Posts Tagged ‘Readings’
-
Grant (1997)
Reflection (Do not use for the Learning Log)
Unit: SSK12
Week: 7 (in Week 8.)
Date: 20 October 2009Grant’s essay Disciplining Students: the construction of student subjectivities is one of ambiguities. I quite enjoyed it, if not purely for the skilful use of these two words that Koral has called out, which bear double meanings, then definitely for the extensive referencing of Michel Foucault. I’ve always been fascinated by Foucault, his understanding of power and how it forms our understanding of self.
Hobbsy gives a fine definition of ‘discipline’ in her post. I don’t believe I need to add anything to it other than to mention that Grant refers to the double meaning of discipline herself, when she writes, “In the concept ‘discipline’, there is yet another interesting ambiguity in that it both refers to the distinct forms of knowledge as we conceive them and to the action of bringing about obedience”.
The other word Grant uses that is loaded with ambiguity is of course, subject. The philosophical sense of subject according to The Australian Oxford Dictionary is one of “a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego…” as well as the one that is poignant to Grant’s paper; “a person owing obedience to another”, by which she means a student who is subject to the authority of the university.
At the risk of being the class prat, I would like to suggest that –ivity is actually the combination of two suffixes: -ive and –ity. As Hobbsy points out, the suffix –ive forms adjectives expressing meanings of “tending to, or having the nature of”, for example, subject becomes subjective and therefore shifts from being “a thinking or feeling entity” to (in a philosophical sense) something “proceeding from or belonging to the individual consciousness”. While the suffix –ity forms nouns “denoting: …quality or condition”. Subjective becomes subjectivity, and again, its meaning shifts from the one stated above to “a condition of being subjective”. This might seem like semantics (well actually it is ;)), but I believe that it is important to make the distinction in order to answer Hobbsy’s question.
Hobbsy asks, “Why didn’t Grant just use subject?” It’s an excellent question because it also helps us understand Foucault’s worldview. My answer is: although the two words are nouns they are in fact different and therefore bear different meanings. Within the context of this paper, subject means “a thinking or felling entity” (i.e. the student) that is also subjected to, “the technologies of domination, which originate in the [university], and those of the self”. On the other hand, subjectivity means “a condition of being subjective”. I’d rather put it like this: subjectivity is the perception a subject has of the world. Foucault proposes that subjectivity is a product of power. Grant, using references to Foucault, wants to illustrate that the students’ perception of themselves is formed by their subjectedness to the power relations found in the university. This I believe is the construction of student subjectivities.
-
Avruch (2002)
Reflection (Do not use for the Learning Log)
Unit: SSK12
Week: 7
Date: 17 October 2009Patrick shows us that the “inadequate ideas of culture” over simplify culture and disconnect culture from the very individuals that perpetuate its existence. I believe in one sentence Patrick beautifully captures the problem the inadequate ideas present, but you know me (or at least you’re learning, somewhat painfully), I don’t do one sentence. 🙂 May I take the liberty of expanding upon this nugget of truth (if there is even such a thing ;))?
I believe Avruch is saying that the “inadequate ideas” individually or collectively, limit the diversity of culture(s), restrict the sense of cultural change, and/or confine culture merely to a set of national/ethnic customs.
If we used all or most of the 6 “inadequate ideas” to form our understanding of culture, I believe we would find that it would be this monolithic thing (almost existing independent of humankind), everyone in a national or ethnic people group would have the same one, and that it would be unchanging and timeless. That might have worked for Tylor, but it is, as the words suggest, inadequate for Avruch.
Dallas points out that Avruch says, “Using [the inadequate ideas of culture], we argue, greatly diminishes the utility of the culture concept as an analytical tool for understanding social action…” You might ask, “How so?” I suggest this is the key to Avruch’s argument. I would like to contextualise the context again. The title of the book is Culture and Conflict Resolution. Immediately we get a sense that we’re not just talking about culture, but rather Avruch’s understanding and desired use for understanding culture are put in context. That it’s about how culture affect peoples’ behaviour and their thinking, and how understanding peoples’ culture might help in conflict resolution, both on a grand scale or something as small as a discussion between two people or even the differences of opinion in our own tutorial group.
Not just the book name, but also Avruch’s name raised questions for me. Avruch is a Jewish name, and so for me at least, this further contextualised the book and chapter. I wondered if he is Jewish then might the Middle East conflict and the Herculean task of finding a resolution there be at the forefront of his thinking. I did a little research and sure enough, Avruch might be considered an expert in Hebrew religious and secular culture, Israeli society, politics and government. He has written extensively in this field, so it would seem the Middle East is at the forefront of his mind. Being Jewish doesn’t invalidate his opinions of the situation; he is actually quite critical of Israel. As are many Jews, one reading of Ha’aretz Daily newspaper will show you that.
Going back to the concept of culture with all of the above in mind we should get a better understanding of why the 6 “inadequate ideas”, the first and second definitions (at the very least) of culture, and especially the concept of “Culture as custom” are of little value to the analysis and assistance toward the resolution of conflict, big or small. These ideas and definitions inadequately address the complexity of varied and plural cultures, they don’t account for cultures’ fluidity and dynamism, and if culture is this reified thing, then it doesn’t allow for human individuality.
In relation to Koral’s second question, I am a firm believer in the plurality of culture in the individual. I belong to a western culture; an Australian culture; I’m heavily influenced by British and American culture; I am saturated in popular culture through the mass media (how many of us have related something we saw or said back to The Simpsons?); I have a team culture at work that promotes professionalism, dressing smartly (i.e. suit and tie), going the extra mile attitude and always being prepared to help your fellow soldier in the trenches.
I’m not sure I like to think of all of the above being influences for a conglomerated individual culture. I think they are distinct and separate. Whether they can stand on their own or they are interdependent, and especially dependent upon western culture is for another discussion. Perhaps this is why the term sub-culture is a good one. My workplace is an interesting illustration of this. I have worked for St.George Bank for many years and St.George has a well-entrenched and distinct culture, it’s a good one, a friendly one. For many years I have acted and thought according to the culture promoted. Since December of last year St.George Bank has been a part of The Westpac Group and Westpac has a very different culture, in many respects these cultures are in conflict. I have had to learn to think and act in a certain way for my colleagues in Westpac, while continuing to think and act the St.George way for my St.George colleagues. They have not blended for me; I participate separately in the collective cultures of each institution. Is this what Penny Oakes was referring to? Finally, I like Avruch’s example that “A person possesses and controls several cultures in the same way, as sociolinguists tell us, that even a so-called monolingual speaker controls different “registers” of the same language or dialect”. This is self-evident when you observe the way you talk and behave differently from the work or professional context to the familiar or social context.
-
Bizzell (1986)
Reflection (Do not use for the Learning Log)
Unit: SSK12
Week: 7
Date: 14 October 2009Patricia Bizzell (1986, 294) hypothesises that “basic writers” are the least well prepared for entering tertiary study. She continues by breaking down her reasons for believing this, and it is not just because their writing is not academically suitable, but as Jen pointed out, they may not necessarily think academically (or even be able to think academically).
Bizzell’s reference to “basic writers” is not regarding speakers of other languages, but rather Bizzell is referring to speakers and therefore writers of non-Standard English and dialects distinct from Standard English.
Perhaps, a definition of Standard English will help us understand Bizzell’s initial premise. Standard English is itself a dialect of English just like non-standard English, and the many manifestations thereof, found in the various local and regional English dialects. Formal writing and the Standard dialect of English have a recognised convention for vocabulary, grammar and spelling. There are some excellent explanations regarding the subject of Standard English at the following address: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/standard.htm. Richard Hudson’s paper in particular provides a very straightforward understanding. His table of Standard and non-Standard sentence structures is very helpful for understanding what Bizzell is referring to. Hudson (2000) uses examples such as “I did it” and “I done it”, or “Come quickly!” and “Come quick!” (Note: In both cases the first example is Standard English).
Local and regional dialects can and do differ from the standard both in their vernacular and their grammatical structure. Dallas mentioned African-Americans in his post. I think this is an excellent example and no doubt pertinent to Bizzell’s thinking. Bizzell is writing from an American perspective. Of course Bizzell’s argument is not exclusive to African-Americans, this would also affect school leavers who communicate in the Southern dialect or elements of the Hispanic community or as stated above, any non-standard English dialect. Why I like the African-American example is because we’ve all been exposed to it in popular culture. We’re exposed to it on television, at the cinema, while listening to Hip-Hop and so on.
Bizzell (294) is very quick to dispel the misconception that non-Standard dialects are incapable of conveying complex thought. Steven Pinker (2008, 29) informs us the dialect of English spoken by a significant number of African-Americans is called Black English Vernacular (BEV). Pinker illustrates the difference between BEV and Standard American English (SAE) when he compares “Don’t nobody know” (BEV) and “Doesn’t anybody know?” (SAE), but Pinker is also quick to point out that non-Standard dialects are as equally complex as the Standard when he explains that in some cases BEV is more precise than Standard English. This is demonstrated by his BEV example, “He be working means that he generally works…[and] He working means only that he is working at the moment that the sentence is uttered. In SAE, He is working fails to make that distinction” (30).
We should bear in mind that Bizzell’s hypothesis is not limited to the college freshers in the United States. Each and every one of us in this tutorial group uses the Australian English dialect, which can be further broken down to regional variations, each with its own vocabulary, I’m sure we’ve all heard “I done it” being used. Many Australians exhibit non-Standard features, such as double negatives, incorrect word tense usage, and colloquialisms like “uni” instead of “university”, which add an element of familiarity that may not be appropriate for academic writing. Furthermore, Koral’s posts’ regarding grammar shows that we are not immune to the pitfalls of “basic writing”.
Bizzell doesn’t just simply stop at basic writing, she moves through a series of conclusions that arrives at basic writers thinking a certain way. That the basic writers’ way of thinking as dictated by their dialectical framework is incompatible with the academic dialectical framework for thinking.
At this point I get a sense that Bizzell is writing from a postmodern worldview perspective. I believe this because her claim that different dialects and discourse conventions equals different thinking suggests a structuralist, or semiotician understanding. That is to say, the basic writers’ understanding of culture and the world is through the construct of language. Bizzell’s (298-301) extensive references to William Perry further suggest this to me, especially as Perry asserts his relativistic view of the world (i.e. no “Absolutes”).
If this is so, then it makes sense as to why Bizzell believes that the basic writer may not be able to think academically. If one’s worldview is constructed upon and understood through one’s dialect and if the basic writer is unable to discern Standard English (the preferred dialect for education), then the academic worldview; the worldview understood through Standard English will be foreign also. Perry’s understanding is to the degree that he believes the basic writers’ worldview and the academic worldview would be in conflict.
Ultimately, Bizzell suggests that the basic writer will be more acutely aware that the requirements of tertiary education are different from any previously held notions due to the bigger immediate hurdle of overcoming the linguistic differences. Those linguistic or dialectical differences represent a greater distance between their home worldview and the academic worldview and consequently, the basic writer may feel that the academic worldview threatens their own, but because of the pre-eminent position Standard English has in academia and the workplace they may have a more accepting recognition for change.
References:
Bizzell, Patricia. 1986. What happens when basic writers come to college? College Composition and Communication. 37(3): 294-301.Hudson, Richard. 2000. The Language Teacher and descriptive versus prescriptive norms: The educational context. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/SEhudson.htm
(accessed October 13th, 2009)Pinker, Steven. 2008. The Language Instinct: The new Science of Language and Mind (Popular Penguins Edition). Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin Group (Australia).
-
World View
Reading Review
Unit: SSK12
Week: 5 (in Week 6)
Date: 09 October 2009Book title: Communication Between Cultures
Chapter title: World View
Author: Larry A. Samovar and Richard E. Porter
Publication Date: 2004Thesis:
Samovar and Porter immediately aim to acknowledge the importance of worldviews and to illustrate how worldviews are fundamental to way we perceive the world; how it is “colored, shaped, arranged according to personal cultural perceptions” (2004, 85).Main points:
1. A definition of worldview
2. The importance of worldviews in shaping our understanding and our perception of the world.
3. A recognition that worldviews are so fundamental to our perception that people cannot see any other way of thinking when they are unaware of the concept of worldview.
4. A series of examples illustrating how understanding the worldview of culture can help to understand the perceptions of the world for that culture why members of that culture think or act the way they do.Review:
There are entire books dedicated to the concept of worldviews. In one chapter, Samovar and Porter are able to give a compact and concise treatise of the importance worldviews have on our perceptions of the world. They use examples of worldviews generally associated to different cultures in order to demonstrate how they affect the way members of that culture think and behave. Their work is easy to read and follow, with ample support from experts in the field of worldviews and sociology.Reference:
Samovar, Larry A., and Richard E. Porter. 2004. World View. In Communication Between Cultures. 5th ed. 85-86. Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. -
Life on the screen
Reading Review
Unit: SSK12
Week: 1-5 (in Week 6)
Date: 08 October 2009Book title: Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet
Chapter title: Introduction: Identity in the Age of the Internet
Author: Sherry Turkle
Publication Date: 1995Thesis:
Turkle details how the computer has changed our understanding of the self and how this understanding has shifted from the modern concept of computational calculation to the postmodern concept of simulation.Main points:
1. The fragmented self illustrated in the MUD (multi-user domains)
2. Lessons learned regarding the fragment self from the great French Postmodernist philosophers.
3. Culture of change embodied in the shift from computational calculation to simulationReview:
I enjoyed the analogy Turkle creates using the multiple windows of a computer to explain the postmodern understanding of self. The postmodern theory of self is that of a fragmented one. The computer, especially for Turkle in the concept of the MUD (multi-user domains) on the internet, embodies the postmodern theory of the fragmented self through its many windows and multiple live and identities one can have in these separate online windows. This book was written in 1995 and so, I did feel that computer and internet related content sounded dated, but nevertheless the concepts Turkle puts forward are still valid.Reference:
Turkle, Sherry. 1995. Introduction: Identity in the Age of the Internet. In Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. 9-26. New York: Simon and Schuster. -
My brain hurts
Reflection
Unit: SSK12
Week: 1
Date: 05 September 2009It’s Saturday and I’ve been studying all day. Slowly the course work is coming together, but I still feel well behind. I am catching up on some of the discussions in the Online tutorial.
I have completed the LITE assessment and I have found the LITE lessons quite informative. I can see that the items I am learning during the lessons are going to be a huge help in the future when I am trying to track down some information for an assignment. I can see that despite the fact that I am already quite savvy at searching, there are items I have learnt that will make my searches even in the work place far more efficient. I was a little disappointed that I got 4 out of 5 in two of the Module Quizzes, but in reality it’s not that bad, as long as I learn from the lessons. The overall percentage in relation to my final results is quite low so as not to affect them too much. I guess it’s just the perfectionist in me and my desire to do the best I can. Sometimes it is frustrating knowing you could have done better.
I only just started the QSK Worksheet today. It’s going to take me a lifetime to write each of these answers. I’m still on the first question, I’ve already written over half a page and I’m only half way done.
I’m falling behind on the Exercises and readings too. I’ve only read half of Chapter 3 of A Guide to learning Independently. I haven’t completed the reading by Krause, Kerri-Lee. (2005). ‘The changing face of the first year…’ and I haven’t even started the reading, Vivekananda and Shores (1996).
Additionally, I’m still yet to start and complete the Exercises from Chapters 15 & 16 in A Learning Companion.
In summary, I need to complete the follow:
- Exercise 1: Keeping a learning log (Optional)
- Exercise 15: Previewing a book
- Exercise 16: Previewing edited books
- Exercise 2: Transferring your learning strengths
- Exercise 3: Planning your approach to study
- Read: Vivekananda and Shores (1996).
- Read: Chapter 3, ‘Becoming an independent student’ of A Guide to Learning Independently
- Submit: QSK Woksheet (Due 11 September 2009, 4 pm AWST)
Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
Categories
- Assignments
- Glossary
- Learning Skills Exercises
- Reading Reviews
- Reflections
- Study Reflections
- Uncategorized
- Unit SSK12