Narrative

One time I learned something outside of a classroom setting was when I learned about Greek life. I had no clue about sororities and fraternities before I came to college. I mean I really had no idea what they were about. My roommate ended up having a sister in a sorority and she was going through rush in the fall. My roommate encouraged me to join in with her and I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I thought sororities were partying every night and they were not focused on school. I had my mind made up before I even went into the experience that there is no way I could join a sorority.

          Once I started rushing, I was learning that these groups actually had a purpose for the community and other people. It was also a great way to form new bonds with people from different backgrounds. This is what intrigued me most about them. The philanthropies that they raise money for are incredible; the money is going somewhere and it IS a good cause. I also heard stories about how close girls became with each other after joining a sorority. I learned about bigs and littles and g-bigs and god bigs and every other kind of “family” related term. Within the sorority, there are different families you become associated into. It is truly like a home away from home. They also are very focused on grades. There are many helpful resources within the sorority to help improve grades. I struggled through one of my classes, and the academic chair was with me through the first semester encouraging me to do well. She gave me many resources and believed in me which made me believe in myself.

          One last thing I learned about being a part of Greek life is that there is no drama. I really thought how can a bunch of girls live with each other and not have any kind of conflict. I do not know how it is possible but every girl will do anything for any one of her sisters. Even if you are not the closest friends, if you need someone 100 girls will be there standing next to you. I learned many valuable things through my experience so far, and I am only on my first year of college. I cannot imagine what else I will discover as I grow and go further into my college years through Delta Zeta.

Week 11

In her article “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse”, Lisa Delpit attempts to explain that anyone can overcome their primary discourse. She argues that if teachers have the ambition to encourage African-American students to learn, then the students will learn. She also says that the goal is not to erase an individual’s primary discourse language, but to add new discourses to it. It makes the individual more successful and more interesting to read when things are written in their native tongue. She gives many examples of successful African American individuals who grew up in a rough community or had parents with low levels of education. Delpit explains the ways in which teachers can help their students succeed and help them to become “learners” instead of “nonlearners”.

 It is very easy to make a connection to Gee’s article because she challenges this article in her own writing. While she explains that she agrees with him on most arguments he makes, she does disagree with a couple points. Gee’s opinion is that a dominant discourse cannot be learned in a classroom setting. It has to be learned by being an “apprentice”, or participating in that discourse for yourself before you fully understand it. This is where Delpit challenges him. She argues that dominant discourses CAN be learned in the classroom, it’s just a matter of the individual. If a teacher and student are willing to put the time and effort into learning then it can be achieved. She says most students are nonlearners and that is why they do not learn a new dominant discourse.

 In my opinion I think she does succeed in persuading me to her counter-points because she uses many examples in her writing. She is proving that you can learn a dominant primary discourse in the classroom, whereas Gee’s opinion is it has to be hands-on, or you have to be an apprentice to learn another discourse. Most of her examples exist in African American students because they had a hard time growing up and becoming educated. But she explains how the teachers’ willingness to push the students gave them the opportunity to become a successful individual.

I can imitate her strategy by using my primary dominant discourse to learn new dominant discourses. Delpit explained that sometimes it engages the reader if you use a discourse that is unfamiliar to them. Also, if I push myself to learn at my fullest potential it is possible for me to learn a new dominant discourse in the classroom. I think this is helpful because it will make my writing sound more educated and professional.

I found this article to be a different approach to looking at dominant and primary discourses. The examples she gave is what I found to be most intriguing because the stories of the peoples’ lives and how they grew up was almost encouraging. It makes me want to do better when it comes to my writing. I think if teachers are willing to push their students to do their best work, why shouldn’t students do the same?

Make-up Blog Week 10

In their article “Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities”, Devitt et al. attempts to explain the concept of genre analysis and what genres are. Devitt explains that sometimes people need professionals to understand the many genres we as the citizens of the U.S. must complete. Most of the time, the forms we must fill out require additional help because many of the items on them are in a jargon that citizens who are unfamiliar with that area do not understand. She says this is to bring the specialist and non-specialist communities together. Bawarshi explains that a genre belongs to a particular discourse community and it is a specific type of writing that most outsiders cannot understand. The members use a particular kind of language that sets it apart from normal English speak. Reiff explains the concept of genres being “roadmaps” for people to use as guidelines while they learn to write. She explains three goals that include just simply learning a new genre that they can add to the others they have already learned, creating awareness of that genre, and using genres to understand certain situations. She believes this will make students “researchers” who are active and learning in the world around them.

I am able to make a connection to the Swales article because he also talks about the concept of a genre. In his article he only simply defined the term as writings of different types, whereas in this article it loaded much more meaning onto the term. For example, there were three different opinions on what “genre” meant. It can mean anything from something only people in a particular discourse community understand to using a genre as a learning tool. I am also able to relate this to Porter’s article about discourse communities because he explained that a discourse community has a certain language that others may not understand. This article explained that sometimes the genre of a certain group may not be comprehended by non-members.

In Bawarshi’s essay, he clarifies what the term “genre” means in other meaningful languages such as French and Latin. In French it means “sort” or “kind”, and in Latin it means “to generate”. He then goes on to explain that a genre is a “transparent lens” for classifying texts and different kinds of things but maybe we should be trying to study the things themselves. He also says that genres can generate the exchanges of language in discourse communities.

Swales defines genre simply as a particular type of writing or text that belongs to a certain discourse community. He explains that when we write, we tend to look to a familiar genre that is appropriate for the type of writing we are doing. A genre is normally easily recognized by outsiders, meaning anyone can identify what genre a piece of writing belongs to. Genres are able to change with new members or old members leaving, or even if the group just thinks it’s best to critique the genre.

These two authors both would agree that a genre is a type of writing or text that belongs to a specific group. Bawarshi went about the definition in a different way explaining it as transparent. He said maybe we should focus on studying the particular “thing” instead of just the pieces of writing, or maybe consider both. He also said that genres allow members of discourse communities to communicate easily. Swales argues that a genre can usually be identified by non-members of the group. He also does not distinguish the group as a discourse community as did Bawarshi. Swales says that non-members tend to use these different genres for themselves easily as guidance for their own writing.

In my opinion, I think Swales’ definition is most appropriate because we as students use different genres in our writing. We are familiar with the different genres and we are knowledgeable about the different types. I also think this is most appropriate because we use them as “tools” to help us with our writing skills. We learn how to write in different genres and it is not too difficult to understand. Bawarshi makes it sound like genres can only be used by the members of the discourse community because they will be the only people reading and understanding their genre.

Overall, I thought this article was quite interesting because I had no idea there were so many interpretations of genres. I never thought about the concept of a genre being so complicated and in depth but at the same time I understood it. It makes sense that a genre can be used to learn about other groups and discourse communities to enhance your own learning.

Week 9

In his article “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics”, James Paul Gee attempts to explain his view of a Discourse and a discourse. He argues that these two terms are different and he wants us to understand why. He also explains that one cannot learn in a classroom how to be a part of a Discourse. We must be an apprentice to a particular Discourse and take part in the group by doing. We must learn to be a part of that community by possibly following around someone else who is a part of that Discourse and copying what they do. They have to practice. He then goes on to explain the differences in primary and secondary Discourses, and dominant and non-dominant Discourses.

I can make connections to the last article we just read about discourse communities because they both have the same idea. They are similar ideas because they both explain discourse as a group that only certain members belong to. In the Swales article he explains there are certain criteria that a group must have in order to be considered a “discourse”. In Gee’s article, he explains a Discourse as more of an action based group and certain language associated with it. I think Gee’s criteria for a Discourse is a little less strict than the criteria that Swales explained.

QD#3: Gee explains that Discourse with a capital D is “not language, and surely not grammar, but saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations”. This he explains means that Discourse is something that might not make sense grammatically but will make sense socially. It is combining language (maybe poor grammar) with actions and doings to make something make sense socially to others. I took it as a type of cultural thing, people from different cultures will understand different combinations of sayings and actions. He then explains that discourse with a small d means the things that grammatically make sense. This would be the correct way of saying things in a grammatically structured way but it may be viewed as “wrong” socially. This makes sense to me because I think I understand what he is trying to say. He is making a difference between things that are supposed to make sense but don’t, and things that aren’t supposed to make sense, but they do.

(I think I understood this correctly...it took me awhile to understand what Gee was trying to explain.)

QD#13: Earlier in the year, I wanted to be a member of a sorority on campus. I did not know anything about Greek Life therefore I had no idea on how to go about being a member. I went through rush and became a member of Delta Zeta which I consider a Discourse because there is certain language, events, and clothing associated with it. I am currently an apprentice because I still do not know everything about Greek Life. The hardest part belonging is trying to understand what you are supposed to be doing at certain events and learning all the terms associated with Greek Life. Our new member coordinator aids us the most in becoming a member at first, until we get our Big. Our Big helps us out with anything we need and shows us the way of being Greek. I do not feel like a pretended because I am learning what it means and I am starting to feel comfortable being a part of this Discourse.

Overall, I thought this article was intriguing. I really thought the concept of a primary Discourse was interesting to read about. I never thought of having one primary Discourse that we are born into and we learn through being with our families and peers at school. Then the concept of the secondary Discourse was also of interest to me. This is how we build upon our primary Discourse with other Discourses that we become apprentices in. I have never thought of discourses this way, therefore I enjoyed the ideas of Gee and how he had a different approach to explaining them.

Dis be blog 7

In his article “God Don’t Never Change”: Black English From a Black Perspective, Geneva Smitherman attempts to explain the difference between “Black English” and “White English”. He argues that teachers should not necessarily grade black students on their grammar, but rather on their content. He is trying to say that black students may be writing with “bad grammar”, but it is part of their history and where they come from. The African American people have imitated the English language to the best of their ability with the little education that they received. He also argues that the White American people say that it is incorrect to write in a way of Black English, yet we as White Americans have no problem understanding and reading it; and when in reality we have a hard time understanding the “admired” British language instead.

 

I believe I could compare this article to the Dawkins article about correct punctuation because I believe they have the same concept. Dawkins explained that there is technically no correct way to use any type of punctuation mark. There is a broad spectrum of uses for each mark, and we can use them all in different ways to get our point across. Geneva explains that there are many different ways to interpret English and that no one way should be the right way. He believes if a person who uses Black English has a really great concept, then there is really nothing wrong with his/her English speak because that’s a part of their background. These two articles are explaining that the English language is never set in stone, and all the “rules” have exceptions.

 

Geneva explains that “sloppy, irresponsible writing” is a type of writing that is grammatically correct, but repeats itself in sentence structure and has no supporting details. He explains that this type of writing is often just a generalization and writing styles are repeated. There is no combination of sentences and ideas, but rather short thoughts with no facts. On the other hand, he says “sloppy, correct writing” is a type of writing that may not be grammatically correct, but the writing may have complex ideas with supporting facts. Geneva does not think teachers and professors should be wasting their time worry and correcting such minor misuses of words. They should be looking for content! He wants the teachers to engage their students in the complexity of the communication process and not pay so much attention to minor details.

 

My opinion of this article was that I could agree with Geneva at some level, but disagree on another. I agree with him because I do think the complexity and content of a piece of writing should be held at a higher standard then grammar. I think many African American students are used to hearing this type of language in their home environment; therefore they are inclined to talk and write in the same way. I do not think if a student has poor grammar and speech patterns that their paper should be handed back to them right away. The teacher should at least take a peak at the ideas the student has written down. I disagree because I think everyone should write and speak in the same “language”. Everyone should follow the same rules to make writing less complex. I found it harder to read a sentence that be talkin like dis. It be hard to undastand cuz we used to correct phrases. I found myself having to re-read a few sentences to make sure I was reading them correctly.

Bibliography

Wyse, Dominic. "Grammar for Writing? A Critical Review of Empirical Evidence." British Journal of 

            Educational Studies 49.2 (2001).



Lindbolm, Kenneth. Dunn, Patricia. "Analyzing Grammar Rants: An Alternative to Traditional

           Grammar Instruction." The English Journal 95.5 (2006).



Hausser, Roland. "Left-Associative Grammar: An Informal Outline." Computers and Translation 3.1

           (1988).

Week 6

mcCloud Summary:

In his article Vocabulary of Comics, Scott McCloud attempts to explain the difference in reading visual text and regular text. He argues that it is more interesting and easier to read visual texts because we, as humans, are able to relate ourselves to the pictures. No matter what the picture is actually of, we tend to visualize the picture as ourselves. This is because want everything to be about us. McCloud says this is because we are selfish creatures.

 

OPINIONS:

I found this article very interesting because I find this true of myself. This article was easy for me to read because I was engaged in the pictures and I found myself enjoying the article more. I also found myself to read this article more quickly because I was interested in what mcCloud was explaining.

 

Bernhardt Summary:

In his article Seeing the Text, Stephen Bernhardt attempts to explain the importance of allowing students to use visually appealing texts. He argues that this could increase their understanding and writing ability because it increases the readers’ interest. He also states that the design of the text can give the reading more depth and understanding in the classroom. Students would be able to relate the text to other things outside of the classroom more easily.

QUESTION:

I would say I do struggle with this type of writing because I find it “boring” to read. If the content in the text is not something to my interest, I struggle to keep my focus on the reading. In the first article, the comic helped to get the point of the reading across to me. This article however was the opposite. I found it more towards the uninteresting end of the writing spectrum. The pictures helped to illustrate the main points of what the writer was trying to say.

 

OPINIONS:

I enjoyed this article because I thought I was kind of the only person who found reading articles with interesting text or pictures easier to read than standard printed texts. This article made me realize that it is a problem everyone struggles with.

Proposal

The writing construct I chose was "Learning correct grammar, spelling, and mechanics is the most effective way to learn how to write well". I chose this construct because everyone has been taught early in their writing career that grammar and spelling is important. While I also think this is an important subject to keep in mind while writing, I find it interesting on why that would make a paper a well written paper. I do not think grammar is the only thing you should think about while writing.

Week 5

In his article Intertextuality and the Discourse Community, James Porter attempts to explain that every text that we read is technically “plagiarism”. He argues that writers have done this for decades it is not their fault. Most of the time writers can often not be themselves because they are in a discourse community. This means that the writer has a set of rules or regulations they must follow in their writings. He explains that students need to understand this concept before they are able to write an acceptable piece.

 

This is different from what I assumed because I was unaware that writers had a discourse community to adhere to. I would have thought writing should be evaluated by the content and writing style, while also considering the validity of the information. Porter explains that this is not the case, or at least not the number one way writings are evaluated. In the past, my writing has been evaluated, or graded, on different things depending on the teachers’ requirements. This could range anywhere from just simple spelling and grammar to citations and making sure not to plagiarize.

 

I have recently seen a Dodge Ram commercial and in the commercial they talk about the typical farmer. This idea has been used over and over again in many different types of media including commercials, movies, television shows, and books. This is intertextuality because the idea of “the farmer” has been used before. The commercial even uses the tone a viewer would expect to hear from a farmer’s mouth. This is also cultural because farming and the American Farmer is a big part of our history and shows how far we have come.

 

I thought this article was very interesting because I thought there was only one typical definition of plagiarism. I learned this was not the case and many authors and media writers use it in their everyday writing. I also thought it was unexpected that Thomas Jefferson “plagiarized” the Declaration of Independence. By using a style of writing or certain requirement for our writing over and over again, Porter says this is generally a type of plagiarism.

Week 4

Malcolm X

In his article Learning to Read, Malcolm X attempts to explain that just because you didn’t go to school to get an education doesn’t mean that you can’t learn and become successful. He argues if you have to right tools, meaning books to read from, you can accomplish quite a bit through a little dedication. He explains his story on how he became able to read and understand a text just by being in prison.

 

I am able to make a connection between this article and the Brandt article because both authors speak about learning how to read and write. Brandt explained the term literacy sponsor which is a person, or thing in Malcolm X’s case, that teaches you a specific kind of language. Malcolm X did not have a strong vocabulary nor could he write very well. He found that he could make use of his time in prison to learn the proper English language instead of slang words. He became interested in the topic of his history, African American history. Malcolm’s literacy sponsor was the books he read over that period of time which taught him general language as well as more sophisticated terms. The books and dictionaries and articles were Malcolm X’s literacy sponsors.

 

 I thought this article was very interesting. I wasn’t very familiar with Malcolm X and how he became who he was. This article showed me that you do not have to come from a wealthy or sophisticated white family to be successful. Rather, you can come from any background if you have the proper tools and an immense amount of dedication and interest. I think this is an eye opening article, at least for me, because I think it is amazing to be able to teach yourself to read and write from a dictionary.

 

Alexie

In his article The Joy of Reading and Writing, Sherman Alexie attempts to explain that just because you are labeled as something in society doesn’t mean you should follow along with that label for the rest of your life. He argues that it was hard for him growing up because he was an Indian child and no one expected anything of Indian children. His teachers and classmates didn’t like the way he read and answered questions all the time. He learned to read by admiring his father and he says that no one should take that away from you.

 

I am able to connect this article to the Malcolm X article because both authors talk about how their love of reading and writing developed, although very different stories. Malcolm X had developed his reading and writing skills by copying a dictionary and practicing the words he learned by reading books in prison. He was African American therefore he didn’t have the same education as whites did. In Alexie’s article he explains the difficulty of being an Indian child and how his father loved reading therefore he wanted to love reading as well. Alexie was not expected to do well in school and the other non-Indian people did not like his achievements. Both stories explain the difficulty of being from a minority and the struggle they went through to get where they are today.

 

I believe you have to have an extreme amount of determination to get through the kind of things Alexie and Malcolm went through. It is possible, I believe, to become a leader of your minority if you can read and write because it is a great strength to be able to give speeches to the public. People tend to pay attention to things that aren’t normal in society. Therefore when an individual is believed to be uneducated, society is “amazed” that they can put together a well written speech. This causes people to think differently about that particular minority and maybe change their opinions. Deborah Brandt is helpful in this particular question because Malcolm X and Alexie both had to have at least one literacy sponsor to be successful. The point is that you can’t become successful on your own, you learn from other sources which make you into the person you become.

 

This article was interesting in my opinion because I didn’t realize that Indian children were not “allowed” to be as smart as non-Indian people. This amazed me that when Alexie raised his hand in class to answer a question, he was looked down upon by the other children and the teacher. I also found it interesting that he was considered an oddity not a prodigy just because he was Indian, whereas if he were not Indian he would be a prodigy.

Week 3

In his article What Is It We Do When We Write Articles Like This One –and How Can We Get Students To Join Us?, Michael Kleine attempts to explain to English teachers how to teach their students to do research and write on their own rather than just copying information out of a book. He argues that students are not doing enough research before they begin to write research papers. They are just looking in books and in articles to copy sentences to get the paper done. She wants students to learn to write papers themselves and to write at a higher level, as well as enjoying what they are doing.

 

I think I could connect this article with Rosenberg’s article because I think the research process could be a difficult thing to tackle and her strategies might come in handy when trying to complete research for an assignment. Kleine and Rosenberg might agree on the fact that it can be difficult to interpret different articles and thoroughly understand them. Kleine could then put into his article to teachers that maybe the teachers should explain this technique to their students. It could make the research portion of research papers an easier task to complete and then maybe students would be more inclined to do thorough research themselves, instead of just copying it.

 

I think the research plays a significant role in the interviews because as Kleine found out, many of his colleagues reported doing research before they wrote. In my understanding, research was one of the most important parts of the research writing process. I can agree for myself that much of my research was done just so I could get my paper done. I wouldn’t say I was copying the information but I was scanning the books quickly for information that I might be able to use in my writing. The differences here are that the professionals did research for the purpose of writing. They really did want to learn about the subject they were writing about. I think they did this because as Kleine said they wrote out of interest, so the research was something they wanted to learn more about. As in my writing, the paper was for school so I didn’t take the research portion as seriously as I could have. The topics weren’t necessarily something I wanted to learn more about therefore my research was not as in depth.

 

My opinion on this article is that it was a hard article to read. I am not entirely sure I understood the article completely but I felt it was interesting. At the same time, it was hard to comprehend and hard to keep focus. I think Kleine did some interesting research about the writing styles of people from different areas of teaching. He found that teachers from certain areas have different ways of approaching the research and writing processes.

Method

For my method part of the project, I simply took notes about my thoughts. Before I started to write, I typed out everything I was thinking about writing about. This helped me get all of my thoughts down before I forgot any ideas. Next, I would just organize them into some type of order. For this project it happened to be chronological order. I found this helpful because the notes were right in front of me as I was typing the paper. I then could add anything to them even if I was in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. This method works for me very well and I plan to use it again.

Week 2

In her article Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources, Karen Rosenberg attempts to explain to students how to read and understand a scholarly journal article that you might have to read for a class. She argues that it isn’t as easy as it looks to most people and some of the main topics might not jump out at you. She says a student should understand the reason for reading the article and it will hopefully give a hint as to what the main topics are for that particular article.

 

In previous articles, I have always attempted to understand the section titles to try to figure out the meaning of the following paragraphs. This strategy worked for me because it gave me a type of preview or heads up for what I would be reading. It would prepare me for what I would be thinking about. Sometimes this strategy didn’t work for me because it did just the opposite. Other times it misled me or gave me no information as to what I would soon be reading. I would definitely recommend this strategy to friends because for the most part it was a successful strategy. I think a section title can tell you a lot about that section. If I were to amend this strategy, I would think deeper about that the section title is saying because sometime I just glanced at it without really thinking about it. I would try to understand the title to my best ability in hope to understand the reading better.

 

Having a conversation with a text, to me, means engaging yourself in what the writer is trying to say. It means that instead of just simply reading an article, you should see yourself making the point made in the paragraphs or maybe decide if you disagree or agree with the writer. Another way you could have a conversation with a text is to try to believe the writer is explaining their point to you, to make it more personable.

 

I thought this article was somewhat interesting because I never thought of reading a scholarly article in the way that Rosenberg talks about. She made it seem less intimidating to start to read something that you don’t understand. Also, she made a point to make sure you understand the reason why the professor is asking you to read this and I thought that was a very interesting point. I think most students just read the readings they are assigned and do not really pay attention to the reason as to why they are actually reading the article.

1-16-13

In her article Sponsors of Literacy, Deborah Brandt attempts to explain to students the history and importance of literacy and how it has become so necessary in society and how individuals achieve such high levels of literacy through many different sponsors. She argues that literacy has come so far from what it has started as because in the early days of reading and writing only wealthy, white males could have the privilege of literacy. African Americans along with many other races and women were not given an opportunity to learn how to read and write. Today, anyone who can afford an education may receive one, including races of all types.

 

5. Branch was a European American who was the child of a professor and a real estate executive. He had much access to sponsorship because both of his parents were well off. In his school, they had computers hooked up to Stanford University and when he was 12 he was given his own computer. He was being taught to read and write by parents as well as in school and he was practicing literacy on his computer. He also had the opportunity to go up to town and explore the stores and learn about new things there.

Lopez was a Mexican American whose parents both had a degree from a technical college. Her father worked as a shipping and receiving clerk while her mother worked at a bookstore. The city was much farther away from them so they did not have the privilege of going to town so easily. Her siblings did not know how to read and write therefore she taught herself. She had the advantage of getting books at the bookstore where her mother worked.

I agree with Brandt because I feel that citizens of different races and lower classes had a more difficult time finding the education therefore could not provide a suitable education for their own children.

 

1. I have a situation that is in between both Branch and Lopez. My parents were able to afford an education for me, like branch but they were not wealthy and did not receive a college education, like in Lopez’s situation. I had access to computers and reading materials that I could practice with. My primary sponsors were my school, which taught me religious literacies as well as academic literacies, and my parents who also helped me with my academic and religious literacies. I think these literacies are adequate considering I have done well in school as well as overall in life.

 

I felt that I learned much information from this article and that I can agree with most of what Brandt has explained. It was interesting to learn about how far literacy has actually come because I think many people take advantage of their language and education. I appreciate taking time to read about where we started off as a society. I learned that there may be many other literacies out there that I could possibly have the opportunity to learn about.