Free week

The thing that strikes me as odd about both Gee and Delpit’s articles is that neither is considered with how individuals become literate in reading and writing.  Literacy encompasses more than just an individual’s ability to master Discourses.   In earlier discussions, we talked about how literacy is “pigeon-holed” to highly specific areas, thus, not covering all subjects we can be literate in.  Since these experts are so hung up on individuals being literate in navigating social circles through discourses, how important is it to consider other forms of literacy? 

This is something that has really nagged me because at the very beginning of this semester we were forced to consider all areas of literacy.  The main thing that I have began to consider, in regards to Gee’s Discourse literacy, is how Discourses aide individuals in acquiring other forms of literacy.  Because it is essential to converse with others to learn something new, I cannot disregard the importance of talking with other people.  Without social interactions, it would be more difficult, but not entirely impossible, to learn new tasks. 

Since Delpit’s article disputes Gee’s statements that discourses cannot be taught in school, I align myself more with her concept of literacy.  Schools create a place to increase various types of literacy.  Although schools have fault, some schools have more than others, each school’s goal is to increase students’ knowledge base and promote literacy in multiple subjects.  Subjects are taught independently of each other, but there are many areas that cross over into other subjects; thus, I disagree with Gee that secondary discourses cannot be taught because students are successful in school by learning the “language of school.”