Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Marshall & Toohey

LLED 602 – Week 7

Reading week was a productive break: not only did I get caught up with my weekly readings (staring fixedly at my iPad for six days while also flipping actual pages to find the 101 variations on the “What kind of person is Dee?” question in Bloome et al.‘s (2008) On discourse analysis in classrooms), but also had some extra time to work as a substitute teacher. Since earning my Bachelor of Education at UBC in 2009, I was fortunate enough to start work as a Teacher On Call for the North Vancouver School District that same year. My cohort was in the Fine Arts and New Media Education program, and many FAME grads found work in North Van as well. Last Friday I ran into two of my classmates who just recently got semi-permanent contracts in the primary grades. It was a long wait for many on the often bumpy TOC list, with long stretches of not enough work and occasional flurries of not enough TOCs. During the past four year, I have begun to feel a bit like the “andys” featured in Philip K. Dick’s (1968) Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? that have a four-year lifespan built into their design. Perhaps more familiar as a Replicant in Ridley Scott’s (1982) eye-candyland film Blade Runner, one particular speech must be on a constant loop in the minds of long-term TOCs.


Blade Runner (1982) Tears in Rain

Of course, none of us are planning to go out like Rutger Hauer, symbolically releasing a dove at the end of our TOC careers, as most of us will get permanent jobs as teachers. Yet there are many moments I have seen while working on call, all the discourse that has yet to be analyzed and most likely never will due to meaningful yet hindering ethical requirements. Not knowing where I will be teaching from one day to the next is one of the challenges to conducting research in classrooms, and while I am aware that I could have gone through the proper channels to conduct an ethnographic study during my Master degree, the catch would have been that I was taking away from much needed calls to work as sub (and therefore afford to study educational technology, a program that didn’t need a research thesis in any case). All of this is to say that I understand why I cannot share discourse very similar to what Mökkonen observes in a Finnish primary classroom. Inspired by her study of socialization and subteaching in a multilingual classroom, I had to share a story that might have happened to me earlier last week, when I could have been TOCing at an école.

Firstly, in a certain school district, there are several elementary schools that are partially French Immersion. The schools are typically bilingual, and depending on their size, might have equal numbers of French and English classrooms for each grade. Split classrooms are common when there is not enough students to make up a full class in one or the other language. When a TOC like myself gets called into a French classroom, it can generally be assumed that all of the French-speaking TOCs are already booked (or found full-time position!) and even before the morning bell rings the students know that there won’t be much French spoken all day. The scene in my story takes place, however, in an English split K/1 classroom. The incident of subteaching arose when a student chided another for asking yet another to say something in this child’s native language. The student’s censure was captured in the command “No, English only!” As the TOC is usually the last person in the room to know about classroom procedures (doubly so in primary grades when it is Calendar time), the TOC in this K/1 asked the class “Whose rule is that? I thought this was an French and English school.” When gently provoked to provide details, none of the students could say who told them to speak only English in the classroom, but most were assured that “those are the rules” and further discussion quickly ceased. Situations like these seem to be crying out for a proper discourse analysis, but like Hauer’s line “tears in rain” I could just be making it all up!

Here is the latest draft of my review assignment:

Down the Digital Rabbit-hole.

LLED 558 – Week 8

An interesting topic that combine Indigenous learning with multiliteracies. When I came into the PhD program, I was certain that digital literacy was the place I need to be, exploring the possibilities of Web 3.0 (way beyond what is currently happening with socially mediated Web 2.0) but came to understand that the most innovative approach to digilit research (at least in North America) is a near impossible task of making the Internet perform like paper. It is as if someone is theorizing about Literacy 3.0 by advocating for a return to Literacy 1.0 (pencil and paper, chalk and chalkboard etc.). I don’t want to get too worked up about this back to basics attitude, but will mention how Hare’s article builds upon the idea of “knowing paper” both the affordances and limitations in an Indigenous context. To paraphrase Robert Service, there are strange things done in the academic world by the mostly white and mostly male researchers who ploy their papers. Little connection to land, especially the forests that produce the raw materials. At least there is a connection to the land through paper, who knows where all the plastics and silicon that make our laptops and other mobile devices comes from?! Nevertheless, there is attempt to know better what literacy then and now may mean, and it is refreshing to read how Hare engages her discussion with connection to lived experiences.

Marshall and Toohey continue this exploration of lived experiences with their literacy project using MP3 recorders and hand-drawn storybooks, a case study for representing Punjabi Sikh heritage in primary school. The term used to describe where children are drawing life experiences from is “funds of knowledge” which might cause alarm for critical discourse theorists inspired by Freire to watch out for any for of “banking education”. But the way the term is used here, and gets mentioned in a couple more articles this week, is harmless. In this case study, mostly harmless; the students really seem to enjoy representing violent images. I’ve already posted on the strange attraction students have toward stories that end with death, that can be accessed her with this link, so I don’t want to go over what was already said there. But something I will pick up upon from Marshall and Toohey’s research is smiling characters. Most children draw characters, even in the most strenuous and life-threatening situations, with big smiles on their faces. Not that I want to give too much credit to Piaget’s theory of developmental stages, but there is a point in a child’s artistic life where anything other than a smiling character does not occur to the young artist. Of course, to prove the rule through an exception, one of Gurvinder drawings show her grandfather crying, wearing a frown on his face. Here I will point out that the girl deliberately chose to depict sadness, and it did not take too much effort for her to turn that smile upside down. It is something wonderful to see, when children express theirselves on paper, that they choose more often than not to depict happiness. James Paul Gee (2004) states that the work of childhood is play, and Richard Louv and other play-based researchers agree that a happy frame of mind is best for children’s development (take that, Piaget!).

Spam prevention powered by Akismet