RES 5535: Race, Class, and Gender in Literacy Research (summer 2010)

In chapter 5, I could easily see Jake in his classroom settings of Kindergarten, first- and second-grade. I could see the energetic, physically active and involved little boy building and talking as he told animated stories of Kindergarten adventure. I could also see the same little boy in first-grade sitting in back of the group during story time or other whole group activity finding something, anything else to focus on during that unbearable span of time. It hit home for me I guess because I see it so often. One particular student stands out in my mind as being very similar to Jake. They both had parents who were concerned about his education at school, but could see the intelligences in their child that might could go unrecognized in school. His mom worked in a dr.’s office and his dad worked in construction. He, too, was very involved in his father’s work, riding four-wheelers, camping and riding horses. He tried so hard to participate in classroom activities, more for me than for himself. He wrote stories almost daily about riding four-wheelers, working with his dad, or something along those lines. He always met me with excitement and a smile on his face in the mornings, but I know he LIVED for recess! When I would see his mom, she would always say, “I just don’t know what to do about him. He hates school. He loves you, but he hates school. You know, he’s just all boy!” I actually talked to her just the other day, and this past year (his second-grade year) was no different. Luckily, with support he was able to leave my first grade classroom on grade level, but I can see how a young boy with these same traits (such as Jake) could have a very difficult time in a classroom discourse as opposed to the hands-on, more physically involved discourse of home.

I also thought, of course, about my own son. Although he enjoys nothing more than being outside, he didn’t quite fit the picture of Jake. I know our situation is a little different than that of Jake’s family, but not all that much. I was thinking while I read that with one subject as a sample in Hick’s research, the mold really didn’t fit all the boys you would find in working-class homes. I hoped that people wouldn’t take her research as a generalization, or stereotype of these boys. That was a point she later brought up, though. In chapter 6 she refers to Mike Rose’s (1989) Lives on a Boundary, and states his understanding that looking at the particulars in the lives of those we study, or write, or read about could lead to stereotypes instead of overall moral understanding. Her point being that we can not look at all students or situations of students the same. They all have different histories they bring with them, and we have to look at each one as individually unique.

This passage from chapter 6 stood out to me.
“All moments of language use occur with others who give voice to culturally specific language practices. A spoken word or written text is uttered (or written) in response to some other—a particular speaker, a text previously encountered, words appearing in the media, an imaginary listener.”
She goes on to say that therefore any language act is multi-vocal, being influenced by every past experience of that person. That was intriguing, and so true! How many times have we all caught ourselves saying things that were said to us before, whether it was yesterday or as children? We are a culmination of everyone we come into contact with, and we pass on those experiences to some extent to everyone we meet. That is really something to think about. What kind of influence do I want to have on those I meet? What part of me will I leave behind with someone else through the language I engage in with them?

Marcia Smith