People Watching

Tokyo

People watching is one of my favorite pastimes.   Sipping coffee in a Starbucks in Tokyo afforded me some of the best people watching opportunities in the world.  People fascinate me; I love to observe their behavior.  I'm drawn to the study of literacy because I have learned to view it as a situated practice.  To me,  literacy is  observable behavior and human interaction in an ever-changing context.

These days, I do my people watching on Facebook.  I sip my Starbucks coffee and observe literacy practices through the window of my lap top.  Although I will always miss the sounds and smells of Tokyo, I have become rather addicted to reading Facebook text in all its forms.  People watching has taken on a whole new meaning to me.  If I had to describe what I do now, I would borrow danah boyd's (2010) words and say I have traded atom (physical people) watching for bit (virtual people) watching. 

There's another word for this behavior, it's called lurking.  I'm a lurker.  I recently blogged on another site that lurking is legitimate peripheral participation.  Though lurkers are positioned on the periphery of online action, they are part of the discourse.   On Facebook, lurkers can click the Like button to let Friends know they are "watching" (reading).  I always check to see who Liked my Facebook posts.  I have come to assume lurkers are part of the online audience.  Indeed, lurkers are part of this blog.  

After reading danah boyd's Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications (2010), I went lurkng around her blog and even became her 84,074th Twitter follower.  Maybe that makes us friends in my configured world.  Well, we're not really friends, but I learned a few things about her, and I've become a fan.  If you're interested, this YouTube clip is more of the information in her article.  Dr. Boyd begins speaking around minute 13. Sorry, it's a bit long.


Dr. Boyd discusses her decade+ of ethnographic work studying social media practices of adolescents and adults, how they create their online identities with pictures and posts, and how they configure their audiences through the Friending system.   She likens the trivial, online exchanges about what a person had for breakfast (for example), and the Likes and one word responses it elicits, as a form of social grooming (2010, Youtube).  How very primal that online behavior sounds.   These seemingly shallow conversations confirm for us that our Friends are involved and participating.  They are there with us.  Lack of participation reveals a conspicuous absence, especially with adolescents.  I was curious to find some statistics on how many people use Facebook.  I found this quick YouTube video that provides some amazing data!

I wonder what the future of ethnography will become if we sit at a computer, sipping Starbucks,  to study literacy practices.   Dr. Boyd (2010) reminds us about authenticity,  how easily another person can copy and manipulate information we post, how our public profiles and Facebook walls are also created by Friends who post on it.  I say, at some point, we will need bit-interpreters to help us discern what is authentic and what is re-created.  I'm thinking of authenticity in another sense, too.  To what extent is the bit persona the more authentic version of the person?  How do social media sites empower those who are otherwise overlooked in the atom-ic world?

So much lurking, so little time.  If you're on Facebook, please find and Friend me if I don't find you first.  Thanks for taking the time to read my post.  Susan    

Family Discourse

So I suppose this had to happen. My anthropological lens is seeing different Discourses. Gee's article really opened my eyes and gave a name to what I tried to call societies. Discourse is so much richer, because it includes all the values and non-verbal or intellectual manners in a group. Something I think about is family literacy. I think I've mentioned (possibly too much) that I have a blended family. My two older daughters are my husband's, and the two younger are mine. I spent six years alone after I lost my first husband. I thought of myself and my children as a kind of a triumverate. We created our own family Discourse, because we had no family for 900 miles. Over the years, I gave my children a different upbringing. They have knowledge of so much of history that many parents don't provide their children. Not necessarily the history in the books, but - I'm trying to put my finger on what to call it. They know who Ruby Keeler is. They can identify a Bob Fosse film. They can identify the movie with the phrase "what an ***hole" (Ghostbusters). They know what a 741 is (it's the dewey decimal number for humor under the old library system). They're computer literate (occupational hazard). They have their own political views and we have spirited discussions when the subject arises. They can become VERY spirited, but that's okay. Boscherts don't raise their voices. Lillemons do. And it IS a discourse. Tom (my husband) is very aware that there's a closeness between the three of us that's kind of different. I imprinted on my children and we have a Discourse that our older daughters aren't a part of. It's not anyone's fault, though. It's just what evolved because of our lives. Tom has become a member of our Discourse; he's the only father the children know. He's not 'like' us, but he has his place. And I'm aware that I have to modify our environment when all four children are with us (we try to vacation together every year). For years I saw the Discourse of my husband's family, but never had a name to put to it. I just knew I wasn't a "Boschert". Could I teach my older daughters the literacy of the triumverate? I don't know. I tried putting Bloom's Taxonomy to it. Could they remember it? Could they apply it? Could I analyze it? Some people just accept things the way they are. I have a tendency to analyze. So now I will be trying to remember the new taxonomy to look at what we learn. I've always used the old Bloom. To quote Holden Caufield, "So it goes."

Looking too far into the literacies that surround us?

As I read one of our generative words/statements this week, my mind had a field day with one particular question: "The readings this week provide deeper theoretical ways to see the power of literacy; as Discourse, praxis, visual and performance art...But are we going too far?  Is literacy all things to all people?  What's the common thread to all of these ideas?"  So in hopes that this makes sense to others, I would like to make an attempt to put my thoughts to pen (or keyboard)……

I reflected first on a conversation that I had over the weekend with a friend, still enthralled so with the Iddings, McCafferty and da Silva article on Conscientizacao Through Graffiti Literacies in the Streets of a Sao Paulo Neighborhood: An Ecosocial Semiotic Perspective.  Thinking back to Susan’s quip regarding our enthusiasm and desire to discuss our readings with others; I too have become a load of fun at parties!  (Too funnyJ)  But even so, I couldn't resist bringing my thoughts up as I sat over a glass of wine with a friend that had majored in Art some years ago.  I thought, I suppose, about the theory that at times certain text does require a Discourse to truly understand its meaning.  So I was interested in what she knew about this particular form of literacy and the powerful meaning that it may mask from those unfamiliar.  She too was intrigued (FINALLY!!) about the meaning found in the art of Sao Paulo’s graffiti artists, for she knew of a “graffiti movement” and was aware that it can convey more than just a pretty picture.  Her artist’s lens had taught her to look for hidden meaning behind an image or picture, but she did not know the history of the area and so viewed it with her own experiences as she attempted to understand the artist’s intentions.  Her meanings were often different from those intended. 

I also pause as I consider the readings this week and an apparent theme of the Resource Guide for a Do-It-Yourself Education.  The author appears to be a proponent of experiential learning, and makes a compelling case for why it may be found by some more relevant than classroom education.  While I don’t agree that classroom education should be entirely ruled out, I do support her belief that experiential learning can be quite valuable.  While experiential learning and embodied knowing do not necessarily carry the same meaning; the discovery of both has caused me to consider how powerful our experiences and emotions can be when it comes to how and what we take away from our learning.  Often it is because we experience it that the learning holds as much meaning as it does. 

So when asked whether or not we are looking too far into hidden meanings and where we find them, I counter with the question of should we as educators ever stop looking?  Learning can be found in such a variety of places, I am myself learning this anew every day.  And while the viewer (or reader) may take away a message that is not quite what the author/illustrator intended….I beg the consideration of the fact that learning took place at all.  Consider that while the graffiti artists found in the Sao Paulo article hope to create emotion and awareness in the people of their society; I thank them for the emotion and awareness it has created for me in looking at graffiti in a whole new way.   

Literacy, in all of its approaches, provides an opportunity to deliver powerful messages.  It is the viewer’s Discourse(s) that aids in their experience of the message.  Through praxis and theory, we are attempting to understand all that may aid in creating awareness within any one individual.  “Any experience can become part of your education.” (pg. 156)  And as educators, should we not attempt to understand the variety of ways in how one can experience and glean meaning from any text that surrounds them? 

Whose knowledge counts

Few days ago, I had a conversation with my Chinese fellows about our accent and dialect when we speak Mandarine and English. I have always been an advocator of "the perfect pronunciation" and very pick about accent. But when I had that discussion, Dr. Muth's words suddenly came to my mind, "whose knowledge counts?" I felt like a dictator and oppresser at that moment.

The question "Whose knowledge counts" has been discussed in our class with several artifacts, one of which is the racist law. In that law, the government has their precise quantitative method to define the race of a person,  despite how the man understands his own cultural and racial background. In this case, only the knowledge of the authority counts. It appeals to famous historical figures to prove the righteousness of separating different ethnical groups. Moreover, the power goes beyond the determination of a person's race. It indicates, as well as legitimates, the authority which can intervene people's marriage, social activity and any other aspects of one's life. I just realized that when I advocate for the standard pronunciation and devaluate the accents, I am doing the same thing, legitimating the authority which defines the "standard".

When we talks about accent, the assumption is that there is a standard pronunciation, and any different pronunciation is considered as an accent. Obviously,  we had various opinion on this statement, especially when talking about Mandarin Chinese. Due to the long history and various cultural background, there are various dialects or languages in China, While Mandarine is not one of them. It became the official language as the government decided to take the Beijing dialect as a foundation and changed some rule to make it sounds more serious. In the recent 30 years, Mandarine has been the compulsory language in schools and any public occasions. Being able to speak standard Mandarine has become an indication of one's literacy level. The less accent one has, the more educated he seems to be. 

Now I couldn't help wondering why I have believed that Mandarine is superior to other languages, or dialects, in China, including Cantonese. Maybe it's because the power in Discourse. I have been told and believed that the government has the authority to decide what the "right" way to speak is. Their knowledge counts here. Therefore, despite of the long history of and the rich cultural in those naturally generated dialects, they are not officially acknowledged or encouraged. The government use its authority to legitimate the status of one language and alienate other languages, and those who speak standard Mandarine differentiate themselves from those who can't.

Just like what happened in the law, the power to standardize Mandarine goes way beyond the language itself. It has intervenes almost any aspects in people's life. Since Mandarine is especially appreciated, the culture that relates close to it is promoted, while other cultures are suppressed to some degree. Also, people who speak that language are usually regards as elites, while others the governed. It leads the gravity fo power to whose those have the knowledge of that language, and they create the hierarchy that serves to reenforce this system.

While recognizing the power issue around this standard language, I still can hardly argue against it since it has contributed tremendously to the communication of the whole nation. Just as Dr. Muth said, critiquing a discourse does not mean the discourse is bad. It is just how it is. I am just offering a different way to look at it and trying to be more open-minded. 

Embodied Learning

I found the article by Christine Woodcock linking "ways of knowing" for me. Embodied knowing is something I have experienced in feminist ideology and theory. The discussion is often concerned with how the Western dominant paradigm of knowledge is constructed as privileging the mind as the sole source of human learning and experience. (Postmodern analysis also takes on how knowledge is constructed and shared.)  Woodcock, however, linked these concepts to literacy events for me and brought my awareness to how we make sense of everyday practices to a deeper level.  There are many "texts" in the world that are hidden and I would venture that many of them are hidden and remain hidden because of how they are connected to the body. Despite our "enlightenment" and tendency to think "clinically" about the body, we still prefer to skim lightly across the surface of its way of knowing.

Why is this? Right now I have a couple of thoughts on this based on this week's readings. One of the questions we were asked to consider concerned the "power of literacy" and whether by looking at literacy through praxis, art and other less traditional means, we were going too far. To peel back the layers of meaning when I am studying something, I frequently pull out my huge Oxford Dictionary. I am fascinated by words and love to tease out nuances of meaning by "rewording" something I am reading by inserting the thematic word from the dictionary in place of the word in question. In this instance, "the power of literacy" became "the power of competency."

Back to Woodcock, who argues that there is a disregard for personhood in literacy practices, and that the body must "be treated as invested with personal meaning, history, and value that are ultimately determinable only by the subject who lives within it."  I would argue that literacy (competency) is an individualized phenomenon and that being literate within a situated discourse/text means making meaning of that situation that allows one to grow, to learn, and even to overcome.  This brings me to Precious Jones. Precious had to go beyond learning ABCs and how to form letters on a page - how to read. She had to 'make sense' of what her embodied experience had taught her. The dialogue of her struggle - recorded through her journals and poetry - allowed her the space, and the method, to become 'literate.'  However, the process was exceedingly difficult for her, difficult for her teacher and others in the class. It was also difficult for us. Why do we skim over embodied ways of learning? They are just hard, and we feel out of control of the learning environment. We don't know how things will turn out. The only way out is through. Ironically, that is also an embodied learning experience, the birth process.

Is literacy all things to all people? I would argue that literacy is a highly individualized construct and that is the common thread in these readings. Moreover, the ability to make sense out of our embodied experiences leads to competency, and that is something we all desire. Embodied learning then, can empower competency.  

Legal Literacy

This is something that's been on my mind since February - well, actually, longer than that, but the class is helping me see something different in it. While all literacy teaching is ideological, how can anyone learn legal literacy? If you read the news, legalities don't always factor into judicial decisions. And if you watch television, legal literacy is the job of someone advertising that 'if you've been injured, we can get you money'. And don't even start me on things like J. G. Wentworth. I googled that, and found that it is SUCH a ripoff. What does this have to do with literacy? Well, where would anyone go to become legally literate, if they're not becoming a lawyer? Everyone needs legal literacy, but about the only legal literacy anyone teaches in writing if it's not specifically legal, is that the entity providing the text is making it very clear that they are not legally liable for anything that may happen. I have four children, and even though I have no legal training, they still lean on me for legal advice. Am I legally literate? Absolutely not. But our ages give us knowledge that we cannot acquire simply through texts. Everyone sees legalities in life. So this is my 'this has nothing to do with our readings' entry for today. It's actually kind of nice to be able to discuss opinions on literacy that have to do with more than reading and writing, so thank you, Susan.

Mural Placement

     Looking at murals in class was soothing; when it comes to the arts I am easy to impress.  I do enjoy painting large surfaces, making a slightly dingy wall come to life again and I can paint a mean stripe; our master bedroom looks like a “circus tent” according to my husband.  Yet last year I was asked to co-teach an art class for the first time and my discomfort was palpable.  Detailed painting to me means window trim.  Thankfully the art teacher upon whom they dumped me was a generous man.  Today I want to share what is right in Richmond that I’d never known about until I became an art “student”.  Perhaps you’ve all seen the g40 murals, maybe you even drive by one each day, but me… well I was never a student of the arts before.  Had I driven past one before I may have been charmed and amused by the “graffiti”, admittedly I never would have thought that a world famous artist had done the work and that I should slow down or even stop.  I guess it is safe to say I am now enchanted and educated.

 

      A little background… Art Whino is a D.C. based art gallery which looks for fresh new talent from around the world and has a large existing base of artists, some 1200 total.  Little did I know that Richmond had a new art district, but in art class I learned how 12 of the world’s top muralists from Art Whino were invited to Richmond in April of 2012 to create 20 large scale wall murals .  Some of the murals appear to be bright, colorful and playful, like the bunny above.  Others, like the robots below, most likely represent the human condition when we become entranced by electronics, be it television or film.  Somehow I doubt the depth of the bunny’s message, but am looking deeper at the robots image.  The placement of the murals teaches us even more about the images.  The bunny located on the bright brick surface on a street corner, where nice cars park and the tree hangs over, give me the security of thinking this is fun.  Yet the robots embody a deeper thought process, the placement more somber causing a viewer to think before smiling.

 

 

       I consider this image, found on 18^th Street, to be more reflective of the area.  Although clean and tidy in appearance during daylight, I wonder if the dogs come out at night.  Perhaps they even wear protective gear when they search for scraps.  Although I have survived living in Boston and Philadelphia, I gravitate to trees, not pavement, and certainly not vacant lots.  After living in the tri-cities area for fifteen years I know little of Richmond.  I cannot tell you if a block from this dog mural is a Hyatt or a Marriott, all I can do is consider the art's placement and ponder the artist’s intentions.

       These Angry Woebots amuse me.  I wasn’t sure of the artist’s intention with the beady, but blue eyes.  Were we supposed to think of angry panda bears I wondered?  And so I looked up the artist.  Maybe I’d learned something in art class after all; I wasn’t far off the mark.  The artist, Aaron Martin, is described as famous for his “stressed out emotional pandas, which represent the story of struggle”.  Still I struggle not to be amused and wonder more about the area surrounding the mural.  Is this a wall that once was covered with neighborhood graffiti and now a slightly lighter approach was offered?

       My favorite mural is found on 1501 West Main Street by a Belgian artist, ROA.  The first mural is found in Richmond, the second one is the one I discovered when trying to learn more about this artist.  I’m not sure why the animals appeal to me, on their backs and suffering in the city, but I love the tail leading to the window, as if it were a fire escape one could slide down.

    

       His twelve foot rabbit in Hackney is a subject of disagreement.  Though the business owner had given ROA permission to paint, the Hackney Council wanted the “grafitti” painted over.  ROA’s reponse was that he wanted to re-populate the city with animals.  The Hackney Council felt it was their job to keep the streets clean and threatened two years ago to follow through sending the business owner the bill.  A petition of 2000 saved the rabbit.  Again I considered the placement; it reminded me of a cute, quaint street, maybe not wealthy, but I wondered why the Hackney Council considered the rabbit “unclean”.  The rabbit though attracted 2000 with a powerful message to remain.

    Perhaps as an “art teacher” (Ha, ha) I learned a little more about enjoying the view, but as a literacy student I now view the placement of the murals too.  Take a drive and see what our city offers.  I am planning a second drive, with a second view.  And if I haven’t lost you yet, you might want to visit youtube to take the Richmond tour and see the artists at work.  Enjoy.

Temporal framework

Tunnel of Skulls in Sao Paulo

This week I intended to blog about time.  Connecting time and literacy practice in a way that reveals the temporal properties of text, e.g., the Tunnel of Skulls graffiti, was something I had never before considered.  I thought it would be an excellent topic to explore in our blog.  Throughout the week, my post morphed into something very different as I read and connected ideas on time, culture, and literacy.  Eventually, I had to stop, complete the assignment, and hit the Publish button.   The result is a tangled journey that eventually comes back to literacy and text.   

I thought I would begin with ways I see a temporal framework woven into our lives (the temporality of life?).  I am acutely aware of the passage of time as I age.  I am a  multi-tasking, schedule-driven kind of person.  Time, in a linear sense, has a  past, present, and future.  I also think of it as a resource that I "use."  I hate to "waste" time.  Lemke (2004) refers to this kind of time as energy, the kind of time we measure with metrics such as minutes, hours, heartbeats, seasons.  I think of it as "clock" time, though clocks may not be every one's measurement tool.  Bill talked about his friend who measured time in terms of  incarceration periods.  Most of us use a watch, calendar, or smart phone to keep a schedule.  Some people use chunks of time, such as morning, afternoon, or evening.  In other words,  metrics represent the tempo of time: time does not exist at a constant rate for every one and every thing.  We discussed this in class class, citing different tempos such as heartbeats or protons and electrons in an atom.  I have different clocks running in my life: the weekly schedule of  VCU classes, my daily routine, my breathing when I practice yoga.

Another property of time is spatiality: places in the past, present, and future where we existed, exist, or will exist.  Lemke says we create these spaces when we occupy them in time (2004).   My way of framing spatiality is in terms of music.  Music is sound: a wavelength (tempo) located on a particular frequency (space).   Sound occupies the space; we can recreate that wavelength and frequency and hear the same note. In another way, we can return to a place in time  through our memory.   Spatiality can be art, like reverse graffiti in the Tunnel of Skulls.  The artist cleans away soot each week to reveal the past, to show us that the skulls are still there.  If skulls represent death, then death is future and past.  "I wanted to bring a catacomb from the near future to the present, to show people that the tragedy of pollution is happening right now" (Alexandre Orion, graffiti artist).  Spatiality can be seen in our blog.  It occupies a space in the virtual world.  We can put ourselves in any post at any point in time.  We can edit that post (change the past?) but it will still exist in its original form somewhere on the Web.   Our blog is multi-dimensional, existing in one space while we exist in another.  Spatiality can be past, present and future; in can be multiple, connected places in the virtual world.


If we look at time with a critical sociocultural perspective, we can see how the dominant culture imposes a tempo on society.  We need to get to work by 9AM, we need to drive 65 mph,  we need to meet deadlines and maintain schedules.  We speak of the "hectic pace of life."  We sometimes need a "day off" to spend time occupying a quiet space. We move through spaces, often in a blur, trying to keep up with the imposed social tempo.  Perhaps we can "slow down" on the weekend and enjoy a different pace with family and friends.  Different groups, cultures, and countries have different tempos.  The tempo of life in Prince William County is not the same as the tempo in San Salvador (as I'm told).

I read an interesting book called A Geography of Time (Levine, 1997), recommended to me by another ESOL teacher as a possible way to explain why many adult ESOL students are late to class.  In Geography,  Levine and his research team studied time in 31 countries and developed broad profiles depicting the "pace of life."  Some of the metrics in the study included walking speeds and clock accuracy (maintaining schedules, arriving "on time" to meetings, etc.).   A composite score ranking "the overall pace of life" was assigned to each country, with a low number being a quicker pace.  Of  31 countries studied, Switzerland was  # 1, the United States was # 16, and Mexico was # 31 (Levine, 1997, p. 131).

Levine correlated different variables with the pace of life ranking. One interesting correlation existed between  "faster" countries (those with lower scores) and larger economies.  Levine delves further into the pace of life issue by exploring how it applies to individuals.  He categorized the way people experience time as either living in the future, the present, or the past.  A future orientation means the individual spends time preparing for what comes next.   I consider myself to be someone who lives in the future.  Most of the people I know dwell on what will happen tomorrow, next week, with their retirement, etc.  We hear everyday on the news how our financial future is bleak and we need to take action.  There is a focus on what will happen next, not what is happening now.  Most of the fast paced countries have people who live in the future. (I'm over-simplifying Levine's work in an attempt to be brief.) Imagine the power and influence of a quick-paced country of individuals who live with a future orientation.  These Cultures imbue power and set the fast (efficiency-oriented?) tempo that correlates to their larger economies.  OMG, I'm about to enter Gee's  "new work order-fast capitalist" Discourse!

The temporal framework of a culture is powerful.  I experienced this first hand when I moved to Hawaii.  There was a perceptible slowness to life.  No amount of Mai Tais could help me get in sync with the local tempo.  I was irritable and felt  misunderstood.  I did not like living there (the space) despite it being one of the most beautiful places on the planet.  I was not well liked at work, I was accused of being impatient and pushy.  Literacy tasks were challenging because I was unsure of what was expected of me.  Indeed, time is connected to literacy in a profound way.

When I think about the various countries and cultures of adult ESOL learners (my program has over 50 countries represented), it seems logical that some may come from differently-paced countries and  be living with a present-mindedness.   I think this affects their ability to set learning goals, plan a course of study to complete a GED, or decide upon a career path--all very future-oriented tasks.  I'm making broad statements for the sake of brevity; my point is that some literacy learners may experience time in a different way than I do, than their employer does, than Northern Virginia does.  I am teaching by my clock, and it's out of sync with students' clocks.  I'm already "in the future" when I walk into the classroom; students are "in the moment"--or at least they will be when they finally arrive (smile).  Perhaps a present-minded person can't plan for the future any better than a future-minded person can navigate life without a calendar. 

In my view, the temporal framework of a culture creates tension on literacy practices.  Whether in a classroom or at work, we are immersed in the pace of life around us.  What is around us may or may not be in sync with our tempo and spatiality.  We can see, feel, and experience temporal-spatiality in  different ways such as art or this blog.  We can perceive it when we cross into a differently-paced cultures.   In my experience it takes time to adjust our personal clocks, and I'm not sure everyone can do this successfully.  Maybe I need to go back to Hawaii, drink a few Mai Tais, and conduct some research!

Aloha! Susan     

Lemke, J. (2004).  Learning across multiple places and their chronotopes.  AERA Symposium.
Levine, R. (1997).  A geography of time. New York: Basic Books.

A New Perspective on an Old Text

The optional reading this week, "I Allow Myself to FEEL Now....": Adolescent Girls' Negotiations of Embodied Knowing, the Female Body, and Literacy by Christine Woodcock was fascinating to me; especially thinking back to the beginning statement of my last blog “your weight has gone up.”  This society’s somewhat obsessive fascination with our bodies has always been a point of contention.  But the relation of literary practices to such a hot topic was one that I had never considered before taking this class.  Realizing that Woodcock is referencing adolescent girls and making valid points that cause us to consider much more than I am about bring up; a surface realization caused me to pause in my reading and begin my own writing as I came to page 359.   Woodcock at this point references Cameron (2007) and “her witness of many students in her creative writing classes gain more awareness of their bodies, lose weight, and become healthier as they simultaneously wrote in a creative, deliberate, conscious way about their emotions, experiences, and a variety of other important phenomena in their lives.”  This reference gave me a sudden change in perspective, or lens perhaps, of my own view of a text that had been handed to me many months ago.  I am (and may forever be) a member of Weight Watchers.  I have always had struggles with my weight and, after the birth of my second child; have struggled to rid myself of all of the “baby weight”. (Can you still call it that after 6 years by the way?)  So, while I may be bordering on a bit of TMI here, I thought it important to mention this because the text that I refer to is the Success Handbook by Elizabeth Josefsberg distributed to members of Weight Watchers.  The statement found on the cover introduces the text’s purpose in assisting the member in the creation of their “very own blueprint for success”.  Their support for this belief is then provided in the introduction.  Josefsberg is a Weight Watchers leader that also went through the weight loss process herself.  During that time she found that taking the time to write down and reflect on her own experiences provided her with the tools to understand what worked for her and what didn’t.  In essence it helped her to learn more about herself and her body.  On page 8 she goes on to explain that this method of reflection helps one to “learn how not to have too many indulgences or too much restriction and how to have enough activity and the right kinds of support.”  This for me connected what Cameron realized and Woodcock points out in our readings this week.  In this “handbook”, Josefsberg and Weight Watchers are attempting to aid WW members in their own collaborative style of learning perhaps.   A fascinating thought as I reconsider something that I previously overlooked.  This article has truly helped me to reconsider it and its potential in my own struggles with learning about my own body.  Perhaps it is time to pick up the text and test this theory for myself….

A quick look at fast capitalism

For this week's blog, I thought I would try critical discourse analysis (CDA) of  The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the New Capitialism (Gee, Hull, & Lankshear, 1996).   I set out to learn  more about James Gee, the author and linguist whose ideology is evident (to me) in his work.  Since we proceed on the assumption that all text is positioned, I took that one step further and included the author as part of the context.  I see the individuals who create text as inseparable from the context in which the text is situated.

To that end, I began reading one of Gee's papers,  Discourse Analysis: What Makes It Critical?  thinking it would be a good source of information about  CDA and the author.  I quickly realized this text was above my level.  What I was able to gleen from it was that CDA is not just  a critique of the content, rather, it is an examination, from a critical perspective, of the words, tone, message, way a text positions itself and others.  It is an analysis of the assumptions and argument.   I think Janks (chp. 4) said it in a way that made more sense to me: "all text is positioned and positioning." 

Therefore, with respect and humility, I will offer some CDA on the New Captialism text from the position of outsider, or at least one who is just on the periphery.  A few weeks ago I was not even part of its Discourse; CDA was not yet part of my vocabulary.   Gee talks about this as pretending to know what you are doing by watching others, learning to do what they do, until you become more knowledgeable.   

The prompt for this assignment was to look at page 38 of  New Captialism and render an opinion on how well Gee et al. make transparent or conceal their own biases.  My opinion of Gee is that there is deliberateness and calculation in every word he uses, in the syntax of each sentence, in the way he structures and presents his ideas.  I don't think anything is concealed, but, I should back up and start at the beginning.

Gee et al. begin their "simple" (p. 1) argument that literacy is a social practice and that all text is positioned in a social practice.  The "simple" cue seemed to be aimed at the average person, the student or outsider who may be reading this text for educational purposes.  The authors' argument for literacy as a social practice is compelling, it legitimizes their position.  Their tone seemed intimidating, their use of words such as "fast capitalism," "utopian," "midwives at the birth of the new work order," are, in keeping with what I learned about Gee,  deliberate.  These words seem like the linguistic mirror of the fast capital texts that they criticize. Gee et al.lay out their position that "literacy and a sociocultural approach are ...deeply political matters" (p. 13).  I feel the authors are transparent about their position.

In keeping with their argument that all text belongs in a social practice, I put  New Capitalism  in the context of scholarly journals, written by and for scholars.  I find this a bit ironic given that the authors criticize those who control what is valued as knowledge.  They are openly critical of the powers of science and technology as "one of the core utopian aspects of fast capitalist texts" (p. 28), yet they are scholars, positioned in universities, maintaining the standards of what is considered knowledge in their fields of expertise.

Finally, in as much as "fast capitalist texts" such as America's Perfect Storm use fear and manipulate facts to disguise their case, Gee et al. are transparent but intimidating, even and a little too bold (sarcastic?) with their linguistics to present a counter position.  "There is no doubt that symbols and information....in the fast capitalist literature...." (Gee et al., pg. 38, underlining added by me).  I humbly submit that a dualism has been created.  The reader is left to choose a side, if she can even begin to understand the deeper meaning of the argument at all.  From my position on the periphery, many of us may not even be aware of, or able to understand, the underlying issues of this argument.

Thank you.  Susan Wa


   

Pedagogy and priesthoods

"…their expertise more and more an artifact of their manipulation of the machine"

                                                                                                                (Gee, et al, 1996)

Although Gee and friends give the above statement in reference to drafting and design engineers losing stature as computer programs take over their jobs, I could put this reference directly into my higher education experiences with online learning - not as a subject matter expert (e.g., professor) but as a lowly graduate student.  To frame this discourse, I worked as a GTA during my master's program assisting professors in the business school to get class materials "online."  I was definitely a computer novice at the time (a mere 10 years ago) but I had learned not to be afraid of the technology. Looking back, I think both my age (40 something) and eagerness to master WebCT (a platform similar to Blackboard) put me in the priesthood status among professors who were a bit older than I and who did not care in the least for the new technology they were being pressured to use.  I recall one in particular, a high-powered individual who relished "toughening-up" his protégés for the corporate world.  He would need to post documents, grade papers, or monitor discussion boards, pretty mundane things by today's standards. He would log me in to his account - watch a few minutes - shudder- and leave me to take care of whatever the issue was.  I would call over my shoulder, "what if I need you to okay something?"   "You have my full confidence," he would call back and leave the immediate area. Talk about power.  There were a couple of very tech savvy young people (also GTA's) I learned a lot from. The power dynamics in the department were very interesting around the implementation of technology, too. The most empowered male professors seemed to prefer my assistance (although I was a woman) to the young, quick men. They were more intimidated by them than me … hmmm. Female professors did not seem to care who helped them just as long as they got help.  Please recall that online teaching was just gaining credence and there was a great deal of resistance to it. Nevertheless, having some technological expertise gave the online GTA's status and power.

Thinking about it now, I see the text on page 37 were Gee et al., state "in a knowledge society there needs to be a renewed and vigorous debate about what sorts of knowledge bring flexibility and power, and what sorts do not," with fresh eyes.  This was written around the time this "new" format of online teaching was gaining ground and threatening a good many people in higher education just as it was in the corporate sector.  Could it be that the "vigorous debate" needed to make sure that those who had acquired power held onto it? And what about the authors transparency? As you follow the article on into page 38, there is definitely some antagonism toward these new knowledge workers (foot soldiers of the information economy) in back offices - linked to the worldwide web - sucking up all your information in a "mania" of data collection, etc. These priests filtering and assessing information and deciding what is….truth.

Skeptical Third World Kid

I saw this picture on Facebook and it stays with me. It is funny at the first glance. But the picture and the words are conveying much more than it appears to be when analyzed with the topics we have discussed in our class.

The first thing comes to me after I read the lines is that how the context and specific word choice change the meaning and the tone of a sentence. If the sentence is "we use water to wash food off my dishes", it sounds perfectly normal to me and to most people like me. It is what we do everyday in our life. It is what we were taught to do when we where young. And this is what we teach the next generation to do. However, when put in the context, where both water and food are scare, and use "clean" and "extra" to modify "water" and "food", it becomes such an strange behavior. The skepticism of the little child shows that how the context decides people's common sense and how the common sense influences the meaning of literacy. The target audiences of the picture share the common sense that we wash extra food off plates with clean water. But the child in the picture don't. He doubts it because it violates his common sense. Therefore, when talking about this topic, he cannot participate in the conversation without deliberately identifying and confirming his grasp of the "common sense" that there is more than enough clean water to drink and extra food to wash off.

When I shared this in last class, Susan Watson brought up a point that led me to a deeper analysis of the picture and my ideas about it. She asked that what our assumption was when we read the words and got the punch line. Did we read it with our single story of the poverty-sticken Africa? Her question opened up my mind because it was right on target. I ask myself why I get the humor here. Will it be equally interesting if it is a white boy asking the same question? No. I wont's get the humor then because I assume that a white boy should have got used to things like this and there is no reason for him to be skeptical about it. When it comes to a black boy, the situation is different because I automatically assume that he does not share the common sense with "us". I look at the picture again and focus more on the image of the child. Honestly, he is not as skinny as the starving Africa kids on TV. Maybe he also lives in city and have access to clean water and sufficient food just like we do. However, since my pre-assumption of the poorness in Africa is so deep and powerful, I censored the other possibilities in my mind and came of my conclusion directly.

In this case, I think the assumptions indicate not only sociocultural factors in literacy, but also the power around it. As an audience, I feel pity for the child's living condition and want to help to change it. On the one hand, my idea is well-intended and show my good will towards him. On the other hand, based on the critical theories, I am  presenting myself with some privilege and putting my power above him. Unconsciously, I put myself on the position to decide what he need and what his life should be like without asking what he really wants. This is not just what I do when I see this picture, but also many countries do when trying to help Africa fit in the temporary world. They are using their power to change Africa into the way they want it to be, regardless of how African people want to present themselves.

Another thing that relates to power relationship is the phrase "Third world" in the name of the picture. It is an amazingly powerful phrase that separates the woman in the picture and the audience of the picture from the "poor" boy and his fellows. It is "othering". The hidden message is that we are different from those needy people in Africa. They are desperate for our help and we need to save them. However, the truth is that we are not that different. To be more explicit, I am from the so-called "biggest Third World country". I understand that how situations are much more complicated than what people may believe about the "Third World". But this phrase has been used for so many years to "other" people. In western countries, it has been used to convince people that they are living in a better world, while in others, such as China, it is used to advocate the evilness of the wealthier country. It is fascinating that how those labels are created with artificial meanings by power.

Some of the ideas were generated while I wrote them, so that I am not quite sure if they make sense to you ( I sincerely apologize if they don't). Maybe I am over-thinking about a funny picture. But it is so interesting to read a text as if I am peeling an onion. There are layers under layers to analyze, which makes a simple text so juicy and rich.

Conducting case study interviews

I'm thinking about the interviews for my case study and how to keep them on target and still be semi-structured. I have been thinking about how to get my stakeholders to give me more than what the questions will ask. I think that if I write my critical research question first, and then ask what a stakeholder would derive or would hear, it may keep me focused. Our class interviews showed me that there's so much more to ask than the question; what I have to figure out now is how to step back and let the subject move in its own direction. My friend Maggie (with whom I walk almost every morning) is a good sounding board; she knew immediately that the interviews, if conducted right, would give me information I might not think to ask. I reflected on my pedagogy in my case study, which veered me off track a bit. It's hard to separate the two sometimes. Think think think. Just ruminating, so I don't expect comments on this one : )   Joyce M.

Our Enchanted Workplace

Gee, Hull & Lankshear use the term ‘enchanted workplace’ in The New Work Order to describe the ideology of fast capitalism.  The term amused me, as I’d underlined multiple statements leading up to the use of ‘enchanted workplace’.  Are we not enchanted to be submerged in a fast-paced and stressful work environment?  Imagine Disney’s Snow White scrubbing and cooking for seven unkempt working men.  Enchanting; no!  Yet eliminate the seven middle men and consider the work conditions she endured on her slate bed and her duties of waiting for the Prince.  Now we’re enchanted.  Gee, Hull & Lankshear mention Disney’s Core Values, number one being no cynicism allowed!  Instead let’s ‘bring happiness to millions and celebrate… wholesome American values’.  In other words, “Let’s get to work”!

The repeated descriptions in this article rang so true to today’s workforce that I was anything but enchanted which I suspect was the goal of the Gee team.  The middle management has been eliminated; the bosses are bossier and richer.  The hub workers are doubly responsible, highly devoted to their tasks, working over forty hours a week, training for additional tasks in their off hours, answering calls at all times of the night, checking e-mails while out to dinner with family and smiling while doing it all.  And the bosses are saying “We want you to be eager to stay, but ready to leave.”

Competition is the only thing that matters.  Our products need to be unique, of high quality, with excellent customer service and marketed at the best price.  In order to achieve these goals our companies are now ‘lean and mean’.  We have increasingly sophisticated consumers, but are the hub workers as sophisticated without the middle?  The missing middle management is potentially creating a workforce of ‘partners’.  These partners are described by the Gee team (and translated by me with additional cynicism) as practically dancing through the endless forest looking for Snow White.  Their jobs are meaningful to them, they seek to improve their performance, and they control their jobs because they are ‘supported, developed and coached’. 

I imagine that those hub workers that have managed to preserve their jobs in these corporations without middle management are anything but enchanted.  They are overworked, overstressed, over-trained (but it won’t all be retained), over-committed, and over-the-top in their efforts just to keep their positions.  In today’s economy we are told everyday how lucky we are to have jobs.  We’ve been told this so many times that we have ‘reengineered’ our own thinking or have we?  I admit I feel many of the same things being pushed at me in the workforce, even in the public education system.  There’s always room to do more!  Yet ultimately as someone who believes in capitalism; given the chance financially I would quit my job as ‘partner’.  Ultimately I continue to go to work for the paycheck; I am no longer enchanted with my career. 

(To follow up on facilitated class discussion:  This blog has been typed in Tahoma font, the font we’ve been coached to use at school, as the student’s SOL tests use it.)

What Does the Text Say to You?

"Your weight has gone up."  Such a simple statement, and yet how often have other women (or men) heard or read these words and felt their heart sink.  An odd way to begin this blog I suppose; but as I reflect on my recently completed readings regarding the power of Discourse (with a capital D) in relation to the written word, I cannot help but consider how one's Discourse could potentially change  the feeling behind what seems to be such a simple statement.   For me this statement can evoke emotions of frustration or perhaps even disappointment.  Yet for another, would it mean the same? When I step back from these words and consider instead what it may mean for a woman that is expecting a child, or even someone that has struggled to put on weight, or even still what about those outside of my own Discourse or culture that place value or even status on the "healthiness" of a person's weight?  But if this example seems a bit off base, consider instead the reference Janks makes to a speech given by then President Bush.   In this speech, Bush had originally chosen to reference the countries of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the 'axis of hatred'.  A powerful choice of words indeed, but not nearly as emotive as the amended 'axis of evil' (pg 98).  Without truly considering it at first, those three words can cause me to immediately begin to envision images of evil (war, angry men, scared women and children, bombs).  It's amazing how much my experience with the word can automatically begin to associate feelings and pictures with the points of reference.  But stepping back from it now, I can't help but wonder if there were others that also heard his speech that felt a different emotion or association?  Did the word evil evoke even more powerful and dark emotional images, or lesser?  Or did the meaning behind the word instead conjure images of powerful people?  I may be going a bit too far with such a reflection, but I can't help but share these thoughts with my fellow bloggers/classmates as I consider the power of a wider lens.  A lens that provides meaning around, behind, and outside of the text.  And what about when we actually remove the voice from behind the text?  Surely the tone of voice chosen and nonverbal signals can intensify the speaker/writer's persuasion of the listener.  Janks even provides several instances of the influence that a picture can lend to the words on a page.  But when we remove all of these influences, can the words still persuade?  Janks lends the perspective that words can perhaps be just as powerful on their own.  I for one can relate to her mention of a writer revising and rearranging text until it is "just right".  Changing the design until the words on the page seem to take on a life of their own; painting pictures and feelings of what the writer feels and sees until he or she is so certain in their message and the words carefully chosen to convey it that, from their perspective, it becomes a truly powerful tool.  However it is indeed a tool that has been created based on their perspective....a perspective that can prove persuading and perhaps even disguising.  I wonder how often I have fallen victim to the power of a single story?  Believing with conviction of the truth that it held.  I think about this as I remember a Ted Talk Dr. Muth shared during an earlier class, The danger of a single story.  In this fantastic talk by Chimamanda Adichie, she shares her own experiences with stories that have been slanted with the writer's or speaker's perception of the truth.  She asks us to consider that when it is the only truth that we take in, the danger that single story can lend to our understanding and view of the world around us.  I reflect now on my own perceptions of the world and how often I take things at face value.  I wonder, as I begin to widen my own personal lens, how will text look to me tomorrow?

Changing Face of Literacy

            As I am taking two classes, and find common threads between them, I decided this week I would blog about the face of literacy and the influx of technology.  This previous week my other class, a reading one, asked us to share an image of someone using literacy in technology on Blackboard.  Fresh home from work the other day, my daughter (who is on spring break), was sitting at her laptop chatting on Facebook.  I ran right off with my assignment in mind to retrieve my camera (my phone doesn’t have this level of technology).  Seconds later I had several shots of her using literacy and technology.  Her reaction though surprised me as she asked why what she was doing fit the requirements of my task.  So I sat down with my English major, who is also an editor on the school newspaper, and resisted shaking her.  Facebook is definitely a popular use of technology, and a form of literacy as we have discussed in class.

            Today, on another similar thread, I was riding with my husband on an errand when he made a reference to reading The Blind Side.  If he had suggested we bungee jump off the Empire State building I could not have been more surprised.  You see the key background information you need, besides his fear of heights, includes that the only book I’ve ever seen him read is Howard Stern’s Private Parts.  This being one of the few books I won’t read, my sister gave it to him for Christmas one year wrapped in brown paper, with her own title of choice, Fine Literature.  Truly I don’t even know if he finished Stern’s book, but today I stared at him in shock and said, “You’re reading what?”  “Sure,” he replied and then justified, “It was free.”  I am a bit of a cheapskate so I was sure he felt he needed to justify the cost of buying a book I knew he’d never finish, but I was still stuck on, “You’re reading…”  He expanded, “I got it on the Kindle, when I fly I’ve been reading it.”  Wow.  I sat stupefied still, knowing that given a plane flight, he’d never open a book, but apparently he’d open a Kindle.

            Enter this afternoon, tax season.  So I’m reading screen after screen on my H&R Block At Home tax software, thinking that doing the taxes is getting easier each year I use this software.  I submit it, super, it’s done.  I do my daughter’s return, she’s getting some cash back, super, and it’s done.  I start my son’s and still in my tracks.  He’s a college graduate, living at home, who we still feed.  Oops, I need to go back and un-claim him on our form which has already been submitted.  What a literacy nightmare!  Going backwards, trying to understand how to undo something I did with such confidence.  My blood pressure rises, my husband swears he will do it next year, I curse, I do worse, and I finally break down and call the 800 number.  While my husband, who worries about my blood pressure, talks to someone with no confidence at H&R Block, I continue to curse and stumble through the software.  Finally finding what I need I proceed while my husband falsely tells a stranger how helpful he has been?  It’s now (sort of) done.

            So the face of literacy is changing so much that my English major daughter doesn’t recognize it when she uses it, my husband is now reading a book, and my over confidence in my abilities has been knocked down a few pegs.  All of this technology scares me to some degree when I think of those without technology in our society, or those who cannot access it due to their reading level.  I fear we are soon going to be leaving behind a whole level of our population.  Even in my high school classroom the students are leaving me behind (their cell phones are far beyond mine).  We are urged to teach with technology, but fight over limited lab space, but that is a rant for another day.  Today I’m just going to worry about those that are being left out of literacy because they cannot access technology… sort of like how we won’t be able to read the Declaration of Independence someday because we’ve stopped teaching cursive.

Pedagogy Before Technology

When reading Julie Coiro's (2009) piece on digital literacy, one quote from McGrail stays with me:" Pedagogy before technology, rather than technology before pedagogy." It sounds simple and direct, but is often ignored by instructors in classroom. Coiro stated that technology is a double-edged sword, benefiting as well as hurting teaching practice. When managed properly, technology brings life to knowledge and make learning interesting and impressive. However, no one should assume that everybody has the skill to handle technology in education and will automatically and unconditionally take advantage of it. According to her, digital literacy should be taught to ensure that students are ready to incorporate technology in the learning and meaning-construction process.

Reading her makes me reflect on my attitude towards technology in education and other kinds of interpersonal communication. Although things are getting better, I have to admit that I am a huge fan of technology and highly vulnerable to excessive use of technology in classroom.

One example is the first English course I taught in an English language training school. My students were 40 middle school students who were beginners in English, so that what I taught was very basic, such as the word “take” and its phrases “take on”, “take off”, “take in” and “take out”. Honesty, I could have written the key words on the whiteboard by hand and explain them orally. But I always ended up making a “deck” for the kids.  The worst part was, it took me as much time to decorate the “deck” and set the animations as to prepare the content of it. Now, when looking back, I doubt how the “decks” contributed to students’ learning experience. Surely it brought some fun to our class with the colorful pictures and dazzling animations. However, I am not sure if it was a promotion of learning, or a distraction. Also, when I kept trying to make fancier “decks”, it might send students a message that they should expect impressive visual effects. Therefore, they might pay more attention to the presentation of knowledge and be increasingly hard to impress. In long term, it won’t do any good to boost students’ genuine interest in learning.

Another problem with technology in classroom is the interruption of direct interpersonal communication between learners and the instructor.  When technologies are overused, they dominate the classroom and change the dynamic. Instead of interacting with each other, the instructor and learners tend to interact with the center of the class, the technologies, which does no necessarily help learning take place. I was a victim of this situation in the FI class I taught two weeks ago. It was a class of discussion, and what I was supposed to do was to ask questions and involve students to think about the reading and conduct a discussion of the topic. Feeling insecure about my English proficiency, I decided to write down all the questions I would ask on a slide and presente it on the screen. I thought that they would better understand the questions and generate brilliant ideas without suffering from my accent. However, it turned out to be the opposite. The class was deadly quiet, and the students were staring at the questions for a long time, but not thinking about them.  At the moment, I felt that I was losing the control of the classroom. They were interacting with the screen, but not each other or me. I could not engage them with eye contact. The second time, when I decided not to show the slide and simply ask them questions, there was a lively human discussion. The focus went back from the technology to the students and their ideas.

Although technologies can be tricky in classroom, I still believe there are efficient ways to incorporate them in education, one of which is to assign them to students. It seems to be a tradition that the professor prepares a big thick glamorous deck and read it to students. In this case, the professor devotes a decent amount of time and energy to the presentation, while students just enjoy the visual effects. If we reverse the role and ask students to construct high-tech presentation to demonstrate their understanding of the knowledge, the dynamic will be dramatically different. For example, in UNIV 200, students need to write a research paper and present it in different media. Most students choose digital media, and their products are far beyond the imagination of many faculty members. During the process, they do not merely write a paper, but also analyze what kinds of media help present their arguments best, and how to translate written papers into the digital language. This is an effective way to use technology in education because it guarantees the central position of learners and ensure students’ involvement and achievement in the learning experience. 

Work Cited:

Coiro, J. (2009). Coiro, J. (2009). The near future for literacy in an age of rapid, technological change. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Albuquerque, NM. December, 2009.