sTuDy cASe: trois, two, uno??

I had an AH-HA moment when I realized that in this course I would start to understand what I was learning today, in two weeks.  I found myself laughing, ironically at first, and then it turned to a confusing giggle.  

Hello? Is anyone else out there?

Though my style of learning and teaching is different, I am starting to identify (or think I am) the approach of generative critical thinking.  However, the act of understanding it is still, let's say, in the works!  Generating words and thoughts that lead to other words and thoughts that continue to lead to other words and thoughts is a laborious process that seems to have no concrete end.  Do I think it's a valuable endeavor? To my surprise, yes.  We've seen consistent proof of it in our readings and in the efforts of the authors of our texts.  But personally, I can honestly say that this process gets me out of my comfort zone, into a zone of the unknown....and this girl likes to know where she is going.

I've been through enough 'unknown territory' in my life to know that it is in this terrain where my skills get sharpened, my ideas are enhanced, and my experiences during this journey end up helping others.  These results have helped to build new routes in my life.  But these conclusions were not exposed while traveling the 'unknown territory' tour; they were revealed through my intentional effort of reflecting and questioning what had happened during that time.  Once I had an answer, I reflected and questioned that as well, until I was genuinely satisfied with the interpretation of what had happened.  Therefore, the generative critical thinking process in this course is not that different.

It has taken me seven weeks to realize that this is what could be happening in this class. In the end, I know it'll all be well, at least that is what all my graduating classmates have told me.  But I think they say that because upon my questioning the approach of this class, they all mentally reflect on their experience and have no doubts when stating that it has been one of the best classes they have taken.  There it goes again, reflecting.  I guess new routes ARE coming soon!

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? 

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.

Push and America's Perfect Storm

Last week I finally developed the nerve to pick up the book "Push" and began the adventure of Precious' life.   With the readings of the previous week now stirring my thoughts, I consider this provocative story as I reflect on my feelings of "America's Perfect Storm".  While understanding that our current economic crisis is attributed to a variety of reasons, I had not considered the possible effects that education may have on the current and future situation.  Education obviously prepares us for the working world, enabling us to read and understand society so that we may be successful in its mix.  I so believe in the possibilities that education can provide, I am a tremendous advocate of the education for my own children and have (obviously) ventured out to continue my own.  But to consider "as better-educated individuals leave the workforce they will be replaced by those who, on average, have lower levels of education and skill." (p.4) was a very new perspective for me.  I often find myself surprised at how much more my own children are capable of doing than I was at their age.  Granted there is some loss of ability due to our dependence on things such as computers (we didn't have spell check when I was in school!), but to view them as less intelligent?  I struggle to agree with the theories in the article.  Their arguments are well articulated and supported by various data, so when faced with such text I do have a difficult time not considering it.  My own experiences with my children and their current education affects my opinion, but I suppose I should consider whether or not their opportunities are truly the norm.  Thinking back to fictional account of Precious' life, I feel my frustration returning.  How could someone treat a child the way that her parents do?  How can you not want to support their dreams and aspirations?  Too consistently belittle them and not offer or seek help knowing that they are struggling with their reading, such an important aspect of their education in its entirety.  The feeling that is expressed so vividly through Precious's tears when her teacher asks her so simply "are you in the right class?" My heart bleed for her and her unjust life.  I only hope that she becomes the heroine that I know she can, so this part I suppose is "to be continued"….As I ponder however her obvious desire to get the education that she should, I consider conversations that I've had with friends who are or were teachers in various public school systems.  The sad stories that they told of children with parents that do not care about them or their struggles with school.  My friends efforts to help them as much as they could, despite.  But what about after they left their classrooms?  Did someone take them under their wing then?  How many other children in our society are really living a life like those described in the pages of that little red book?  It's difficult sometimes to step out of our own realities and consider the reality known to others.  Perhaps the reality of so many that really are affecting our educational abilities as a country, as described in APS.  Conceivably our fate may be traveling the road detailed in America's Perfect Storm.  I for one however hope that there are some holes in their theories.  But for now, slightly outside of my own reality, I wonder how capable I could be in helping to change our path.

Problem-posing

One of the "questioning the texts" items asked us what the difference between Wallerstein's (and Freire's) problem-posing curriculum and our 1-2-3 project.

The problem-posing curriculum does not assume neutrality. The interaction between the educator and the student does not occur in a vacuum, but we co-participate in the learning process. The purpose of the educational process is to engage in a dialogue that will promote critical thinking and lead to the participant's awareness of the possibility of change. The tools of problem-posing are listening, dialogue, and action. The "curriculum" will evolve from these processes.  

Considering this, I think some of the difference relates to positionality - where I am - what role I play, or would play, in either situation. However, it is not as straightforward as it might seem at first. For the project, I feel I must assume neutrality. I need to put myself in the place of an observer - which is related to listening, and certainly, I plan to engage in a dialogue that will help me understand how the literacy event I have chosen to study is understood in the workplace (it gets a little messy here because we are talking about my co-workers - my workplace). I can feel the tension, because I have an opinion about the phenomena I want to study and the 1-2-3 project is not about me. The project will be about revealing the tensions surrounding the literacy event and looking at those through the lenses of critical theory, trying to identify what causes resistance to the literacy event, and how meaning is construed from artifacts that codify the event. My goal will be to look at the event from the edges and not place myself into the process.  The project will stop short of the final problem-posing step of "action."

In the project, I will be a researcher rather than an educator. While there is some overlap in research tools such as observing and interviewing with listening and discourse analysis/dialogue, the difference will be that for the 1-2-3 project I want to explore and discover (reveal) literacy practices in a given workplace. My neutral stance will help me to question critically what I am seeing and hearing. In the problem-posing model, I am an educator involved in "arousing consciousness and critical awareness among the students about the need for and possibility of change." I am learning with the students and our respective values and experiences interact in a social exchange that creates learning. I think, too, that in the 1-2-3 project to a certain degree, I will "name" the world. Whereas in problem-posing, the students name their world. Although I have tried to lay out these things logically, I am very aware of the tension between the two roles and realize keeping them separate will be difficult. 

Scaffolding

I've been doing a little bit of reading on the zone of proximal development and came across the term "scaffolding". The example of the word (credited to Wood, et al.) used a tennis player trying to learn to use her forearm to hit. Not applicable to what I do, but something that gave me pause. It's really an appropriate word, because the person using the scaffold has some skills, but needs a temporary support in order to accomplish a task.

In my classes I am the 'more knowledgeable other', but I'm not the only one. Each student acts as a support to the person next to them. I purposely seat students next to each other (I have the ability to set my labs up with workstations as I think best) so they can look at each other's screens if they're stuck. It's gratifying to me (although I'm not sure why) when I see a student reach over to another student's screen and tap on something to show the user where a particular command or button is.

I've always thought of myself as a trainer, not a teacher. But all of the readings have me thinking that I am much more of a teacher than I have been giving myself credit for. I'm not pinning any laurels, but I'm doing more than simply teaching someone to do their job. I'm giving them the tools to go further with their skills. My role as a more knowledgeable other feels good.

Is It a Bad Thing to Be in the "Back of the House"?

In class last week, there was some discussion surrounding the hotel's attempts at a skills fair and an offering during the event for free salon services (hair, makeup, and/or nails).  During the discussion I could not decide whether or not this offering was truly just an attraction.   Something to interest them in attending the fair or even perhaps the managements' effort at a "thank you"?  I debated this considerably, reflecting on so many pieces and parts of Hunter's account of the hotel and its norms.  Could some possibly consider it in a completely different way?  Would those that are not currently part of the staff that primarily interface with the guests possibly take offense to a gesture so seemingly innocent?  Not to beat an already dead horse (we did spend a little time on this last week), but I couldn't help but reflect back on this briefly as I considered the office location of the housekeeping staff as described on page 145.  The office was located in the middle of the basement, a placement Hunter portrayed as "marginalizing" comparing it even to the "back of the house."  A concept that in some ways carries a connotation of unimportance and labor that should remain behind the scenes or hidden.  But, I would be remiss to not also consider the positives that she goes on to describe as well.    In this world that they are in, the members of the front desk staff are held to very high standards regarding appearance and overall presentation of self.  Their communications were scripted, their pose was perfect and their behavior had to always be "just so".  Such high expectations even went beyond the boundaries of their work space as the Guest Service Agents were not even allowed to eat in the restaurants or the cafe (once training had concluded) citing an issue "around limited accessibility to the ideal hotel world" as cited on page 147.  Considering all of these restrictions and boundaries, I cannot help but think that the "back of the house" location was really a given opportunity for the housekeeping staff to relax.  How jealous I would have been of their ability to escape from the constraints of the hotel's standards on behavior and appearance, even if just for a moment.  Acknowledging that the Guest Service Agents and others surely had lunch or break rooms for similar use, I can only imagine that the location was probably not far from their work area.  As such, I can't imagine much opportunity to cut loose or really enjoy one's time away for fear that someone may over hear.  The basement location however, as Hunter mentions, offered a safe place for the housekeeping staff to "joke and laugh, to make noise, and even to speak sharply to each other."  Some may argue that the location was still demeaning in its placement, off the beaten path and out of the way of the public.  But I can't help but wonder if one should even go beyond the perception of "the back of the house" and think instead of the opportunity that it presented to hard working staff.  While the promise of conforming with a new hair cut or dress may offer opportunity for some to move "up".  I for one tend to wonder if they passed up the free salon services for a different reason.  For those that prefer freedom to conformity, let me stay down in the basement.

The Role of the Workplace Educator

As I have been reading, I find that I am having an issue with workplace educators as they have been presented in Reading Work. So, I asked myself, why? I dug into last week's generative word list and the questions for reflecting on the text. Positionality kept tapping on my frontal cerebral lobe. Socialization - ah, cognitive skills associated with socialization is what happens there.  Maybe I am on to something, maybe not.

I think I am trying to address my relationship to the work-site (my work-site) for the upcoming assignment. I am looking at how these researchers have positioned themselves within the workplaces they are studying. I like how Folinsbee positioned herself as a "trainee" - a non-expert and how that helped her to develop a trust-based relationship in which workers' openly shared their perspectives and work lives. I also note how she discusses the contradictions between what the workers' are told and what actually happens on a typical workday. Hmm, managers' viewpoints - takes me back to Hunter and the Urban Hotel. I review pages 112 and following, where the director's expectations for the front office staff's buy-in - willingness - to embrace the corporate image, from clothing, to attitude, to "going the extra mile" are detailed. I consider how this undercuts the very notion of autonomy that is required for empowerment. I end up considering maybe it's the executive level that needs some workplace education on diversity, empowerment, and the garbled messages they are communicating.  Which, incidentally, does lead me back to my point - the role of the workplace educator in today's culture. This is what I am struggling with, and I realize it is directly related to the changes technology has brought to the work environment -my work environment, particularly.

Looking around at the employees in my office, I see a wide range of individuals whose education ranges from doctoral degrees to high school degrees and every stop-over in-between. I ask myself, how does education - learning job skills - happen here?  The common denominator here is computer literacy. It is required for the PhD to renew her Human Subject Certification, the fiscal technician certification to access financial databases, and the office manager's training on "What to do if a Shooter comes to the door."  This is not the same work environment I knew just 10 years ago - where appropriate groups of employees attended "work place diversity" training and everyone had to show up for the annual OSHA videos (that were always the same). Fifteen years prior to that, I gathered volunteers to "teach" interview skills and decoding court documents for skills required in that program. Today, face-to-face educating for proficiencies required in my current work environment are limited.  

Robert Gephart, (2002) writes about the "brave new workplace" in the electronic age saying, "...the use of computer mediated information systems and telecommunications leads to changes in the modern organization...decentralization of work systems occurs; there is a diffusion of power and decision making." Further, he points out that "responsibility, authority, and accountability devolve downward' and an opaque line between management and the managed is blurred as employees lose sight of who has the power. This aptly describes my workplace. I may be a manager, but frequently my power is trumped by those who are "certified" to log-on to critical sites to which I do not have access. Indeed, if I worried about having access to the multiple systems (and keeping up training requirements to do so) I would never time to "manage" anything.

So here I am, thinking about "positioning" myself ....


Gephart, R. (2002) Introduction to the brave new workplace: Organizational behavior in the electronic age. Journal of Organizational Behavior   23 (4) June 2002. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4093810

Workplace Dissonance: The subliminal messages of mixed metaphors

Dissonance: a tension or clash resulting from the combination of two disharmonious or unsuitable elements. (Oxford American College Dictionary)

In Reading Work, the authors have focused on the importance of “making meaning” of workplace environments through the examination (or perhaps awareness) of social and cultural practices. Indeed. Although I have not born the official role of workplace educator, I have nevertheless been tasked with the role of mediating between the needs of upper management and frontline staff in a variety of workplace situations within the nonprofit sector. Generally, due to the small size of the agencies I have worked with, training and educating staff falls to that mid-level person who is expected to divine upper management’s wishes (discourses) and translate those into staff ideals and actions.

In the chapter on the Urban Hotel, the first place I noticed where tension might develop between these two discourses was in the section “Managing Employee Identity” (p. 110). In this section Hunter describes the envisioned culture of the Urban Hotel – an attractive, congenial, competent servant whose pleasure was serving guests. On the surface, this seems a worthwhile vision for a hotel. The trick comes in the “empowerment” language and actual practice of empowerment to “serve the guests.”  In also comes in what it means to “serve” the guest in practice. There is a wide gulf between cleaning bathrooms, standing all day greeting guests (some of who may just be grumpy from a long day), and spending the bulk of your time conceiving of new ways to ensure “quality.” (Oops, my bias just surfaced.)

For me, the disconnect between social and cultural practice was articulated most amusingly in the 4^th Standard of Excellence: We are a team! A group of eagles, who have joined to fly in formation. This statement sums up the distance between executive management and frontline staff. Eagles do not fly in formation. Geese fly in formation. (Eagles=executive icon; Geese=workers icon) The hilarity is that no one zeros in on the dissonance of this communication effort. 

 Contradictions. As Hunter moves through her analysis of the Urban Hotel this word surfaces frequently. In continues to be used in chapter six as the authors discuss implications for literacy practices within workplaces. I believe that what the authors of Reading Work are trying to do is essential to overcoming the dissonance found within most work environments, and that is most simply, for people to walk a bit in each others’ shoes.      

Disney, a hospital, the Urban hotel?

Recently I was handed the book If Disney Ran Your Hospital, 9 1/2 Things You Would Do Differently by Fred Lee, and told that I absolutely had to read it.  The book was a great read with wonderful stories and examples of why customer service can be so simple and yet so important in a hospital.  Admittedly comparing a hospital to Disney is a bit of a stretch (to say the least); but with a service focus surrounding concepts such as safety and courtesy one can begin to see the connection.  There were indeed wonderful messages and inspiring viewpoints held within its 216 pages, so I found it fascinating that there were slight similarities to the overall discourse of the hotel Urban.  A discourse that at first glance seems to be so ideal; promoting a culture that keenly focuses on perceptions of customers and their experience while allowing for some empowerment of employees to further ensure excellent service.  "Empower yourself to satisfy your guest." A manager was quoted as saying.  I wonder however, as I continue reading will the employees ever truly feel supported in making those empowered decisions?  Poor performance posted on doors for all to see (to embarrass them?), restrictions from fringe benefits (a piece of candy?), the complexity of the language used in documents-documents that were used to express the desired employees' behavior and identities in the hotel.  All of these things appeared to almost convey a sort of social order as opposed to inclusion and support of an ideal culture encouraging of improved performance.  As Hunter describes,  to join the discourse that the hotel portrayed in the documents that were constantly posted, given out, and communicated in various ways; an employee would have to do much more than understand the language used.  For some it could also mean to reconsider the way they dressed, worked and talked.  Wasn't the author herself told she would need to change her dress before she even began there?   While the discourse of Urban and Disney may seem similar on the surface (restrictions of dress, language, etc.), it does provide perhaps some example of the need for greater considerations when instituting such ideals.  While the social may convey the message we seek, will the cultural take aways instill ownership, pride, or empowerment in the employees as we hope?

Anonymous

      This week I am looking at the first question “What is Belfiore doing?”  We talked briefly in class about how she was putting herself in the story using an anthropological style of writing in “I” form.  I view it as she is not only putting herself in the story, but also pulling the reader in so that we are standing right next to her.  The sentence “I’m in one of those large, anonymous and endlessly reproducible shopping malls with department stores, super stores and specialty boutiques” put me there.  I almost think it was the particular use of the word “anonymous” that told me this could be me too, whatever I picture in my mind is correct.

     I admire an author that has the power to pull me into the story.  It’s not an easy task, hooking the reader, making the reader care.  Maybe it is me, but textiles and weaving did not hold my interest as pickles did.  Was it the writing style?  I sew, I weave, and I actually prefer those as pastimes, over pickles.  I am pressed to try and determine why one chapter grabbed me and another did not.  I haven’t started hotels yet…

      From here my mind jumped to the novel Push, also written in an “I” form letting the reader in on the young girl’s vivid story using an anthropological lens.  Well, first I have not seen the movie, so although I knew the outline of the story from hearing others talk about it and my own daughter announcing she was going to be a social worker after viewing the movie (she has since switched to an English major) I had ultimately avoided the story.  It was too much for me to take on, to become emotionally pulled in when I already hear/see too many stories of children lost in the educational system.  I wasn’t ready to live the life of a child lost in the same world that I struggle to keep students from falling into, but this week I began this novel; required reading.  Forty pages in one sitting and I needed a mental break.  This is not to mean that I am not hooked, but that I am drained from being in the story with Precious. 

      Sapphire, the author, has put us right there, hurting, brutalized and fighting back.  The first line of the story, "I was left back when I was twelve because I had a baby for my fahver." made me ache. The broken writing, the street language, the fragments and the resistance that Precious offers  from page one puts us right there, visualizing, suffering and aching for her.  I go back to the word “anonymous” used by Belfiore.  By letting the reader see through that anthropological lens, Sapphire has written the story of an anonymous character and given her life.  When I am emotionally prepared to be drawn in again I will lift the book and persevere.

I dig sociocultural theories

In an attempt to answer the prompt "Social and cultural: what's the difference?" and work on my understanding of sociocultural (sc) theories by digging deeper, I read/skimmed a scholarly article by Perry (2012).    I appreciated how Perry began by describing how  sc theory is an  umbrella term covering a collection of (often) undifferentiated perspectives.   "There is no single sociocultural theory on literacy" Perry explains.   To that end, the article categorizes and discusses literacy theories as 1) literacy as social practice,  2) multiliteracies, and 3) critical literacy.  For my purposes, I focused on 1) literacy as social practice.  So that I wouldn't be overwhelmed and "dig" in over my head,  I used our ADLT 650 revised model, The Tapestry of a Literacy Event: A Sociocultural View (Muth 2013), as a guide.

Perry frames literacy as social practice as influenced by Street (1985) and "grounded in data that described the various ways in which people used reading and writing for different purposes in their everyday lives."  In our case,  we focus on the employment domain and examine literacy such as April's "decks," Susan's "blue forms," or Rosa's housekeeping form in Reading Work.  Social practice theory considers these examples to be literacy events.  "Literacy events are observable; this is, we can see what people are doing with texts."  Interestingly, Perry adds that the body of  research in this field comes from ethnography focused on print and written texts.  (Perry provides a great example of a literacy event about reading.  Event are not always about writing.)  I see "the text" (the event) as the genesis of a sc practice.  In fact, the name of our model is The Tapestry of a Literacy Event. 

Social practice theories also frame what literacy means in terms of relationships of power and dominance, how one literacy dominates another.  We explored what it means to belong to a cultural group: sharing a sense of history, discourse, space, and identity.  For example, Annie's friends who speak a special language only they understand, the Italian women at Triple Z who sang songs, machine operators at Triple Z who were in sync with their machines, teams in April's corporate setting or ESOL teachers in Susan's program who share a sense of identity are all cultural groups.  Cultural is being an insider, belonging to a more homogeneous group within a larger social construct.

Social construct, such as Triple Z "the company," April's corporate hierarchy, the school system of Susan's  ESOL program, the VCU campus where Annie's group attends,  is the larger body in which cultural groups inhabit, however, membership is not equal or balanced.   Cultural literacy (history, discourse space, identity) capitulates to a more dominant social literacy.  Social practice theories examine this power and dominance of one literacy over another with respect to the text.  The activity within and between cultural and social is practice.

Social practices, as explained by Perry, "must be inferred because they connect to unobservable beliefs, values, attitudes, and power structures."  We infer the sense of history, discourse, space, and identity of cultural groups.  We infer the resistance, power struggle, and capitulation.  Perry acknowledges the "connection between literacy events and literacy practices has been, at best, vague." 

I see event-practice connections being strengthened by sound ethnographic research that includes acknowledgement of researcher bias; rich, thick descriptions and reflections; length and quality of time spent in the culture; and allowing cultural and social voices to be heard.  I remind myself that we view the event-practice connections through another person (researcher) who is not immune to the cultural and social pulls.  Where she infers meaning to discourse or relations, I may not.  There are multiple realities to the event-practice connections, an ethnographic study is just one way of explaining these phenomena.

I'm forcing myself to stop here. Thanks for taking the time to read this long post.  I need peer feedback as I dig through these complex ideas.   How does everyone else interpret sc theory and the literacy event model?  What ideas do you focus on?  Susan









 

 

Resistance-positive or negative?

Many would argue that when the word resistance is spoken or associated with a topic, the audience almost immediately begins to assume a negative context.   To resist, after all, is to express opposition through action or words.  But is resistance to a process or request, especially in the workplace, truly someones unwillingness to comply?  Or can it also be an opportunity for process improvement?  I reflect first on a personal story that was shared during Adult Learning last semester by our own Dr. Muth.  If memory serves, he had set about the task of assisting a particular adult student to learn to read and write. Beginning with processes that had worked for him in the past, he was challenged this time with consistent resistance from the student.  The student was not interested in learning as it was presented, and had no issue voicing his opposition at each attempt.  Dr. Muth at a point took a final step back and approached the student instead with a question: "tell me what you want to write and/or read about".   From that point on, tried and true processes and approaches were not forgotten or set aside, but instead adapted to meet the needs of the individual learner.  A learner that found his educational way by finally letting go of his resistance and instead investing himself in learning lead by his own voice.

Considering this approach, I found myself aggressively underling sections while taking in the first chapter of Reading Work.  In several places I noted resistance that was prevalent and yet those in supervisory positions often sought to criticize (sometimes publicly) and punish as opposed to really seeking to understand.  So much seemed to lie within the workers' accounts as to WHY they didn't feel they needed to comply.  Perspectives that even seemed to lend genuine reasons that the processes could be reviewed and/or improved to meet the needs of both parties.  Perspectives, it seems, that were often ignored.

As educators, do we really seek to ask someone to conform to the norm?  Or do we instead seek to help them understand and build upon their own perspectives and knowledge?  Resistance can be frustrating, especially when the need will not go away.  But considering the why behind the resistance at times can help to effectively overcome it.

Resistance

As I read the two chapters in Belfiore, I had to smile over the descriptions of the way employees resisted the efforts to get them to document processes and conform to best practices as dictated by a "form" drawn up by an "expert" who had probably never spent an hour in their shoes - on the floor of a busy, loud, and hectic production facility. While I am a novice in the field/discipline of education - and therefore largely illiterate of various education theories -  I do have a frame of reference from managerial literature. I was just exiting with my MBA when "Six Sigma" managerial practices were hitting their stride. One of the things that continues to amaze me is that in the overheated frenzy to produce control over every aspect of production, thereby ensuring the greatest possible margin of profit, we forget we are working with human beings. 

In case you are not familiar with Six Sigma, a few of its key premises are:

• Continuous efforts to achieve stable and predictable process results (i.e., reduce process variation) of vital importance to business success 
• Manufacturing and business processes have characteristics that can be measured, analyzed, improved and controlled.
• Achieving sustained quality improvement requires commitment from the entire organization, particularly from top-level management.

I particularly like the second bullet - it communicates clearly that total automation would be the ideal production scenario, in lieu of that, human beings must be made to conform to machines as much as is possible. 

As a counterpoint to the managerial approaches seen in the private sector, theories on the management of public bureaucracies have acknowledged the power of the "street-level" bureaucrat. Street level bureaucrat, coined by Michael Lipsky, refers to the power of persons who actually implement policy and procedures to thwart the effectiveness of the policy. (I think of the person behind the counter at the DMV, or the one on the phone who transfers you continually while you are trying to find an answer for a utility charge.)

The point being that these individuals are able to "resist" the red-tape and loss of control in their day-to-day jobs by simply not moving, or not moving very fast. Private sector employees may have more to fear if they resist this loss of autonomy, so their resistance may be more subtle. Nevertheless, it is there. It seems to me that the problems of resistance in each environment have to do with need for persons to feel, well like humans, valued, I guess.    

So, what does this have to do with literacy? As we swing from one end of the pendulum to the other in the struggle over power relationships within work environments (public and private) and theories about how and why they occur, can't we just sit down and listen to one another, and maybe even ourselves? I really puzzled over the closing paragraphs of chapter two (pg 100) in Belfiore. Even for a workplace educator, fear overrides efficacy.  

Socio-cultural literacy

One thing I've heard in class and readings is socio-cultural literacy. It's something I'm familiar with but haven't seen it with this name. My son is high functioning autistic, and is relatively illiterate socio-culturally. Aspergians don't pick up on non-verbal clues or social cues. This makes it very difficult for them to be involved in a Discourse. David was in a private school which was very accepting of his disability, but he still wishes he could repeat upper school with the skills he's learned over the last fifteen years. Socio-cultural literacy doesn't just affect those with disabilities. Learning a Discourse takes time and help.

WorkKeys is more than Basic Skills

You must sort clothes in a dry cleaning establishment according to the customer's instructions. According to the form shown, how should this customer's shirt be treated? 1. Dryclean it, add light starch, and fold it. 2. Dryclean it, add light starch, and place it on a hanger. 3. Launder it with no starch and place it on a hanger. 4. Launder it with light starch and place it on a hanger. 5. Launder it with medium starch and fold it. (This is a level 3 question out of 6 possible levels.)

    According to Paul Jurmo, “workers need not just the basic skills, but the ability to work in teams, solve problems, track down information, and behave responsibly.”  The sample question above has been borrowed from the ACT WorkKeys website.  Since I have been working with students on the WorkKeys assessments discussed in my classroom, I wanted to place this assessment in the decontextualized approach as a tool that evaluated basic skills when discussed in our class.  Dr. Muth challenged me to see it as having functional context also. 

    As a high school teacher of students with special education needs, I am hyper-focused daily on the assessing of basic skills with the ultimate goal of graduation in mind.  The testing for standards of learning is the end goal for that diploma, whether we agree to disagree or not, basic skills is what we are told to teach.  The SOLs have tested the basic skills of public school students for approximately fifteen years now.  In the last two years the state of Virginia has been changing the testing format, getting away from the multiple choice, one correct answer style that the students have been trained to master.  These previous versions have often challenged students with disabilities.  The newer multiple answer, fill in the blank, process multi-step types of questions are now true stumbling blocks as these students have not been ‘trained’ to test in this format.  As a result alternative assessments have been used to meet the requirements of a diploma.  The ACT WorkKeys falls in this category.

   The transition coordinator in Chesterfield County was looking for teachers who were willing to use the WorkKeys format with students with disabilities for two reasons.  One, these tests replace the newer difficult SOLs required toward graduation, but secondly if the student can pass three of these assessments they can earn a NCRC ("ACT's National Career Readiness Certificate (NCRC) is a portable credential that demonstrates achievement and a certain level of workplace employability skills in Applied Mathematics, and Locating Information, and Reading for Information.").  Since I have been trained to view the SOL test as the ‘end all’ goal, I was excited to offer students this opportunity in my classroom as the NCRC was just a bonus.  From my viewpoint I was still hyper-focused on those SOL requirements, hence the WorkKeys became a basic skills test and decontextualized from my perspective.

   This week I watched over the shoulder of some of my students as they worked on the practice problems on the AZTEC program which prepares the students for final assessment in WorkKeys.  Yes, these problems address basic skills; there are multiplication problems, division problems and questions about verbs, subjects and objects.  However, the reading and writing questions in particular are focused on real-life common sense skills needed for success in the workforce.  For example:  Write a “how to” list for greeting a customer in a restaurant or write a “how to” list for closing a store for the night.  This evaluates the basic skills and the “workplace literacy” as described by Jurmo.  If you are an employer isn’t what you want your employee to know as basic as “how to greet a customer”?   As an employer you want them to understand the basics of your business, yes add up the bill for the customer, but before the employee can add up the bill and demonstrate the basic skill, they must get the customer to order a product.  Isn’t that truly basic if you want make money?  Perhaps our definition of basic skills is too narrow.

    The NCRC will allow my students, who are workplace bound, the ability to inform a hiring authority that they have the basic skills necessary for success in job-related training.  When walking into certain hiring authorities they will not be led to a computer to test and prove their abilities, instead the NCRC is documentation that they already have the skills needed.  This saves time for the hiring authority as it takes the guesswork out of the hiring process.  The NCRC will demonstrate that my student has basic skills, common sense and it discloses their employee potential.  It is easy to see now that the WorkKeys has both decontextualized context and functional context.

Language Is Power

Looking at “literacy, culture, membership” in the generative words list, there is one sentence flashing into my mind: “Language Is Power.” It is the slogan of the most influential language training school in China, where I was a student, and then a teacher.

Language is a big part of literacy both in daily life and working communities. As mentioned in Belfiore’s work, it is important to use the right language at the right situation for the right purpose. To some extent, being able to do this is a symbol of power, the power one needs to maintain and even promote his position in a certain community. Having the power of language, one will be recognized as a member of the group by others as well as himself. In the contrary, the lack of the power will hurt the sense of belonging.

As a non-native speaker of English in the United States, the English proficiency is my power to survive in this foreign land . The language enables me to find an apartment, communicate with my neighbors and do grocery shopping by myself. I go to an American church, talk with others, make new friends and feel belonged to the group. Without the language, I would have to rely on someone else to fulfill these basic tasks. Therefore, the language also contributes to my self-confidence and sense of independence. It helps satisfies my basic needs as a human being and allows me to pursue higher goals.

As language is always an embodiment of the culture behind it, the English competence serves as a path leading to the marvelous western culture. Being able to read in English, I enjoy the access privilege to great thoughts and entertainment that are originally generated in English. One may argue that those who do not speak English may also appreciate them via translation. However, there are so many cultural elements that are untranslatable. They just lose the meaning when striped from the original language and cultural background. That is why the greatest poems of Tang Dynasty make no sense when translated in English. Also, translations bear the personal bias of the translator inevitably. The real meaning of the original work, both the denotation and connotation, will be modified by the translator’s personal ideas with or without intention. Therefore, when one reads translated version, he is highly vulnerable of receiving wrong messages, and being misled and manipulated. Being able to read the original version protects me from these risks and entitles me with the uncolored cultural perspective and a boarder freedom of mind.

Besides English in general, the specific vocabularies and phrases I learned at the Writing Center stand as vivid examples of how literacy in work enhances the sense of belonging and membership of the group. Before working at the Writing Center, I had little professional training in academic English writing. I didn’t have the language to talk about writing and I didn’t consider myself as someone who could help others with their writing. During the time working there, I learned the language in this field, such as global revision, local revision, claim, evidence, reasoning, structure, organization, reader-based approach, writer-based approach, unpacking ideas, etc.. Therefore, when talking about writing, I can, at lease, sound professional and knowledgeable, which boosts me confidence and help me explain the writing process much clearer. Now I identify myself as a member of the writing consultants, which is particularly special among Chinese students here, and feel much more comfortable sharing my ideas and advise about others’ writing pieces.

To sum up, language is powerful in various layers. It is decisive in one’s personal and professional life. Sharing a language means sharing the culture it embedded in and the membership of the speakers’ community.

A dark, ugly genre

Anonymous note left in restroom stall

This Reddit / Yahoo news article about a poignant note left in a women's restroom inspired me to write this week's blog post about literacy genre.  I hope I'm not being too crude writing about women's restrooms, but literacy is happening in there.  I have seen it, read it, and felt it.   When I look at this unlikely genre through the lens of social practice theory, I see powerful text that has even deeper meaning because of its setting.  In Reading Work (Belfiore et al., 2004) Judy Hunter describes literacy as a social practice where people create special meanings from text connected to a particular social setting.  Hunter adds that literacy is more than words on the page, it is the meaning of words and their use.  Literacy is "activities around texts that involve values, attitudes, feelings and social relationships" (p. 247).  Literacy activity in the restroom is discourse between women who scratch and scribe crude messages of abuse, addiction, and depression on the walls for others to read.  Maybe this is the only place where ugly truths can surface; maybe this is the only place dark secrets can be put into words.  Maybe this is a place where we must face ourselves, literally and metaphorically.   Sometimes, a sympathetic response is added to the discourse, other times a nasty, cruel jab is penned alongside.   There is a darker, private understanding of these awful words: they aren't fit for any other place.  Their meaning is entwined with the social setting.  If taken out of context, these messages would probably be described as rude defacement of property.  When we learn where they were written, it can change how we feel about them.  Maybe we understand, maybe we were part of this discourse at one point, too.

It is because this note was found in a restroom stall that it caught my attention.  If it were taken out of the restroom--out of its genre--its deeper meaning would be lost.  Yes, the note is a worthy gesture of humanity in and of itself, however, its meaning becomes more profound when put into its literacy genre.  The meaning goes beyond words on the paper.  This note is an answer, a response to cries for help.  It is one piece of a larger literacy activity found in a genre of dark secrets and ugly truths. 

I will close with the words from the note

To the girl who was raped: You are so strong. I cannot fathom the pain you must have gone through. The fact that you have the bravery to write it (even on a bathroom wall) gives me hope.

To the girl with eating disorders: I promise you, although I don't know you, you are beautiful, you deserve your health. You deserve freedom from that hell.
To the girl with the alcoholic father: I am so sorry for the agony it must cause. Again, such courage is remarkable you must be such a strong person to see such pain.
To the girl whose father died: Missing them never goes away. The ache of their absence never goes away. But the love they had, the memories you share surely must last. I am sure, out of the bottom of my heart, the people who have left you in this world are exceptionally proud of the person you are.
Everytime (sic) I see these walls, these confessions, I feel so blessed to know I have the priviledge (sic) of seeing them. Your moments, these secrets, are all precious even though they are sad. To all of you (including those I did not mention, and those who have not yet written)
-You are worthy.
-You are strong.
-You are brave.
-You are loved.
-Somebody cares.

Written below that, somebody penned a quick response: "To the person who wrote this, thank you."