I. The Nature and Range of Discourses

A central portion of Ruddell’s argument is Gee’s idea of Discourses (almost certainly borrowed from Russian philosopher/literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin’s Dialogic Imagination). For those of you without access to Chapter 1 of Ruddell’s text Teaching content reading and writing, “Discourse” is defined as “ways of thinking, acting, speaking, believing, valuing, [and] interacting…. Like chameleons, we are all highly capable of participating in a variety of Discourses” (6).
As I understand it, there is a distinct Discourse for every hat one might wear – each social role brings with it its own specialized language or dialect, in addition to behavioral expectations. I think we’re all accustomed to this idea on a fundamental level. We implicitly recognize that our speech patterns differ depending on context and surroundings. The language and behavior we use at home differs from that which we use at school, or in a conference, or at a social gathering. In linguistics, these varieties of language are called “registers,” and I feel the issue of registers is of special importance when discussing the development and refinement of literacy.
As an English teacher, I feel it is crucial to expose my students to formal registers. As Ruddell says, all students “can read something” – the trick is to ascertain where their reading skills lie and to build upon those foundations (7). In my experience (however limited it might be), students come to us as experts of the informal registers they use at home and with friends, but with very little experience with formal language. This is the source of one of my biggest struggles. Do I drill grammar, spelling, punctuation, usage, mechanics, and other facets of Standard English? Or do I grade holistically, paying little attention to conventions and greater attention to content and quality of thought? I suppose I should alternate between the two, but for some reason I am having a difficult time balancing the two extremes. My own secondary education stressed precision and accuracy in communication, which is probably one of the reasons I entered the English field to begin with. But my coursework in Education tended to push me in the direction of leniency…after all, how can I expect all of my students to operate on an advanced level? In a perfect world, I could differentiate my instruction to highlight content vs. convention with ease, but I’m grappling with this issue right now.
The idea of Discourses is similarly prevalent to teachers of other subject areas as well. Effectively, each course has its own Discourse. In order to succeed, students must become literate in each class. Because every field of study has its own jargon, every teacher is responsible for instructing students in the specialized language of that field. Ruddell chastises teachers who expect students to come fully prepared with all the literacy skills (Discourses) necessary to excel, because teaching these Discourses is one aspect of instruction in every class. He has a point – it is unreasonable to expect a middle school student to enter high school with all the vocabulary and reading/writing skills needed for all classes. However, I don’t feel it is at all unrealistic to expect a certain degree of experience and skill. I am dismayed when my students don’t exhibit even the basic literacy skills that society has agreed should have been mastered in elementary school. That is just one of the (necessary?) evils of social promotion, but that’s another issue entirely.
With all of this in mind, I would like to pose a few questions:
1) What level of literacy expertise can we expect our students to have coming into our classes?
2) What improvements can we reasonably expect to make in the course of 45/90/180 days?
3) If students are masters at some Discourses and novices at others, what pre-existing, fundamental literacy skills can we draw upon in each of our fields as a starting point for our own studies?
4) To what degree should we permit informal registers to enter our classrooms, and when should we enforce the use of formal registers? (for example, distinguishing between daily journal writing versus end-of-term research papers)
5) How do we cope with the constantly evolving techno-literacies and weave them into all classrooms?

I’m not expecting responses to all of these questions, but any thoughts would be appreciated. Ruddell skims the surface of the last issue (technological literacy) in his chapter, and I’d like to discuss it separately in another post.