sorry folks! i posted the wrong set of questions last time! luckily there is only one
response (trinity's response) to the wrong question so far. here are the correct questions
i would like the rest of you to answer by monday 11:59pm. thanks and sorry for the
confusion!
Multimodality and assessment
Stornaiuolo, A., Hull, G., & Nelson, M. (2009). Mobile Texts and migrant
audiences: Rethinking literacy and assessment in a new media age. Language
Arts, 82 (5), 382-92.
- In this article, the authors argue that young people growing up in a
digitally mediated educational milieu have “wide-ranging opportunities to
choose how to represent themselves in relationship with others (pp. 383 of
original text).” Does this argument seem somewhat naïve or romanticized in
that these very same young people face far greater constraints, where
identity construction is concerned, i.e., available selves, vis-à-vis their
more affluent white counterparts?
- The authors argue for a re-conceptualization of the current
measurements, which seek to gauge young people’s cognitive
abilities/capabilities. More specifically, they argue for assessments that
take into account poor, marginalized students’ multimodal,
culturally-informed, pre-existent identities. If these types of
measurements are enacted, what if any, effect do you feel they will have on
the lives of young people whose lived experiences mirror the students
highlighted in this paper?
Stein, Pippa. (2004). Representation, rights, and resources: Multimodal
pedagogies in the language and literacy classroom. In Bonny Norton &
Kelleen Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (95-115).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- The author argues that: “Classrooms are semiotic [meaning-making]
spaces in which multimodal texts are constantly being produced and
transformed by human beings who are the agents of their own meaning-making
(pp. 98 of original text).” Do you agree with this line of thinking? More
to the point—are students truly “agents of their own meaning-making” or are
they identities, in fact, informed and (re)configured by the institutions
and structures that they are enmeshed within? (This doesn’t have to be an
“either/or” argument.)
- Do you agree with Stein’s argument that language is limited? What
does she mean by this? Please explain.
I thought that the information was interesting, but I found myself getting bored. I’m glad there were interesting graphics to keep me involved and following what he said. I once heard you forget 95% of what you hear in lecture, but I will probably retain much more information when the message is reinforced with (stimulating) graphics. I appreciated that he questioned why we educate children by age groups. I suppose the answer is simple though: it’s easier. But what’s easy is not right for education. I appreciated his comments on group learning because at Cal, when you have curved classes, you isolate yourself from other students when you could potentially actually be learning a lot more due to interaction with other students. Theorists have argued that people learn best when they teach the subject in conjunction with reading and hearing a message. Why not get together in study groups and ‘teach’ each other materials for our tests? Oh that’s right, because the class is curved so we hope the person sitting next to us flunks (sad, right?).
ReplyDeleteI did not like his comments on ADHD nor his map. Here at Cal, for example, there are a LOT of people diagnosed with ADHD, whether medicated or not. His own point that children have an over stimulating environment is very true and lends itself to the argument that ADHD is on the rise and is not concentrated in particular areas.
Question: Why does the speaker refer to education as a production line?
References:
In this course we’ve discussed a lot about what is intelligence and how do we measure it? We’ve seen that classrooms use mainly the classics to evaluate, but many of the authors we’ve been reading advocate that we need to make education relevant to children’s lives. Children are more intelligent when measured on something other than standardized tests and assignments based on classics (Morell) (Hudley) (Gee) (Delpit). In this short animation, the narrator also quarrels with this notion of using the classics. He advocates more of an individualized approach and maintaining culture in the school system.
~Trinity Taylor~
In the article by Stornaiuolo, Hull, and Nelson, I do not see their opinion on how young people have wide-ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves in relationship with others as naive or romanticized. Although I understand that seventh graders in Oakland may have constraints due to their economic status or racial identity, I still believe that they have the ability to represent themselves in a multitude of ways through media. For example, no one is forcing Ismael to represent himself in a certain way he had the freedom to choose how he would liked to be portrayed. In many ways, the opportunities that are found in the digital world allow students to hold the power on how they would like to be seen by the world. Also, when the authors argue for assessments that take into account the poor and marginalized students, I believe it would produce a more well-rounded and accurate evaluation. The young people in the article like Dara, would be able to be assessed fairly by not merely testing them as a white middle class student but instead taking into account their culture and unique upbringing.
ReplyDeleteIn Stein’s reading, she explains how human beings are their own agents of meaning-making, but also acknowledges how teachers are interpreters of the numerous textual products used in in classrooms (98). Considering this, I see human beings as having the freedom to decide how they would like to perceive the world. Although when in a classroom or an institutional system, students are constantly being informed by other people’s biased opinions and beliefs. This is when it is important to use Paulo Freire’s concepts of the banking system and problem-posing system found in schools. The banking system relies more on biased informing and inhibiting students to think for themselves, while the problem-posing system focuses on creative and free thinking human beings. I do agree with Stein’s argument that language is limited, especially when explaining suffering. She suggests that language is a mode of communication subject to constraints around what is unthinkable and unsayable within the silence context of existing cultural forms (108).
This argument seems a little naïve. There are some limits that young people face when portraying their identity. Young people today seem to have more outlets to express themselves and create an identity online. There is more outlets and resources available, yet there are still some constraints. It cannot accurately describe them. Technology cannot replace a face-to-face relationship. Also, not everyone is able to due to economic limits or a lack of other resources.
ReplyDeleteI think if we were to gauge young people’s cognitive abilities the results would be much different. There are students that have more resources and able to succeed on the right tests and have resources. It would show the true ability to learn and retain information rather than biased towards the students who have resources that help them succeed.
I believe that students have the ability to create their own identity within the classroom. The classroom can become a place where they can express themselves and begin to learn new way of viewing themselves. Yet at the same time institutions and structures can corrupt them. The classroom has the possibility to let students imagine a whole new life and a different way of thinking or it can be a way for them to learn to conform. School can be used either as a positive or negative tool.
I agree with Stein’s argument that language is limited. There is only so much that writing can get with so many other forms of literacy. There are many ways for people to express themselves besides writing that is powerful.
- Cassi Hoyt
While it is true that digital media creates “wide-ranging opportunities” for young people to represent themselves in relationship with others, I believe that this notion is somewhat naïve. Digital media allows disadvantaged students to make conscious decisions about how they would like to be perceived by the greater digital community, providing them with freedoms that physical human interaction does not always allow. However, not all young people have access to digital media, due to economic status and race, and are therefore unable to employ digital media. Additionally, representations that are formed online are not sufficient enough to create substantial relationships with others, and these students must still face the constraints placed upon them during face-to-face interactions.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a re-conceptualization of the current measurements would be extremely beneficial to the lives of young people who have similar experiences to the ones in this article. As we learned from Steele and Aronson’s study, students who experience racial and economic prejudice, automatically perform lower than students who do not experience these sorts of prejudices. Acknowledging these outside factors would produce measurements that better represent the actual cognitive abilities of young people.
I agree that classrooms should be spaces in which students can act as “agents of their own meaning-making”, but I believe that oftentimes the structure of the schooling system and individual pedagogies of teachers prohibit this type of self-identification. I think that certain classroom environments encourage the type of free-thinking and creativity necessary in creating a semiotic space, but many others force students to think and act within the constraints they are forcefully placed upon them by people higher up in the institutions of learning.
I agree with Stein’s argument that language is limited, as it must work within the “constraints and possibilities in relation to what constitutes the unsayable within particular and culutural domains” (108). This is one of the reasons that it is important to view literacy as more than reading and writing because people must be able to communicate effectively in situations where thoughts and feelings are unsayable.
I do think that there is definitely value in digital media, and that it can in some circumstances create “wide-ranging opportunities” for young people. However, there are limits, and the authors do seem to overlook these and romanticize this idea in their article. There are two main points that I think are important in the discussion, both of which my class mates have touched on to some extent or other. The first is an access issue, where not every student has equal opportunity to use digital media, a lot of the time because of economic status. The other issue is that of creating this ‘identity’. While there are times in which students could find freedom of expression through digital media, there are also definitely constraints in trying to express oneself through it. Some students might find it hard to accurately represent themselves online, and there is also a potential to misrepresent oneself without even meaning to.
ReplyDeleteA re-conceptualization of current measures and tests of student’s cognitive abilities could be very beneficial for poor, marginalized students. We’ve seen in many of our readings how these students’ upbringing and education can be very different from the standard white middle class. Accounting for these differences could make a world of difference for these students because it takes us away from the idea that every student is the same and should test the same.
I believe that Stein’s line of thinking of ‘classrooms as semiotic spaces’ can be true, but it definitely depends on the environment in which the students are being taught. In the right classroom students can definitely become ‘agents of their own meaning-making’, but it needs to be an environment in which they have a teacher and support system to encourage them to do so. It is just as easy for a student to be in a learning environment where they are structured and configured by the institution and have very little freedom to form their own identities and meaning.
Stein does have a point in her argument that language is limited. There is a restriction on what one can say and who can say it through cultural taboos. While there is this socio/cultural limit, one can see why exploring other ‘literacies’ could be very important as a way of allowing people to express themselves through alternative means to written and spoken words.
I do agree with the idea of young people having wide ranging opportunities due to the digital media, but it’s difficult to say that this argument is naïve or being romanticized. I agree that everyone doesn’t have the same social statuses, ethnic backgrounds, and availability to the digital media, but it varies between different individuals. The fact that these representations on the digital media help create opportunities for young people such as jobs, making new friends, or getting to know someone they just met can be valid reasons to support the author’s argument. The reason why I believe it’s hard to say that the argument is naïve or being romanticized is that if the question was posed by saying that the digital media “doesn’t” create opportunities; the answer would be just the same.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a re-conceptualization of current tests towards a student’s cognitive ability would benefit many students, especially the students with fewer resources. The fact that many students don’t have the same resources as the middle class public schools or private schools, education becomes very difficult to teach.
I found the idea of the semiotic space to be very an effective way to teach students in our society today. The idea of students becoming agents of their society and making meaningful decisions in the classroom can help students to become active member of their community. If the teacher and student work together and allow each other to focus on what a student’s future holds, I believe that this can be a great solution against the banking education system we have today.
I do agree with Stein and how language is limited. Especially in a place with many different cultures and social statuses, a limit is placed due to not having the experience or knowledge of everyone around them. But that is why we focus on the idea and importance of literacy. I believe with different forms of literacy such as expression through digital media or other means to be a bridge to these barriers and limits.
I think the argument that kids nowadays have lots of venue to digitally express themselves is pretty accurate for the most part, or at least on surface level. On social media sites alone, kids can express themselves through pictures, quotes, music; they can upload their artwork and poetry. They can even express their opinions of other people's representations and opinions through comments. Indeed, options for how kids can express themselves have expanded. At the same time, the options don't in and of themselves cause a kid to represent him or herself freely. Kids are restrained to those digitally mediated options, and because digital media is very accessible (save for the population of kids that don't have access to digital media, which is another limitation of digital media), kids are prone to feel peer-pressured to represent themselves a certain way that does not always coincide with their own identities.
ReplyDeleteI believe that ideally, classrooms should be "meaning-making spaces" in which kids can proactively make meaning of the things that they learn in a multi-modal fashion. I see how this can be true because I feel like the school that I grew up in did not encourage the banking model of education; rather, the teachers encouraged students to find out "truth" for themselves and not to simply absorb the teachers' opinions and thoughts. However, I can see how the classroom environment, as it now stands, can detract from the idea of learning as "meaning-making." I don't think it's always even on purpose; the student act of simply sitting in seats listening to teachers speak information and give directions often does not lend itself to encouraging students to challenge, question, or apply. Thus, although I think classrooms should definitely try to be "meaning-making spaces," I understand that it is a challenge often simply due to the structure and tradition of a classroom.
I can see how media can channel new and creative forms of literacy of this age of technology. Although I do agree that minority students do have a much greater disadvantage compared to their white counterparts, precisely because I have seen the difference within my own educational experience. Even to this day, my high school’s computer lab is restricted to computers from the 1990’s. They are slow and easily freeze whenever we have the need to use them. Furthermore, students who have to use the computer for school projects are also at a disadvantage in today’s age if they themselves do not own one. However, I do agree that digital media can provide a wide range of opportunities for children to express themselves, but it also depends on whether they can actually use their literacy to depict what they truly are trying to convey. As we have seen in previous articles, programs such as DUSTY has helped students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds ways to demonstrate their talent in a different setting found in a classroom. Therefore, if we were to re-conceptualize current measurements, the growth of literacy among students can and could grow into something that can give insight into how these children view their world.
ReplyDeleteA classroom, as Stein and Pippa define it, as meaning-making spaces can definitely produce results. When I was in high school, the magnet program I was in emphasized free-thinking and to question the information that we received. This important element of critical thinking allowed me to engage with current social, political, and economic issues with a better grasp and clearer understanding of my own thoughts. In some states Montisori schools have become popular in which a child is encouraged to think on their own starting from a young age. Language however can be a limiting factor when we live in a country where so many different cultures exist. If we were to try and emulate a meaning-making space it would be hard due to the comfort zone of the current classroom structure and the language barrier some students have in the classroom.
The argument of Stornaiuolo, Hull, and Nelson that digital media allows young people to have “wide-ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves” is valid to a certain degree. Digital media has become one of the main means of communication in today’s society that is widely used by today’s younger generation, which supports the argument of the authors that young people can now choose how to represent themselves by personalizing his or her online profile in a way that allows individuals to portray themselves in a manner that is in his or her best interest. However, there are two factors that make me believe that the argument is somewhat romanticized: 1) The image that an individual creates for his or herself may not portray the actual person the individual represents 2) Since the representation of an individual’s identity using digital media outlets is often created through the use of uploaded images, the economic gap between non-affluent and affluent individuals will still be prevalent in the uploaded photos.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument that there should be a re-conceptualization of the current measurements that are used to gauge an individual’s cognitive abilities. Today’s system is based solely on an individual’s performance on standardized tests, which is only effective at gauging an individual’s test taking ability. If assessments begin to take into account the complexities of muliliteracies that are evident when looking at a classroom of diverse students, the classroom experience of students - whose lives are similar to the lives of students that are highlighted in the paper – will continue to improve as the current situation that privileges particular students and disenfranchises others slowly dissipates as focus on standardized test becomes secondary to measurements that actually gauge the cognitive abilities of students.
Although I would like to agree with the statement that student are “agents of their own meaning-making”, I do not believe that this line of thinking is accurate of today’s society. While students do have the ability to make their own decisions that are in the best interest of their future goals, which allows students to create their own identities as they get older, I believe that the current state of today’s society and the structures that are embedded within today’s society almost forces an individual to somewhat conform his or her identity to what is socially accepted if the individual wishes to make his or her dreams a reality.
I agree with Stein’s argument that language is limited. Stein argues that the educational system should “develop pedagogies that provide access to groups or individuals who wish to represent their meanings and understanding through their preferred modes of communication, which may include, or go beyond, language” (113). Language is constrained by numerous forces, including culturally accepted ideas of what is politically correct and incorrect, that may limit what an individual may reveal through the use of language. For this reason, it is important to look at other forms of expression that actually allow a student to overcome the constraints that exists when an individual relies solely on language to express his or her thoughts and feelings.
I think that while the statement that students “wide-ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves in relationship with others" (383) is not in and of itself naive the emphasis that is placed on that idea is so. While it is valuable that students can find the tools to express or create their own identity easily in a world where most first world students have routine Internet access, having the passive tools to create an identity only goes so far in empowering children to construct a positive meaningful identify and awakening them as agentive actors. This becomes more complicated when we consider the overwhelming obstacles that underprivileged students and students of color will face in constructing a positive and powerful personal identify.
ReplyDeleteIt is an excellent idea to re-tailor testing so that it is more interactive and broadens it's definition of literacy by taking in to account the background and experiences of a student. This could allow for a student to be better understood as a person and create a positive environment where testing enhanced or explored who a student was rather than measuring an arbitrarily chosen aspect of their abilities. Doing so would likely be a way to begin to narrow the achievement gap between middle class children, who the current tests are tailored to, and underprivileged children.
To say that students are makers of their own meaning perhaps over states how empowered students are. While students certainly do have opportunity and standing to create meaning for themselves they are also constantly besieged by the meanings that society, adults, and other children have made for them and it is a difficult task to recognize those constructs, navigate them, and digest them in order to find your own meaning. I agree that language is limited (ie not everything can be expressed through simple language and that some concepts and forms of expression move beyond language) and think that that is an important factor to be mindful of in discussing literacy.
-Luke Edwards
In “Mobile Texts and Migrant Audiences,” I agree that nowadays kids have many forms of communication they can utilize to represent themselves. They can create individual personas through social media sites, digital stories, pictures, videos, stories, other text, etc. With that said, I don’t think the article is romanticized. I do understand that many have economic restraints that prevent them from being able to use such multimedia, like computers and internet. In that sense, the article is naïve to imply kids today are afforded numerous ways to portray themselves through media and electronics, when those opportunities are often unequal.
ReplyDeleteBy evaluating students on cognitive abilities and identities through multimodal means, researchers will find many have reasoning skills and high literacy that extend beyond traditional teaching. I believe we put too much emphasis on standardized testing, when we should move toward more “unorthodox” methods to measure students’ capabilities. Many students in the article show high cognitive function, revealed through their discussion of how to portray themselves to children in other countries who may not understand specific English terms.
Regarding “Representation, Rights, and Resources,” I agree to an extent that students are “agents of their own meaning-making.” Students develop their own personalities and opinions and are free to portray themselves however they choose. Environments and outside institutions do impose their own ideals on students, which can force points of view and shape personal experiences, but those students are ultimately the ones to choose whether or not to follow those principles. At the same time, there’s an issue with what’s deemed “socially acceptable,” which is enforced by society and can give students less freedom with their own “meaning-making.”
I agree when Stein says language is limited. Stein believes there are ways of communication that transcend language, as language itself holds several constraints. Even putting aside separate languages, there are many dialects and styles of speaking within the same country that limit how people communicate. Race, culture, and economic status are so engrained in society that inherent differences among people are also brought to light, which inhibit how people converse.
I do think that the argument Hull and Nelson make in some ways can be seen as naive or romanticized. That is not to say that I do not see the benefits of young people that young people receive from growing up in a digitally mediated educational milieu. While I do think that there are “wide-ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves in relationship with others” in digital culture, there are drawbacks to being too involved, or growing up, in a time when face-to-face interaction has become of less importance, it can be a bad idea to to develop ones identity online. I say this because it can be easy for a kid to try to subscribe to a certain image they want themselves to be perceived as, and thus represent themselves online in this way. By doing this, I think it can be easy for a kid to get lost in what is their online self, and their real self. The earlier years of a persons life are very profound, and this is a time when kids are very impressionable and easily influenced. If they present themselves differently online, in contrast to who they are in reality, it can create an instability in being able to fully understand oneself, and ones identity. I think a re-conceptualization of the current measurements, which seek to gauge young people’s cognitive abilities and capabilities, would be an extremely beneficial thing. As discussed many times in class, there are many outside factors to consider when looking at students, and to break outside the traditional method would allow many students to be more fairly represented.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would like for students to be truly “agents of their own meaning-making,” I believe that they can only be these agents to a very small extent. I feel that the way school systems are structured, and what students are brought up to believe is important within school, disables students from truly being able be “agents of their own meaning-making.” Students are instead socialized in the school system to regurgitate information, and to try their best to stay within the lines. By this I mean, they are brought up to believe that things such as standardized tests, and the ability to have perfect grammar and writing are what is considered important within a classroom, so if a student doesn’t fall into these perfectly drawn lines, it is easy for them to become less confident or interested in school, thus restricting their ability to become “meaning-makers.” I do agree with Stein’s argument that language is limited because there are many times when one cannot or is not able to express what they want or need to say verbally or written. Because of this, as we have discussed in class many times, it is essential to look at and respect language and literacies from many different angles and points of views.
1. I find this argument to be a bit naive. In the age of digital media children have a slough of opportunities to portray themselves in different lights. Although I would agree that some children face greater constraints to the use of digital media . I do feel that these constraints may be counteracted. Afterschool programs, community center, and various other placed not only provide a location for the use of such digital media, but often provide lessons or help operating through the technical aspects of using new age media.
ReplyDelete2. Such a reconceptualizaton would be great. Students who have less resources, are of minority races, or from a lower socioeconomic status are hindered in their in their ability to perform as compared to those who do not face similar circumstance. Bringing light to such differences would allow the actual cognitive ability of a student to be measured.
3. Stein explains humans are their own agents of creating identity and therefore I believe the classroom can and should allow a student to create their own identity. But the restrictions that institutions like schools impose and the various teaching practices could restrict the children’s ability to freely create their own identity.
4. Yes, I would agree language is limited. There is a restriction to what one can say and do through various limits, like as holly mentioned taboos and socioeconomic limits. However, as we have explored through out this course literacy is much more than just language.
the one above was Joyce H.
ReplyDeleteThe article is somewhat naïve, yes. Upon reading it for the first time, I noticed a lot of reiteration of the same thing: “redefining literacy” to incorporate “multimodal learning” which will “expand potential” in students and their ability to make meaning (reader 912) . I noticed this concept being repeated many times. I understand the necessity to reiterate an important argument, very much so. However, I feet parts of the article fell short of reaching a conclusion readers could use to further fuel their pedagogical efforts in teaching (in a detailed way). The article states that our task, as teachers and people interested in education and learning, is “to reimagine not just what assessments of multimodal learning look like, but what we mean by literacy itself in a global world”(reader 912). I agree with this statement, but there appears to me to be more room for detailed suggestions. The article falls short in a couple of ways and one of them, to answer the question on the article, is I believe the argument regarding students’ opportunities to represent themselves is a little romanticized. I believe it is romanticized due to its lack of specificity. It seems more difficult to include the greater constraints these young people face, and I think perhaps that is why it is not elaborated on,--or just spoken of broadly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stein, in some ways, that language is limited. Through exploring the ESL class in Johannesburg, she way able to observe the benefits of a multi-modal approach to teaching a language, by incorporating spoken, written, visual, performance and gestural communication. In this approach, I think language steers away from being as limited as it perhaps could be if it were only taught with a text book, for example. What Stein points out is the difficulty language teachers face in light of so much diversity. The “unsayable” and “unthinkable” things she discusses is a limit (reader 923). Some cultures and even genders within those cultures are condition, by virtue of their culture, to not say certain things. She puts it well when she says “The politics and practices of representation in classrooms become particularly challenging in sites where learners and teachers come from very diverse historical, sociocultural, and linguistic contexts” (reader 924). I believe the aforementioned is a good example of where language can be limited.
I agree some part of Stornaiuolo, Hull and Nelson’s article, “wide-ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves in relationship with others.” because, online media is a good way to express emotions and show your ideas. Specially, the young generation uses the Face Book to communication with friends and family members in today society. Students are the excellent way to practice literacy. Along with, people use as finding people and goods such as looking for jobs and employees. However, people can create false identification that would easily malice. In other hands, every culture is a different outlet to deals with others. Although, many people do not know it that might hurt other people feelings or give them wrong ideas.
ReplyDeleteI agree to a re-conceptualization of the current measurements, which seek to gauge young people’s cognitive abilities/capabilities. Since, all human beings are not learning one or same way. In addition, the students are not having some source to learn in class such as private school verse public school or low income class verse middle-class students. I agree to Luke Edwards’ answer, “This could allow for a student to be better understood as a person and create a positive environment where testing enhanced or explored who a student was rather than measuring an arbitrarily chosen aspect of their abilities.”
I have the same opinion to Stein, “Classrooms are semiotic [meaning-making] spaces in which multimodal texts are constantly being produced and transformed by human beings who are the agents of their own meaning-making.” Children should free to show express emotion, own ideas and views in a classroom. However, this semiotic need teachers outline or school system because those systems are right ways to show how to communication with others. Furthermore, I agree with Stein’s argument that language is limited because culture different.
The digital world has opened doors for many young adults to express themselves through blogs, music, pictures, etc. Although it does open opportunities to young adults, the argument seems naïve in the way that young adults who are disadvantage make decisions on how they want to perceive themselves in the digital world. I know this through experience, because I am always careful on what I type and how I want others to see me. Furthermore, disadvantage students are not always able to access to a computer or properly use a computer at school if they’re old and slow. So these students do not always have the opportunity to express themselves or network in the digital world due to limitations.
ReplyDeleteI would actually be glad if these assessments were enacted because many students who are marginalized are not able to perform the same as those who aren’t marginalized. By actually taking into account these factors would allow these students to actually show their true cognitive capabilities without having to worry that the only standard measurement made for white middle class is strongly enacted.
I agree with Stein that children are “agents of their own meaning-making” and I believe that schools should allow students to act as agents because that’s the best way they can interpret their ideas. However, the institutions limit them from expressing themselves therefore not allowing them to think creatively or outside the box. Therefore, institutions can reconfigure the identities of students by making them abide by their standards and ways of expressing their views.
I do agree that language is limited because there are restrictions that block people of diverse backgrounds to communicate the best way they know how. Stein believes that there are only certain ways of communication and expression that make it hard for people of different backgrounds to adapt and comprehend accordingly. Like we learned through the course of the semester, there are many ways people express themselves in literacy.
Stornaiuolo, Hull, and Nelson’s argument seems romanticized because it lacks regard to existing restraints faced by young people. The “wide ranging opportunities” they emphasize in the digital seem to always already be influenced by societal assumptions. What was brought to mind were the Griffith images Professor Nora showed in class. The images portrayed stereotypes of Asian and Black students in a way that shows that the digital does not function independently of societal assumptions. I feel that incorporating poor, marginalized students’ multimodal, culturally informed pre-existent identities can only have a beneficial impact in the lives of students. Taking this into account makes it so that“...learning’s complexity (is not turned) into a number that is then used to compare people, we necessarily privilege those who make meanings in ways compatible with the measure used (385).” Following the same thread of students facing greater constraints, is Stein’ argument about the classroom being a “meaning-making space.” Though I agree that students are agents, they are also a part of the larger structures they are enmeshed with. This relationship is characterized by Lungile’s performance, “...manifests a style of being that arises out of a syncretic mix of her unique qualities as a performer in accordance with cultural and historical norms around what it means to inhabit femalesness” (103). What this shows is how Lungile is her own agent in performing but her performance is not independent of the “cultural and historical norms” she is a part of. This is also made applicable to Stein’s understanding of language as limited. Because language works out of the cultural and societal norms from which it is employed it allows expression while it is also limited.
ReplyDeleteFor the first question , I agree with Cassi Hoyt and Laura Belknap that this argument sounds a little bit naive. Although digital medias indeed allow students to create their identities in the digital space, it doesn't necessary help the interaction in real life. Since the sudden boom of the internet in 2000, more and more people have started to represent their identity through the internet. For example, in China, people use QQ, one the most popular instant messaging tools, to make friends with others from other province. Some of them built up relationship online. What happened when they met each other in real life was, they all freaked out because what they thought of each other didn't exist in real life. Therefore, I would say technology would help in one way but it can not replace face-to-face interaction.
ReplyDeleteSteele and Aronson's article points out that students who experienced prejudice preform worse than the ones who don't experience. The resources that students use in school play really important part on their academic performance. Some poor people are not able to afford their books and other expenses. Therefore, a re-conceptualization of the current measurements would be beneficial to those young people.
I agree that classrooms are semiotic spaces. Language is a powerful tool and there is no constrain to apply language to express what students are thinking. Like the game that I observed in St. Cornelius, students are given a topic to create a scene by writing their own script. I saw that some students made up some sentences that I didn't understand while their classmates all understood. The practice of freely using their own meaning-making would help improve student's creativity.
I agree with Stein's argument that language is limited. As I mentioned in the previous question, language is such a powerful tool to use to create infinite meaning-makings.