3.24 Hawisher & Selfe, Brandt and Exam review

Brandt. Kristi provided an overview and facilitated discussion of Brandt.  In response to her first question about how, whether & to what extent economics drive literacy - we kind of covered just about everything in the article.  We made a chart of factors which shaped the literate lives of the two individuals described in Brandt's first case, and worked through material that produced one of Hawisher & Selfe's conclusions - that literate lives unfold within complex cultural ecologies with influences at the macro, medial and micro levels which create unique configurations/constellations for the experiences which shape us.  Our reflections on Lopez and Branch were in many ways allowed us to work through a particular comparison of how the different positionings of family identity, family support, local resources, choice/interest and how it connects to current economic sponsors (technology interests v bilingual education), educational opportunities, employment opportunities, and so on ( shoud have copied the list from the board - it was much more comprehensive.  

We spent some time defining sponsorship, and touched on the main points of the essay:

Definition of sponsorshipDiscussion of patterns of sponsorship

• Sponsorship + access => stratification
• Sponsorship + the literacy crisis=> competition
• Sponsorship and agency = appropriation

Reflections + role of educators

Gina  provided an overview of Hawisher & Self, Pearson & Moraski's co-authored piece on relationships between emerging digital communication technologies and literacies.  Main points/ important terms:

cultural ecology - macro, medial, and micro environments that shape and are shaped by the literacy practices of the individuals who live within themgateways -for some literacies, school will not be the only or even the most important gatewayliteracies have lifespansagency - is shaped by macro, medial and micros circumstancesliteracy circulates both up and down through generations

Google docs review sheet.   On the review sheet, we started to categorize (name & characterize) the paradigmatic assumptions, main points and strength & weaknesses of the essays we read this term.  See list below.

Berlin (1982), 235

Brodkey  (1989) p 621. 

Anderson et al (2006, pdf on Course Blog); 

Royster (1996), 555;

Elbow (1999), 641

Perl (1976), 17;

Castillo & Chandler (2013), pdf

Bartholomae (1985),523 ;  

Heath (1983) pdf;

Hawisher & Selfe (2004), pdf;

Brandt, pdf.

For next week:
Read:  Review Appendix on research proposals  in Mertens.

Write: midterm exam => send to  Sally Chandler <eng5002.01@gmail.com>  at or before class on Monday.

Come to class prepared to think about your research proposal.  We will look at some sample proposals and develop an assessment tool.