RES 5530: Race, Class, and Gender in Literacy Research (Spring 2009)

I agree! The issues with Standard English that were presented in these chapters were not new; the authors from the previous chapters have identified similar problems. But the authors provided new ideas and examples. Out of the three chapters I enjoyed reading chapters nine and twelve the most, but all of the chapters made me question and analyze my idea of what is appropriate for the classroom.

“Teachers are listened to more than they usually think they are, though listening, understanding and obeying are three different things all together”. I understand the difference between listening, understanding, and obeying and I understand his point, maybe teachers don’t think students are listening to them when they aren’t obeying their directions. I feel that “obeying” is a harsh way to put following directions, simply because I feel that my dog obeys what I say, and humans are on a different level. Either way, students don’t follow every direction or “obey” everything teacher’s say. I enjoyed reading the example he described of the combined K-1 classroom. But I disagree with a point Kohl makes later in the middle of the chapter. When he is presenting the idea of student talk and teacher talk he explains that both teacher talk and student talk are problematic because they have to be interpreted. The part I disagree with is when he states: “This has nothing to do with language differences. It has everything to do with the way in which language is heard and interpreted, with tone, presentation, attitude, implications, and an understanding of how to convey complex meaning in a way that is understood by the spoken-to”. (pg 151) I have always felt that body language can portray the feelings of individuals more than what they say. Therefore, I agree that tone, presentation, attitude, etc. have to be considered and understood but I feel that is part of language. To me that is a language difference, with each culture and age group there are different actions. The reason I am arguing this point is because I think it is important when you see a student laying his head on his desk and comments “there he goes again”. I am referring to one of the examples Kohl describes when visiting classrooms. I think the body language of this student is identifying his feelings much stronger than his words. He may not be lazy, he may not understand, he maybe having a bad day. I also think about the body language of the student from a later example. The student walked in and pushed a student out of his chair and accused the teacher of being racists. I’m sure his body language was very clear when he walked into the classroom. And the teacher who was being “spoken to” could have taken in the body language he was speaking and prepare herself. The most important idea I took from the chapter was: “laugh at the things you’ve said under pressure and share that laughter with your students and talk, talk, talk about how people speak and listen”.

My questions are about statements that were made in chapters ten and twelve. In chapter ten the opening passage notes a resolution that was passed by CCCC in 1974. The footnote states: “Teachers must be trained to respect diversity in order to uphold this right and preserve the heritage and dialects”. This statement and a statement made in chapter 12 made me think about the “training” I have received. I believe that most teachers cannot be instructed on how to become excellent teachers, instead information (like the topics in this book) can be presented and with discussion and problem solving teachers can be “trained”. I also want to ask teachers who are currently in the field: before you read this book were you aware of the problems with adopting Standard English as the only acceptable language? Because this is the only class I have taken that has presented these ideas, maybe there is information available once you enter the school system.

Elizabeth Griffin