Grenfell, M. (2009. Bourdieu, language, and literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 438-448. dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.4.8
Grenfell’s essay book review on Bourdieu was complicated. It has been awhile since I have read an article where I have made so many notes and highlighted so many sentences J I liked his interests in the reading habits of students rather than their pure linguistic habits, not that there isn’t a need for pure linguistics also.
“Bordieu. . .his interest was rather in the reading habits of the students he was researching: their use of library facilities, what they read, etc.” (p. 439). This interest was somewhat innovative. Previous researchers focused on people’s linguistic habits – etymology, phonology, morphology, etc. However, Bordieu’s phenomenology was and is just as important, especially with today’s increasingly globalized society. The diversity of students in schools today makes it critical that we as teachers examine what students are reading, what they have access to, and what our reactions are to these readings.
“Bourdieu’s big ‘discovery’ was that the ‘democratic school’ was not! Rather than providing equal opportunities and a meritocracy, schools were a kind of cultural filter through which children passed. . .And, of course, language was the medium for this implicit ‘social selection’” (p. 440). How has anything changed today, especially for English language learners and low SES children? What are the factors that come into play? Race? Socioeconomic status? Language? The dominant language? What about those who speak with an accent or who have limited vocabulary? There is a separation of the ‘masses’ with an elitist language.
In 1924, certain schools in Hawai’i were established as English standard schools. The primary goal was to ensure that children of English-speaking parents were not held back because of integration and association with children who did not speak English at home (Hughes, 1993). “A second articulated goal of the English standard system was to assure that children of English-speaking parents learned Western, not Asian, values and behavior” (Hughes, 1993, p. 76). “The feeling of being deluged with people who were not assimilable was widespread” (Hughes, 1993, p. 72). “The opponents agreed with John Dewey that the schools were a place in which people could escape from the group into which they had been born, but, they said, this would only work if the children were exposed to people from other racial, social, and economic strata” (Hughes, 1993, p. 65). I have not read enough of Dewey to know if this is something he would have said or if his remarks were taken out of context or twisted. English standard schools were ‘public’ but students had to pass an oral, and if old enough, a written English language test to gain admittance. This effectively ruled out many children who came from homes where English was not their first language. In practice, those families who could afford it sent their children to private schools, which lower socioeconomic status families could not afford. This contributed to the divide that I believe still exists today between different races. Hawai’i has the highest percentage of children attending private schools in the United States. It’s unfortunate that this perception still persists from the English Standard System era that public schools are inferior.
Hughes, J.R. (1993). The demise of the English standard school system in Hawai’i. The Hawaiian Journal of History, 27, 65-89. Retrieved from http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10524/607/JL27071.pdf?s equence=2
It’s embarrassing to think that this went on in my home state and even more discouraging to think that it’s still going on – in all parts of the country. As I asked earlier, why are those who speak with an accent considered inferior or unintelligent? For that matter, why are those who speak another language not considered highly intelligent? What about those with limited vocabulary? Just because someone doesn’t have an extensive vocabulary, does that mean limited intelligence?
I find it interesting that certain parts of our country are becoming alarmed at the growing majority of Spanish speakers and nationalities. There is a push to make English the official language of the US and to have English-only policies everywhere. I only have “free” TV; the majority of the stations are Spanish language stations, perhaps because this is Texas. It’s also interesting watching the success of the new TV show called Q’Viva! (Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony) which seeks out new talent from Latin America. Or the Dallas politician that said “a bunch of Mexicans”. What is it about different peoples or different languages that makes people afraid? Can and do we have separation of the masses with “elitist” language?
“Bourdieu argues that Saussure affected this approach by eliminating the ‘physical part’ of communication, namely speech, and its individualization by particular people in particular contexts in order to privilege the construction of language in itself” (Grenfell, p. 441). It is not just the study of linguistics of language but a lot of other factors that come into play.
“Such a position, argued Bourdieu, sidesteps the social and economic conditions of language acquisition and competence as an expression of legitimate, orthodox linguistic norms. Moreover, it ignores the way that linguistic usage is always partly socially determined and thus, shaped by imposition and censure” (Grenfell, p. 441). SO TRUE!
Re: social acceptability. Speech never exists on its own. It’s one thing to “analyze” a language, i.e. morphological or syntactic analysis, but in my opinion, that is artificial “ivory tower” knowledge. I realize there is some value in it. I was asked in my graduate studies at the University of Hawai’i to consider researching the Pohnpeian language but I didn't see the practicality of it. (Of course, I am not so rigid in my thoughts anymore but . . . Social space must be taken into consideration. Although even this or my analysis can be construed as a position of Ivory Tower power.
“Social spaces must be understood as differentiated, and thus structural in essence” (Grenfell, p. 442. “Cognition does not occur as part of a value-free realm of social intercourse. Rather, all thought, all cognition, all phenomena need to be understood as being saturated with pre-existing values and interests, the very ones inherent in the objective and subjective structures of society, as exemplified in the homologies between habitus and field (Grenfell, p. 442). ). Language does not exist in isolation. There is always interaction between the individual and the social world unless one accepts the premise that a person can have a conversation with himself and that is not an act of social exchange (in my opinion).
Maximize quantity – minimize loss of information ® Bourdieu cannot be overcome! J
“Robbins shows that the important point here is not the extent to which pedagogic communication is flawed but the very covert nature of the higher education system itself – to distinguish and differentiate in a way that is arbitrary, relative and value-laden in favor of some over other” (Grenfell, p. 443). This is true but why? And why are there weed-out classes? Is this another instance of exclusivity? Language exclusivity? Educational exclusivity?
“Vygotskyan psychology posits individuals are involved in a constant act of cognitive control: over self, objects, and others. This perspective is similar to the Bourdieusian view of individual’s passing through social space and through fields, where they encounter the multidimensional forms of symbolic capital found there: a symbolic capital that is, of course, defined and interpreted according to its social provenance. Here Bourdieusian phenomenology again seems to converge with cognitive theory, in this case, of Vygotsky” (Grenfell, p. 443).
“Of course, ‘wrong’ is not right, but, in this case, what gets pushed out is exactly what the pupil was thinking at this critical point – the pupil’s own particular cognitive thinking (habitus). It is not so much a question of whether he was right or wrong but what thinking gave rise to this wrong answer. Simply inducting him in the right answer passes over the individual cognitive and classroom structures shaping the event” (Grenfell, p. 443). This unfortunately happens too many times in the classroom also. Whether it is from not enough time, overcrowding, teacher incompetence or unawareness, etc., students are either force fed answers or answers are totally ignored. I realize this is a very cynical view but yes, it would be extremely beneficial for all students if teachers could and would consider the context in which the answer was given. There are many factors that lead to any person’s cognitive behavior. Sociocultural background knowledge can play a factor but classroom environment can be critical for a child, with peer pressure, teacher-pleasing behaviors, etc.
“Bourne (1992), for example, has shown how some pupils get ‘spoken out’ of classroom discourses simply because of who they are and what they say and the extent to which these do or do not coincide with the teacher’s own pedagogical principles and categories of thought” (Grenfell, p. 444). What a depressing statement because unfortunately, it is still true, especially with low SES and English language learners. Perhaps my next paragraphs offer a solution?
Reflexivity and participant objectivation
“What Bourdieu was interested in instead was an objectification of the social conditions of the thinking that set the limits on thought. Such an objectification of the ‘social conditions’ of thinking itself necessarily calls for the objectification of the academic field withal its practical and epistemological biases. The position of the researcher in the social space is consequently critical. . .” (Grenfell, p. 446).
Grenfell speaks of three principles of a Bourdieusian method, 1. construction of the research object, 2. field analysis, 3. participant objectivation. I would argue that while all three are important, I believe number 3 is the most critical. It is also the most difficult. For an educator to reflect back on her practices and interactions with her students takes much thought and even training. Objectifying the social condition, as Grenfell says, may mean objectifying more than just the social condition or the classroom but the entire academic discipline. How does one become a reflexive educator? Is this something that can be taught? Or does it happen with experience? Does awareness lead to objectivation?
Grenfell, M. (2009. Bourdieu, language, and literacy. Reading Research Quarterly,44(4), 438-448. dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.4.8
Reflexivity and participant objectivation
“What Bourdieu was interested in instead was an objectification of the social conditions of the thinking that set the limits on thought. Such an objectification of the ‘social conditions’ of thinking itself necessarily calls for the objectification of the academic fieldwithal its practical and epistemological biases. The position of the researcher in the social space is consequently critical. . .” (Grenfell, p. 446).
Grenfell speaks of three principles of a Bourdieusian method, 1. construction of the research object, 2. field analysis, 3. participant objectivation. I would argue that while all three are important, I believe number 3 is the most critical. It is also the most difficult. For an educator to reflect back on her practices and interactions with her students takes much thought and even training. Objectifying the social condition, as Grenfell says, may mean objectifying more than just the social condition or the classroom but the entire academic discipline. How does one become a reflexive educator? Is this something that can be taught? Or does it happen with experience? Does awareness lead to objectivation?
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Connor-Greene, P.A. Making Connections: Evaluating the effectiveness of journal writing in enhancing student learning.
Connor-Greene, P.A. (2000). Making connections: Evaluating the effectiveness of journal writing in enhancing student learning. Teaching of Psychology, 27(1), 44-46.
· How effective is journal writing in increasing student learning?
· Quasi-experimental design
· Analysis of student test grades - journal writing increased student learning
· Student evaluations - perceived usefulness of journaling
· Journal examples - students connected course material to their own observations
· Personality theory
o Students responded to 15 different theories (historical perspective)
· Students wrote entry for each theorist
· Jnl entry weekly
· Methodology
o Compared student test grades from two different semesters
o Mix of multiple choice, definitions, T/F, essay
o Significantly higher test grades for journal writing classes
o Successful stimulus to active learning
Monday, March 5, 2012
Robot Dreams by Sara Varon
To page 12
As I first glanced at the flyleaf, I wondered what the dog was ordering through the mail. I could not tell just by the order form. Then I saw the two characters, Robot and Dog sitting on the grass looking at the stars but that still gave no meaning. On page 7, there was a sense of anticipation in Dog, and I liked the picture of him wagging his tail at the sight of the mailman. Dog assembled the robot and in that instant, to me he became Robot, with a capital R. I wondered how Robot could have a sense of agency and life. Did Dog breathe or impart that into him? Why did they choose to watch a movie as their first activity, and why did they choose Castle in the Sky?
The next few pages were very touching as Dog and Robot made popcorn together and watched the movie. I wondered how long Robot had been “alive” before they began their activities. I like the touch of the scene in the movie on p. 11 where a robot is giving flowers to two children. It kind of mirrors Dog’s compassion as he covers Robot on the couch as he fell asleep.
To page 27
When returning the video Castle in the Sky, roles shift – now Robot takes the lead, being the first out the door, the one carrying the video, the one returning it in the drop box; but then Dog picks out a book to read. Why from the travel section? Does Dog want to go on a trip somewhere? Robot looks excited about the choice and once again, seems to be taking the initiative in choosing a bus from the schedule. After they get to the dog beach, Dog jumps right in while Robot looks apprehensive. I thought it was because he was worried about water and metal but it looks like Robot’s worried about the temperature. Hmm, what exactly is going to happen to Robot’s parts if he goes in?
The two of them have a blast in the water and then sunning themselves afterwards. The pictures on the bottom of p. 17 give an inkling of Robot’s future dilemma as Dog moves and turns constantly on the towel but once Robot moves his arms twice, he’s stuck? At first, I thought Robot might be terribly sunburned because of the red color used in the picture but then realized he had rusted, or something to make him immobile.
Dog does not know what to do and eventually leaves Robot there throughout the night. Is he coming back? Did he not know what water would do to metal? The next scenes are a little confusing but it looks like Robot is dreaming. In his dreams, he and Dog go to the beach again but this time, Robot remembers what water does to him and instead lies on the beach reading. Their friendship is still wonderful (in his dreams) as he, Robot, dries Dog off with a towel and they return home. I’m wondering what really happened and I see on p. 27, that Robot is still lying on the beach, immobile.
To page 48
Wow! So as Robot is dreaming, is Dog dreaming? How long has it been since Dog left Robot on the beach? I’m starting to get confused. Is either of them dreaming? What is reality? If it is reality, why did Dog finally decide to do try to fix Robot? Why did Dog give up when he got to the beach and found it closed? After all, here was his closest friend lying there just on the other side of the fence. Granted, it had barbed wire, but couldn’t Dog dig under the wire? This doesn’t make sense and now I’m starting to not feel sympathetic at all towards Dog. How could he do this? But voila, here are 3 other creatures (I’ll call them rabbits) rowing along in a rowboat. Did Dog send them? I wonder whether they will be good Samaritans? Or will they do harm to Robot? They see Robot and appear to give him some motor oil which oils his rusty joints and restores him. But wait, maybe the dark pane on p. 43 means another shift in reality.
Robot again appears to be dreaming. His joints restored, he returns to Dog and knocks at his door. But is it reality? The knocking is actually the rabbits using an oar to break one of Robot’s legs so they can use it to plug up a hole in their rowboat. Terrible. Horrible. How could someone be so heartless? Maybe the rabbits view the Robot as inhuman? Poor Robot. Now my sympathies are all towards Robot. Where the heck is Dog? And why isn’t he doing anything? But on page 48, maybe there’s some hope!! One of the rabbits seems to be looking back towards Robot with a sympathetic guilty look. I hope something good comes out of that.
To page 68
It’s now October. Dog, to me, is getting to be more and more like an unsympathetic character. I would hate to say loser, but can’t he make any friends? Or does he only have superficial friendships? Or does he just latch on to whomever will “hang out” with him? I wondered if he’d forgotten about Robot totally when he made a new friend in Duck and his family. He traveled with them, picnicked with them, swam with them, but then they all left him too when they went on vacation. What does Dog bring to any friendship? He seemed to be very superficial with his friendship with Robot, not making a concerted effort to find him and fix him. Any maybe this is the same with the Duck family. They just consider him a token friend? Patronizing him? Tolerating him? And just sending him a “Wish you were here” postcard.
On Halloween, Dog seems to want to curry favor and acquire friends by enticing trick-or-treaters with candy. How can he look so excited and have his heart start beating when he sees a cat dressed up as a robot? Does he really think this is his long lost friend Robot? Why would Robot want to see him now, when Dog did nothing to help him? Even more so now, I think of Dog as a “fair-weather” friend. I’m not sure I’d want to be his friend. It’s like he only wants people and animals to be his friend when he’s need of friendship.
To page 83
It’s now December. Poor Robot – covered in snow. And what is this? Dog is hanging out with new friends? So Robot is gone and the Duck family is gone, so he’s substituting anteaters now? I think he’s trying too hard. Does Dog feel like he won’t have any friends unless he does all he work, etc.? He pulls the sled up the hill, and then pushes the anteaters down. What are they doing to or for him? One throws a snowball at Dog but when he throws one back, they both throw snowballs at him. Actually, one of them looks annoyed that Dog would dare to throw a snowball at them. Their après-ski snack looks delicious though, until the anteaters pass out plates of ants. Dog cringes when he sees them. If the anteaters were true friends, they would find a snack that Dog would eat or like. But they just look at him like they’re wondering why he’s not enjoying the ants too. I’m not sure if I would eat ants just to get people to like me. Even though Dog is sweating, has a stomachache and starts throwing up, I have no sympathy for him.
To page 110
Robot has such tragic hopeful dreams. Why would he dream of Dog when Dog abandoned him? What a terrible dream (as I think it is a dream) to come home and find that Dog has replaced him with another robot.
How many more friends is Dog going to try to have? Now he made a snowman to be his friend. I wonder if this is going to turn out to be a sad ending too? Will Snowman melt? Why are all these characters hanging out with Dog? Is it because Dog created Snowman and dressed him warmly? It’s kind of incongruous that Snowman gets cold, and then doesn’t melt when they’re inside eating ice cream. And who is penguin character? At least it looks like Penguin bought the ice cream and not just Dog currying favor with the two characters. Although it does look like Dog’s house. If Dog created Snowman, why doesn’t Snowman live with Dog? Why does Dog just offer him clothes and then send him on his way? I foresee something going wrong with this friendship too. And in fact, I won’t be unhappy if it does. Dog does not deserve to have true friends, at least, not until he repairs his relationship with Robot.
Ahh, I was/am so hopeful to see the pictures on p. 100 – 103. Robot has created his own happiness. He now has a plant friend to spend time with, being serenaded by a duck and relaxing along with a frog. I wonder what the significance of those two creatures is. Everyone seems to share in his happiness, even in the turtle watching Robot and the plant friend walk by.
To page 149
I’m beginning to like Robot’s dreams. They’re so surreal. I’m definitely beginning to wish his dreams were reality. Maybe they are. What wonderful things to dream about or to imagine if one is stuck in a situation.
March – the snow over Robot is melting. Is this a dream or reality? I look for his broken leg but it’s not shown in the picture. Is this on purpose? It must be on purpose to make the reader question and wonder.
Dog gets a phone call but I’m not sure whom from. As he sits on the bench in wait, Penguin arrives with a band full of clothes and a carrot. It took me a second to realize that those were the clothes Dog gave to Snowman to keep him warm. Does this mean Snowman no longer exists and melted? Dog sure seems to have a lackadaisical attitude. “Oh well, another friend gone. Too bad. Such is life.”
Ah April. A bird flies over, spot Robot and then flied down with a stick. Wow! Is Bird going to fix Robot somehow? But no, he’s actually using Robot’s armpit to build a nest. What an interesting look on Robot’s face. It’s almost like “Sheesh, what’s next?” But then Robot becomes intrigued by the eggs that are laid there and the baby birds that hatch. But alas, they too fly away and leave him when the nest (and perhaps Robot) is no longer needed. But Robot perseveres; he does seem to have a purpose in life.
May – I’m assuming we’re back to some type of reality since Robot’s leg is broken in these scenes. I was so hopeful that the little creature on the beach salvaging scrap metal would fix Robot. But “que horrors”, Robot is sold for scrap metal and thrown onto the junk pile. But maybe there is some hope – while the scrap metal dealer is smoking his cigar nonchalantly, the junkyard dog is sniffing around Robot. Could this be the start of something?
To page 165
June – Dog finally goes back to the beach after it’s opened for swimming again. And wonder of wonders, he’s actually searching for Robot. However, he only finds Robot’s broken off leg and so walks off dejectedly to go sit at a park. As he sits on the park bench, he observes a group playing cards and drinking and another group playing soccer. Dog better not just forget about Robot and join the other groups. For a moment there, there was a spark of humanity, which will be dashed if he joins the other groups.
But NO, he doesn’t! Although I’m not happy that he goes to a robot store to purchase another robot. How can he replace his old friend Robot? Although he does choose another similar model. Hmm, I wonder what will happen next. Will he buy another robot only to find that Robot is somehow resurrected and returns? Will Dog be happy with this new robot or will he abandon him too when something happens? How will the new robot respond to Dog? Why would anyone want to be friends with Dog?
To page 182
July – who is this new character? At first, I thought it was the scrapyard dog getting out all his materials to try to fix Robot. I even thought he was going to try some type of electricity, such as was used by Dr. Frankenstein to build his monster. But no, it’s another creature, a raccoon – “How to build your own radio”. It’s finally built. Raccoon looks at it lovingly, but alas, it doesn’t work, at least not to pick up any understandable radio stations.
So as Raccoon decides the best way to fix the radio, he goes to the scrapyard to look for some parts. As he scrounges around the scrapyard, he spots some useful items, such as a toaster, etc. Then he spots Robot’s head and then gathers up the rest of his body. I’m very hopeful that Raccoon will take Robot home and fix home. But once again, I'm disappointed – Raccoon’s only purpose is to use Robot as an antenna of some sort to fix the radio. Even with Robot’s arms and legs attached to the radio, it still squawks out terrible sounds. But after trial and error, Raccoon has an “Aha” moment and uses Robot’s body parts with the radio to make an actual looking robot. Wow! I wonder what’s going to happen? Is this new life for Robot? Will Raccoon keep him and be friends with him? Robot looks happy. He certainly deserves and needs happiness.
Wonder of wonders! Robot jumps off the table, able to walk again, with a different fixed foot. As he and Raccoon dance around the workshop, I wonder how long this will last, unfortunately.
To the end: What is your culminating response/reflection to this story?
I’m so happy that Robot found a new friend in Raccoon. I didn’t think Dog should be allowed to buy a new robot to build. However, it was a good thing that at least with this new robot, Dog remembered what happened the first time and stopped him from getting in to the water. Initially, I thought Dog was going to find so much enjoyment with his playmates in the water that he’d abandon and forget New Robot. I was touched that Robot still had feelings for Dog but was mature enough not to go outside and confront Dog. What a sweet touch to play music that Dog might remember and then sing. It looks like both of them matured through the months and I wish for happiness for both of them, as it seems that both of them have started new lives. Although I can’t help but feel that Dog will still do something stupid, maybe not intentionally, and either harm New Robot or replace him in his affections. Although he has grown, I don’t think he has grown enough to be a true friend.
No comments:
Post a Comment