Response to “The Brothers and Sisters Learn to Write,” by Anne Haas Dyson

Concerning the group dynamics and completion of the project, it was generally accepted that we felt disconnected from one another and from our text as we generated the presentation separately through Google Docs.  Though the technology seemed to offer us an opportunity to work more efficiently, it also made the process less personal.  Technology may allow us to make the world smaller, but its effect on the discourse may be that while we are more often in communication, but we may actually be less interconnected.
Our view on the needs of the presentation and our initial approach to dividing the work was another issue that raised our awareness of our process.  As we hurried to get the text read and present all of the information we felt a crunch that I began to relate to how we look at curriculum.  It was very similar to how teachers sit with new curriculum at the beginning of the year, and are torn between covering and “discovering” the material.  A similar feeling was expressed by many of the group members. It became clear that we very nearly missed getting into the deeper issues of the text because we wanted so badly to touch upon all the text had to offer.
We also needed to strike a balance between our critical reading including not only what we felt made the study an excellent entry point to understanding the relation between popular and school literacies, but how to also discuss the points that made us feel that the study was lacking in its methodology.  Part of what is difficult in critiquing literature is determining whether or not the reader has the authority to question the author.  Though I often tell my students to interact with the text, ask questions of the author, and weigh which pieces they feel are aligned with their beliefs and which pieces leave them asking for more, we had trouble in our group reaching a point where we could do these same things.
My critiques of the text are mostly limited to those discussed in the presentation.  I wonder if Dyson’s interpretations may have been more thorough or more representative of the students’ intentions if she were more familiar with the cultural literacies in the students’ lives.  I truly believe that this is not an intentional disassociation, but rather the result of her position within education.  Our group discussed the idea that while teacher researchers, such as Ballenger, may fall victim to adding their own ideas to the products they study, teacher researchers are closer to the subjects and work products of the study.  The inclusion of a glossary of popular literacies, repeated discussion of which pieces were and were not “mainstream,” and the excessive explanation of references with which I was familiar were signs that there was a disconnect between the researcher and literacies involved in the study.
We questioned the attitudes towards which literacy we felt were privileged in the text.  It seemed that there was value placed upon the use of popular literacies, but we felt there was not a clear push for the transfer of the skills gained using popular literacies to succeed in the official world of school. What makes this point more intriguing is the fact that the adults Dyson interviewed discussed their need to revise their works to succeed within their own official worlds.  Clearly the idea of transfer is vital, but we felt that Dyson was too accepting of production that did not reflect clear transfer into written work, as in the case of Noah’s appropriate verbal responses that did not correlate to this written product.
Another concern we discussed as a group was the idea that the study focused on one subset of the class over a short period of time.  It was mentioned in a later class as a response to Family Literacy that researchers need to set parameters when designing studies.  This is understandable, but this can leave the reader with many questions about those parameters.  Perhaps, however, this is how research moves forward.  We concluded that although we initially felt this was a limitation on the results of the study, we realized that the questions we had were similar to questions others may have, and those questions may fuel additional studies on related topics.  In the end, the exploration of issues beyond the scope of the study can develop the research exponentially.
These critiques aside, there were many valuable theories to the acquisition of writing skill in relation to popular literacies.  I believe I am more likely to accept a student’s reference to popular literacies, but I think I will extend the reference to connect to the official, school literacy.  The text has also confirmed my suspicions that popular literacies are excellent entry points to access the official practices of school. Teachers often get so wrapped up on the end goal of their lesson plan they lose sight of the fact that students’ connections are not tangents or entirely outside of the context of the learning content.  I can think of times in which I have been torn between following the reference to the transfer point during a moment in which I wanted desperately to get back to my culturally irrelevant lesson plan. I believe my new knowledge of the use of popular literacies will help me realize that I can achieve my official goal through the use of unofficial literacy. Also, just as Marcel used sports teams to acclimate himself to his position on the map and distances between cities and states, I have used a sports league as a reference point to begin geography.  I feel comfortable enough within my understanding of the popular literacies related to sports to use the function of sports media within my classroom as a point to access official literacy.  I am reminded the importance of staying culturally aware, in areas beyond my comfort zone.