Questions for this week's readings

There are a few of you who were having a hard time locating this week's questions, so here they are:

Moll

•  Moll, on page 565 of the original text, claims that “by capitalizing on household and other community resources, we can organize classroom instruction that far exceeds in quality the rote-like instruction […] children commonly receive in school.” What would this shift practice look like, practically? That is, what would a classroom that eschews rote, mechanized instruction in favor of a more dialogic flow look life in your opinion? Describe the mise-en-scène.
• According to Moll, why is it important to account for the variegated household dynamics found within his focal classroom, which is a relatively diverse classroom milieu?

Morrell & Duncan-Andrade

• Morrell and Duncan-Andrade argue that students benefit from culturally relevant instruction, yet there has been (and continues to be) ardent resistance insofar as rethinking or recapitulation the “canon” is concerned. Why do you feel that there has been continued resistance to the incorporation of this kind of pedagogy?
• The authors cite Ferdman (1990) who argues that cultural valuation leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition; why do you believe this is the case? More specifically, do you feel that cultural valuation (i.e., valuing a student's culture) in fact leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition?
• Why is it important for students to be taught in their own “native” tongues; and, what kind of transformational experiences do the authors attribute to this kind of instruction?

Anzaldua

• Anzaldua writes that the "home" tongues are the languages spoken among family and friends; according to Gee, what type of discourse is this? Please provide an example of the differences between your particular "home" tongue and the tongue you most frequently adopt when not at "home".
•  Anzaldua argues that language is, essentially, twin-skin to culture; that is to say, that language both instantiates and carries culture. Please discuss what it is that she means by this; and, argue for why you agree or disagree with this argument?
• How can linguistic suppression, or worse oppression lead to negative mis-identification? More specifically, how can linguistic oppression lead to the internalization of pejorative associations for linguistically marginalized groups?

Rose

• Based on his experiences with Vocational education, it seems as though Rose invokes his buoyancy metaphor, (students will float...), pejoratively; is there way in which it can be viewed positively? (Please explain)
• Rose described the “Voc Ed” track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected”; first of all, what does he mean by this? And, secondly, do you feel that remedial tracks still represent a “dumping ground” of sorts? Why or why not?
• What does it mean to be “groomed for the classroom”? On page 37 of the reading (the last full paragraph), Rose describes his subjective experience with literacy: which of Scribner’s three metaphors best encapsulates the relationship that Rose depicts?