“Speaking Up and Speaking Out” and “Hustle and Flow”, focus on the idea of giving minority students the ability to become responsive and critical consumers of all types of literature and media. Though both authors have similar research inquiries, I feel that Jeanine Staples’s approach is more effective.
I have to admit that Annette Henry’s research was more difficult to me to process. I feel she started out with a very legitimate purpose; to give adolescent African Caribbean girls a voice in school; however, I feel her feminist perspective took the research a bit too far for the public education system. I was a bit concerned when she stated she would be coming at the research from a feminist perspective. To me, when we impart our own ideas and beliefs into our teaching, it is bound to cloud and influence how we approach subject matter. I don’t think it is our purpose as teachers to do this. For example, I agree with her quote from postmodern, radical, and critical theorists that states, “public discourse in literacy often refer to skills toward productive but “domesticated” workers in a capitalist system rather than creating independent and critical thinkers”, yet, I don’t like the way she continues and talks about “the false authority of European civilizations” (pg. 237). This has a touch of prejudice to me and I think it could influence what she teaches her students. I also have a hard time with the research she sites on pg. 238 by Kunjufu. I think she is trying to put African American girls into a neat little box to fit her feminist assumptions; unfortunately, I just don’t think you can do that. Also, when she gives the example of the play the two research subjects perform, she fixates on the traditional roles as if they were so wrong and negative, describing the exchange as the girls, “falling into the traditional retellings of a sexist world.” (pg. 246) I do understand her desire to give these girls a voice when it comes to not only school, but the issues and controversies of the world around them. I am glad that she recognized in her conclusion that there is more to our social identity then just race and she understands the importance of taking that into consideration when teaching the girls about their voices.
One of the main reasons I preferred Staples’s research was that she took a more objective approach. I appreciated the fact that although she wanted to teach the students the idea of “re-authorship”, she did not have an underlying agenda in the process. I completely agree with her idea that students are given a label when it comes to school. I would go a step further and say these labels become a self-fulfilling prophecy as well. The children she chose to work with were considered “disengaged”, “struggling”, or “resistant” while in school. In contrast, these same students were seen as “confident tutors” and “lyricists” outside of school. Jeanine Staples set out to see if she could change the way these students saw themselves when it came to being critical thinkers and scholars of literature and multimedia. I particularly liked the way she gave the students a say in the construction of how the text would be questioned and the framework that would be used to approach the narrative. I think this is key in getting buy-in from your students. I also agree completely when she states that teachers must be careful when working with media. Teachers have a need to over-teach as opposed to working with students to co-construct practices, guidelines, and choices of engagement. (pg. 387) I find myself guilty of this at times. It is hard to let go and allow children to drive the instruction as it goes against not only how we were taught, but also how we have been trained to teach. At the end of the paper, Staples shares a comment from her student, Cherie. Cherie states that after examining the term “cultural critic” and determining whether or not she deserved that name, she states that she “began to look at stuff with a different eye from before….with more critical consciousness”. (pg. 388) Isn’t that exactly what 21st literacy is designed to do?
Sally Elliott
Comments (1)
I too was taken aback from the strong admittance of holding a “feminist” perspective. This did seem to hold a bias from the start. As a researcher, this is something that will definitely influence what she is studying, as would a republican/democratic point of view for someone else. I know that we do tend to shed light on things that interests us, but as we have been asked to do in this class, we need to keep an open mind towards research. To some people, the “domesticated” way of life is perfectly acceptable; ones that want to stay in the home, male or female (an idea that she thought of as a negative one).
As for the Staple’s article, I too thought the idea of “re-authorship” was a great way for students to be taught. Taking their own ideas about the text and relating them to the text itself. Making these connections makes reading “real” to students. This is engaging teaching, where student opinions are validated. However, students will not be able to do this on their own; we have to teach them the process to make them critical thinkers.
Posted by Angela Steele | June 15, 2010 9:29 AM
Posted on June 15, 2010 09:29