There were some interesting and varied responses to SRTOL this week so I thought that I might address them all at once (hey, why not try something new?).

Some people were concerned that students be able to express themselves in their own language and, according to the CCCC document, maintain a connection to their home discourse communities. Catherine appreciates the maintainance of the home discourse community language because “when they explore their own language(s), they explore themselves”. Courtney blogs about a similar feeling and writes, “Frequently, I think that in promoting this ideal standard, we tend to forget that this standard is not always realistic or objective. Just as a culture serves as a source of pride, a dialect functions in much the same capacity. Being able to communicate in the same dialect provides a sense of belonging and validation for the speakers.”

While there are many that advocate the maintenance of a student’s language there are also those who argue that a student should be able to become bi-dialectal. Laura P. brings up an interesting dilemma. She realizes the importance of the right to one’s own language but wonders what will happen in society at large while the academy works at making a change within its own ranks before taking it to the public. She writes,
“I know, in class, I supporte (sp) the importance and necessity of becoming bidialectal and, in a way, chameleonic, but being able to swing between dialects and cultural backgrounds, or languages and cultures is not as easy or as natural as it might seem. Finally, one ends up in-between dialects, languages, and that is a no man's land that can be pretty empty and dreary sometimes. ( See Victor Villanueva’s Bootstraps for more on this idea of being tonto in two languages ) As to composition teachers, I think that the most important and useful thing they can do is keep an open mind regarding their students and the latter's right to their own language. However, until the mentality of our whole society is changed, nothing much can be done.” Perhaps the answer to this problem is that scholars must move beyond the realm of the academy and become community activists as well. Change can not and will not happen solely within the walls of the academy, the community must also become involved.

Laura W. picks up on this thought in her blog. She writes, “This article points out that “today’s students will be tomorrow’s employers,” and that this is how change occurs. ( See Lisa Delpit’s Other People’s Children for mote on the idea of educating this generation for future change )But today’s students have to get jobs in today’s world first. I don’t know what the solution to this problem is. Maybe “standard English” isn’t a requisite for many jobs, or maybe we should work with employers to adopt a dialect acceptance policy like that encouraged by schools.”

On the opposite side of the argument for a more progressive move towards a more inclusive pedagogy that recognizes the importance of maintaining cultural connection through language scholars like Peter Elbow have argued that language varieties other than the standard English variety can be used for drafting and fiction (for more on this see Elbow’s Everyone Can Write ). This argument is being posed despite almost 40 years of linguistic research (see William Labov’s Language in the Inner City and John Baugh’s recent Beyond Ebonics : Linguistic Pride and Racial Prejudice ). Matt blogs, “I understand the need for everyone to have their own identity in the English-speaking world, but catering to all these different dialects could almost be considered a modern-day separate but equal. This isn't going to solve anything. There are always appropriate times for culturally-specific dialects, but testing and papers are not two of them. That's unfair to those students who understand the necessity of learning proper English for audience-appropriate papers.” As we, as a profession, grow and learn we must find a way to move beyond what has previously been accepted as “true”.

Adrienne recognizes some of her “old school” training peeking its way through in her own teaching. She blogs, “However, as I grade papers I find myself thinking..."I can't believe he/she has started three sentences with 'And' or 'But,'...that is simply not done! I suppose I must learn to be more progressive and learn to treat the paper more holistically, if you will.” This is an idea that is fortunately gone. We, as educators, have become much more accepting of various kinds of writing styles. How many of us were told as children and/or teenagers never to use 1st person pronouns in our writing? This is now something that is not only welcomed but expected. As teachers relearn a lot of what they had previously been taught we find ourselves forced to change our own pedagogies (for what we hope will ultimately be the best).

Julie's blog says something pretty interesting. Julie writes, "In order for college to deliver on the social equalization it promises, folks have to see education as directly connected to a "better" life." I guess my biggest question here is what do we mean by "better" and how are we defining social equality? If people feel that their lives are made better just by the process of education then I guess we can say that higher ed. does (in part) what it promises to do (but if and only if people believe their lives are better), but in all actuality are Others made more equal by the fact that they are better educated?

Because of education, do all of the social ills disappear? Are Others no longer harrassed or discriminated against? I think that the big part of the Fox argument is that higher ed. is a bandaid on a bullet wound, it isn't big enough or strong enough to cure what is wrong with society.

In her blog, Julia writes "Okay, I must admit that everytime I read discussions like Faigley's history of the revolution of the rich and the myopic/utopic discourses on how the Internet will revolutionize the world, I want to quit academia, retire to an adobe hut in New Mexico, throw pottery, and scribble polemics and fiction (or polemical fiction) on reams of legal pad with my fountain pen, to be hoarded until I ship the boxes of yellowing paper to the last remaining independant publisher in the world just before I kick it." The funny thing is I think that most of us feel that way when we actually think about what technology in higher ed. does. I think that is a good thing to be frustrated and want to call it quits. This shows that you care. This is just the reason that the frustrated would be quitters need to keep going. Without those of us who recognize the inequity of the situation higher ed. and the Others in higher ed. would be in real trouble. Who would be around to fight the good fight? Who would stand up to administration (and industry) and scream not fair? Who would bring up issues of historical access and argue for more inclusive pedagogies?

So Julia, put your hut, pots, paper, and fountain pens on hold....at least for a while.

Looking at Mike's newly themed page, I read "The following quote opened a recent NY Times article on the increase of Distance Ed.: 'In the information age, knowledge is power, and higher education helps secure both. With college credentials come jobs, promotions and salary increases.'...The quote by the NY Times writer seems to show the naturalization of what Samantha notes in the American public's imagination; therefore, the writer can make such a broad statement without receiving much criticism. " This is an issue that I struggle with constantly. What happens when the general public discovers the fallacy of this myth? Left unchecked this could be disasterous. Would the current "haves" continue to seek higher education and continue to "have" while the "have-nots" become discouraged and continue to not have? This seems a bit vague and confusing so let me elaborate. The fact that the belief that education is the great equalizer is a myth is something that we must ask both the "haves" and the "have-nots" to think critically about. We must make people aware of the fact that education does not necessarily bring with it the "American Dream" and simultaneously offer them some semblance of hope that a change can be made (and show them how they can help to make this change) in order to avoid thoroughly discouraging them. Hmmm...more to think about.

In talking about the gender makeup of the internet Margaret quotes Jube Shiver (?), ""...the Internet, once a niche medium that served mostly the male academic and scientific communities, has become, with unprecedented speed, an indispensable communications tool widely embraced by Americans." I know that they studies that we have seen published in the last year or so tell us that women now make up more than 50% of people on the Internet. One of the things I always wonder when I see this study is "What are women on the Internet doing?" Are they shopping (and I am not being essentialist or sexist here, but studies also show that women are swiftly becoming our primary consumers) or are they doing more substantial things like community building, role playing (as in MMORPGs), researching, or web building? If this information was known and we discovered that women use the net primarily for consumerism how would that affect the way the study is interpreted?

Wow, am sorry I missed the Jim Berlin lecture! Erin gives us her take on it. She writes, "And the speaker was lost, just lost. Debates? There were debates? At Georgetown, a teacher would just find such a thing interesting, he said. Technology has already happened. Our students already know that sort of thing. It's already happened -- we just need to worry about the low/high culture or media instead of the old/hot ways of writing and teaching it." I agree with Erin when she says that this is a problem. How can we ignore technology in the classroom when it compounds (in some ways) problems that already exist? To go about our daily teacherly lives as if technology doesn't affect the way that we teach and those that we teach is a very, very dangerous thing. If we don't pay attention to the details of technology in the classroom we are going to create an educational institution (and a society) that is so exclusive (and exclusionary) that we take it back 50 years or more.

Doesn't it always come back to access? In his blog Serkhan questions, "If writing is becoming a highly connective and even an allusive activity, as can be seen in the example, then very sophisticated literacy skills will be needed. This realization brings up these questions: What will be the components of the new writing course? And above all, who will be the writer(s)?" And I would like to add a component to the question rather than attempting to answer it. If literacy education in the traditional sense fails the Other student, what does literacy education with a computer component do to education and to the Other student? Are we adding fuel to an already raging wildfire in our attempts to douse it?


If the answer to this question is yes but we see ourselves as being on a train that is moving too swiftly to jump from, what can we to rectify the compounded problem? What can we do to make sure that those student writers who don't have a higher level of technological "sophistication" don't get left at the station?

In blogging about socio-economics and issues of technological access, Kate came up with some very interesting points. The one that was most interesting to me is the fact that (historical) access is not always determined by economics but by opportunity. While most Apple machines were purchased by high end users, it was not unusual for those who worked in education to own them as well. During this time Apple had fairly well cornered the educational market and offered discounts to school employees. So social status, profession, etc. also had a lot to do with who purchased what kind of machine and who actually purchased a machine. As a child of an earlier generation, my mother purchased our first home computer because she had heard that they were presumably going to be a necessity for students in the very near future (in actuality not so near).

This makes the discussion of access more complex. It goes beyond the economic and into both the social and the personal. Interesting, eh?