed when you were a child, secondary discourses can influence and even change the primary discourse. To me, this means that logically your primary discourse is going to change as you mature. As an example, if discourses were languages, and your primary discourse was English. As you get older, you learn to speak Spanish and become extremely fluent. Maybe you even move to a Spanish-speaking country, marry a Spanish-speaking person, and have children. Because the country that you live in speaks Spanish and your partner speaks Spanish, you would then even raise your children to speak Spanish. You have not even spoken English in years. In that case your secondary language, Spanish, has become your primary language. So now if these languages are discourses, it would stand to reason that your new family is now your primary discourse. That was my idea that I got from the reading, anyways! 

To answer Leigh's question: I also think that discourses are extremely malleable. It does get confusing to think about if your primary discourse is being changed or if you are building a secondary discourse off of it. I honestly think it depends on the way you look at it and like the text said there isn't a rigid line between primary and secondary discourses, it is flexible.

As far as what stood out most to me in the reading was when the text began to talk about how secondary discourses involves interaction with people whom you are not the most familiar with. When this occurs it is crucial to remember that we cannot ever assume that someone has shared knowledge and experience as us. As a psychologist, this really hit home for me. One the most basic principles in psychology is that our experiences make up our perceptions of reality and this goes hand in hand with the fact that everyone has different experience so people will not always understand where you are coming from and you will not always understand them. This is something that I try to remember everyday when I am working and collaborating with others because we all come from different places and I can either let my perceptions and my knowledge get in the way of letting me learn from others or I can understand my biases and open myself up to what others have to offer. Hopefully as a school psychologist, I can pass along this principle to students who are in conflict with others to help them better understand their own perceptions and how to expand on them to allow students to see the views of others and expanded on their discourses.