Author: djones16

1. My artifacts worked well for my project and where I see my project going. I plan to continue to use my same artifacts and possibly looking for a another artifact to support my argument. I need to go back through my paper and add Gee’s work to the artifacts to strengthen my stance of the Chosen Discourse.
2. I believe I’m using good language in regards to the artifacts. I do think I could clear up some confusion throughout my paper by using more of Gee’s work to support my claims made with my artifacts. The kinds of language I feel are lacking are the scholarly work by Gee’s building tasks. With the building task work in my paper I believe it will become much more insightful about my chosen discourse.
3. I need to work on adding a paragraph about Discourse and Discourse analysis. My introduction currently is about my topic and how it relates to what I’m trying to argue which is that world politics, culture, and social aspects of life are reflected in world soccer. I believe if I open up with Discourse work and using that to transition to my topic my paper will be much more effective in analyzing the Discourse I chose and getting the most out of my sources.
4. The issue I currently have that I addressed in my Note to Peers and was brought up in the discussion is adding Gee’s work to my project.

 

30  minutes

collreadwrit2e

If your project is truly “engaging the conversation” about literacy acquisition, it must be speaking to Gee/Brandt/Alexander in at least one of these three ways: affirm, add, challenge. And you probably want to be doing at least two of these things. What do your peers think you might do here, based on the evidence you’ve provided in the draft? Is there other evidence in the narratives that you’ve left out of the draft so far? Be specific about what your narratives reveal and what you think your might say about literacy acquisition through that data?

After reading my draft my peers and I discussed the stage of my draft where I would be affirming, adding, or challenging Gee and Brandt’s ideas.  My peers suggested that I connect the literacy narrative stories with the ideas that Gee and Brandt present in their works.  There is no other evidence in the literacy narratives that I have not used in the drafts so far however there is more effective ways to integrate the evidence in my draft.  The narratives I chose to write about was Hannah Metta’s literacy narrative which incorporated Gee’s idea of apprenticeship and Brandt’s idea of sponsorship.  Troy’s literacy narrative similarly to Hannah’s used the ideas of apprenticeship and sponsorship as main points in his literacy narrative.  In the last literacy narrative written by Alexis Ouellette about the “Little Match Girl” she uses Gee’s concept of “mushfake”.  I think in all three literacy narratives I will try and use the scholarly texts along with my opinion on the scholarly texts to try and clarify the stories being told in the literacy narratives.

Source introductions. Do your peers think you have enough “introduction” of G/B/A in the draft? Do you have too much? And what about your naming of the literacy narratives? Alexander offers little stories of her examples; Brandt offers richer descriptions so the reader has enough information to understand her analysis. In a short project, one should not repeat the details from the narratives, but the reader probably needs some description/context. What work do you have in this area?

I think my peers did a very good job of introducing the work of Gee, Brandt, and Alexander into their papers with and with some slight adjustments they can pull the full potential out of their quotes.  I think I need to do a better job of less summary and more textual support in my paper to push my thoughts to the forefront.  I think with using both the Barclay’s and TRIAC method to paragraph structure I can improve my paragraphs and get the most out of my analysis of the scholarly texts.

Evidence. We must have actual passages from both our scholarly sources and our literacy narratives. The scholarly sources help signal the conversation you’re engaging; the narratives are your support for the ways you’re engaging the conversation. It is entirely reasonable to need to find and consider additional narratives, to need to dig more deeply into those one is using, and even to read parts of Brandt or Alexander that are relevant to one’s project but were not originally assigned to the entire class! What do you need to do in this area?

I think I have a good variety of scholarly texts to allow me to talk about and analysis a plethora of information from both Gee and Brandt’s work.  I think they both engage the text in different ways with both similarities in apprenticeship and sponsorship and differences in mushfake.  There is a possibility in finding additional evidence in my literacy narratives that I think I should take the time to more deeply examine before my final draft.

 

collreadwrit2e

“The most common ‘cultural narrative’ that scholars observe students performing in literacy narratives is the conventional literacy success story” (Alexander 609). What is this conventional story, and why does it seem so prevalent in student literacy narratives? Support your response with evidence from Alexander and a discussion of ways your own literacy narrative from English 122 does or does not fit this kind of story.

The conventional story is the idea of students labeling themselves as victims and having to fight the “oppression” they experience on daily basis in the public school system.  Alexander supports this claim by saying, “The popularity of the victim narrative in student texts indicates that students associate school-based literacy practices with oppression and even cruelty.” (Alexander 618).  The conventional story the students write about highlight their enact ability to overcome the “oppression” and succeed in circumstances that they perceive themselves to be against the odds in.

Alexander contrasts “master” and “little” narratives. What is this contrast, and why is it important for her to make sense of student literacy narratives? Use at least one kind of little narrative discussed by Alexander (614-22) to illustrate how little narratives differ from the “master narrative” one so often finds and explain that difference. Be sure to quote Alexander.

The contrast between “master” and “little” narratives is in how each narrative is told.  Generally “master” narratives tell the story of historically accepted ways of thinking and “little” narratives call into questions these narratives and articulate an argument that can potentially also oppose that of the “master” narrative.  Alexander stresses an importance on the understanding of the difference between the two narrative styles because they can help understand the socio-economic status of the students writing them and is a reflection of how each student grew up.  An example of a little is when Aaron a student from Alexander’s writing said, “I said something inappropriate to another kid, and my mom made me write a two-page paper as punishment.  I wrote the paper and hated it.  I would say that that incident probably spurned my distaste for writing.” (Alexander 617).

Revisit Brandt’s ideas about literacy sponsorship. Select at least one of the cultural narrative types identified by Alexander (614-22) and explore the ways that Alexander’s discussion of that type offers insights into Brandt’s idea of literacy sponsors. As a reminder, Brandt defines literacy sponsors as “any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy – and gain advantage by it in some way” (556). Be sure to quote Alexander and Brandt. Suggestion: pick a cultural narrative type that interests you!

In the literacy narrative about Jeremy he explores his interests in writing and how being interested in certain types of writing or literacy kept him continuing to be burnt out by literacy.  A passage analyzing Jeremy’s experience explains, “…the joys that reading offered prevailed in the end after be burned out by reading so much literature that didn’t interest me.” (Alexander 616).  As Brandt defines literacy sponsors as “any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy – and gain advantage by it in some way” (Alexander 556).  Jeremy’s narrative is an example of literacy sponsorship because the enjoyment Jeremy has from reading and writing about topics that are of interest to him as a way of promoting literacy to those student who do not like to read what is assigned to them but take it upon themselves to find books and write stories that are interesting to them.

 

collreadwrit2e

 

 

In the top right I annotated the difference in structure between a master narrative and a little narrative.  A master narrative is an example of a narrative that is accepted yet does not challenge any particular way of thinking.  A little narrative calls into question the content presented by a master and often present alternative ways of thinking.  On the left photo in the middle between the top and bottom annotations I noted that child prodigies being read to by parents and visited libraries and bookstores and had the resources to succeed was an example of filtering.  The filtering was in correlation with the parents reading to their children and helped filter literacy work such as reading and writing into their primary Discourse enabling them to become gifted or “prodigies”.  In the bottom left annotation I responded to the the statement that, “Child prodigy narratives, like the hero narratives, also reinforce the notion that literacy leads to success.” (Alexander 619).  I am unsure of the concept that literacy leads to success, it may be a way of leading to success but I do not not believe a mastery of literacy necessarily is a guarantee of success.  The idea of success is relative and I would argue as much as it may ensure financial well being in a first world country such as the United States it is just as irrelevant in impoverished nations where literacy isn’t a clear path to success.

 

collreadwrit2e