Gee and Delpit

Question: How do these terms fit together to frame gee’s overall argument? what is their relevance to Literacy teaching and learning
Answer: the specific recurring terms that Gee uses in his writing work to frame his argument in a way that tries to relate to an everyday teacher or educated reader. He uses these terms to create clearity in his work. He defines the uses of these words and continues to implement them so that his readers are continually engaged and keeping pace. The relevance these terms have to literacy and learning is that they capture the essence of what language is. They acknowledge that language is more than symbols and words. They bring to life that this topic is very much about different stages of individuals’ lives
Question: How do these terms fit together to frame delpits overall argument? What is their relevance to literacy teaching and learning? In particular, what problem does delpit have with gee?
Answer: These terms frame delpits argument in a way that brings life and power to her piece. They enable the reader to read and understand that language, like knowledge, is power. Their specific relevance to literacy and teach are that they demand the reader to recognize that if you do not acquire the dominant discourse if you do not teach the dominant discourse the gap between the “Discourse’s”, as Gee uses it, will never be closed. Her biggest problem with gee is that he is viewing society as two separate entities those who have the power and those who don’t, those who want to belong and do and those who want to and cant. He is not an enabler, one who allows individuals to achieve “the American Dream”, he believes in entitlement and doesn’t think there is room to have upward mobility.
Blog entry
What to gee and delpit have to say to one another?
They argue over the issue of whether language can be acquired or not. Whether it can be taught and learned or just experienced. They have to say to each other that we have a long way to go before we are all on an even playing field.
Where do I stand in relation to the issues they raise in their arguments?
My position in relation to these issues is one that sits in between agreeing with both Gee and Delpit. I agree with Gee that a Discourse is so much more than just a language. It creates a type of personality, which those inside of that Discourse learn to project. I have a strong disagreement with Gee in that he is too much of an absolutist and does not really think that individuals outside of certain discourses can gain acceptance into the dominant discourse, as Delpit defines them. I also like Gee’s ideas about apprenticeship. I really agree that you have to practice the language, mannerisms and everything that goes along with it to become a master of your particular Discourse. As for Delpit I really like her stance against Gee that supports the acquisition of superficial features. It is essential for individuals trying to compete in our society be knowledgeable of every “little secret”. People in our education systems have the right to have the chance to become affluent members of the Dominant Discourse and the only way to do that is to present them with as Gee would say an Identity Kit and show them how to use it.
Considering that students enter our classes with vastly different language experiences, why are these concepts and their arguments relevant to us as English teachers? What further questions do they raise?
These concepts and their arguments are relevant and important to us as English teachers because we all need to understand that there is a significant gap between the Discourses and we have the potential to become pivotal players in educating our youth to be members of the Discourse of their choosing. These issues and arguments are important because once in the classroom it will be up to us to decide what and how to teach these students. It will be on our shoulders to include or not the superficial features that create more inclusion it will be up to us to teach or “Not-teach” and students will rely on us to persuede them and encourage them to be students who want to learn and ignore the urge to become “non-learners”. The questions that are presented to me are how many teachers out there have the same mind set as Gee does in his essay and what can we do to help them realize that all people are equal and every student deserves teachers who constantly give their all everyday for as long as the choose to teach no matter who they are teaching.
What specific topics/questions would you like to explore further in regard to language and literacy? What seems important for you to know?
I am interested in further exploring some of the terms and ideas associated with the Gee and Delpit such as Not-Learning, Not Teaching, superficial feature, apprenticeship and meta-knowledge. It seems important to me to have knowledge of why students choose not to learn, what motivates them to drop out of school or just show up and do nothing. With this I am also very interested in why a teacher would feel as though they need to dumb down their lessons and what the choose to teach or not to teach. I really agree with Gee on some aspects of superficial features and apprenticeship and I want to know more and how to apply them to my own soon to be classroom. And I would simply like to read more on Gee’s idea of meta knowledge