Month: October 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew’s LN Worksheet Answers (Couldn’t upload screenshot)

Q4. For each SPONSOR, imagine how he/she might view the central literacy moment in the story. Williams suggests the value of this thinking in suggesting that students “rewrite the key moment (or moments) of the narrative from the position of a different identity” (345). WRITE ABOUT the SPONSOR’s perspective. Briefly note relevant detail/evidence from the LN that suggests that perspective.

Mrs. Ryan: Would be proud of Matthew’s hard work and dedication to improving his literacy.  Although she left after a year, she helped Matthew tremendously by placing him in the correct courses for his situation. Ms. Latinski: Would also be proud of Matthew’s progression.  She worked with Matthew extra to help him understand his concepts in school and better himself as a student and a reader.  She would appreciate the positive portrayal Matthew defines her as. Ms. Murray: Again, would be proud of Matthew and honored by his representation of her in the narrative.  She helped Matthew tremendously in his studies and he greatly benefitted from her help. She would also appreciate the example Matthew gives about her putting her foot behind her head to help Matthew remember what the word “pliable” means.

 

Q5. What strikes you as INTERESTING, COMPLICATED, or otherwise worth NOTING? (Use shorthand or fragments, but attempt to say WHY it’s interesting/complicated.) Here YOU start to decide what’s important FOR YOU.

What is interesting to me about this Literacy Narrative is that each sponsor serves as a facilitator for literacy.  Most narratives that I have read usually contain multiple sponsors, one of which withholds literacy along with another sponsor who helps facilitate it for the writer.  In this case however, all three of Matthew’s teachers serve as facilitators and help him tremendously in his quest for high literacy.

Sam

Sam’s literacy narrative follows the structure of a “Success” narrative which I will be focusing on.  Alexander says, “Students like Anna value the success master narrative as a lens through which they understand their literate experiences, and they do so by generalizing about literacy and its power of pointing to future success” (617).  A quote from Sam’s paper that relates to this is, “As I continue to grow as a student and a person, I hope with time I can find excitement in all types of writing, no matter the topic” (5).  Sam recognized is literate experience as a moment in which he discovered a love for writing.  This early confidence stuck with him throughout his childhood and developing years and has benefited his literacy.  He credits his experience for developing him into a good writer when writing about passionate topics.

Blake

Blake’s literacy narrative follows the structure of a “Hero” narrative that I am focusing on.  Alexander says, “Because she tries hard enough, the story goes on, she is ultimately successful” (619).  A quote from Blake’s paper relating to Alexander’s quote is, “I see now it was because she was holding me to a higher standard because she knew I had the ability to succeed in my work, but I would rush through it and not worry about it” (Beverage 2).  Blake spent lots of time trying to find his mistake in his paper, which can be traced as similar to Anna’s struggle.  Through perseverance and self motivation, both individuals were able to overcome their struggle and came out with new knowledge to their literacy power.

Kayla

Kayla’s literacy narrative portrays her English teacher, Mr. Stritch has her literacy sponsor.  Brandt says,” Sponsors, as I have come to think of them are any agents,… who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy” (556).  A quote from Kayla’s literacy narrative that relates to this is “Freshmen year of high school my English teacher, Mr. Stritch, was the person who ruined writing for me” (Farrell 1).  A person who suppresses literacy can still be considered as a sponsor of literacy as illustrated by Brandt’s quote.  Mr. Stritch was responsible for Kayla’s education in the English subject, and he miserably failed to do so, thus withholding her from achieving as high a level of literacy as she had the opportunity for.

Hannah

Just like in Blake’s literacy narrative, Hannah wrote a narrative that follows the “Hero” idea.  A quote from Alexander is “Little narratives of hero, then, support the notion that specific versions of individual effort and hard work are the ultimate factors of literate success” (619).  A quote from Hannah’s literacy narrative that indicates it’s identity is, “I was so proud of my paper, no acceptance letter or B minus was going to change that.  I did everything I could to go above and beyond” (3).   Using Alexander’s logic the hero narrative can be achieved if the protagonist puts in lots of hard work into his or her literacy.  In this case, Hannah put everything she had into her paper, and despite not getting the high grade she may have been expecting, she was ultimately satisfied with her effort on the assignment.

1.  Reading and writing is often not at the top of the list for most people’s favorite areas of education.  I believe that people do not fully realize the relevance and importance it has in our everyday lives and in the economy as well.  In the modern day, technology has taken over just about everything.  Throughout an average day, I would say I read the most words on my phone compared to any other form that contains text.  The material people read on their phones may not always contain the most difficult grammar and good context and as a result, people may subconsciously train their brains to simply be acquainted with lower level words.  Personally, I read most of the words I read throughout a day on my smart phone, but I am mindful enough to try and always continue to expand my vocabulary so I can translate it to my reading and writing skills.  Also in the age of computers, many people have unlimited resources at hand when it comes to writing.  They can receive help from anywhere online and this may handicap their writing ability.  They can simply use these tools for help in the moment instead of actually advancing their writing skills.
2. A “Master Narrative” is an overarching story people tell themselves about their experiences in relation to the culture, literature, or history of society.  “Little Narratives” are unsanctioned, artistic, and imaginative.  They are less generalizable and more individualized and situated.  The contrast here is that a master narrative is more factual and may relate to society as a whole where as little narratives relate more to the individual.  Alexander states, “little narratives are often told by marginalized groups, such as women and minorities, whose shorties run counter to the dominant literacy myth” (611).  The differences between master and little narratives are crucial in order to fully understand both the concepts.  As Alexander states, little narratives are more generalized to minority groups.
3. For me, the child prodigy cultural narrative is very interesting.  I relate to this because I wrote one of my literacy narratives on a topic pertaining to this.  In my story, I was in 5th grade and my reading level was pretty high.  As Alexander explains, “Excels at reading and writing from an early age and is put on display for others to see his or her brilliance and intellectual acumen” (615)  Using Alexander’s logic, the child prodigy cultural narrative relates to narratives where the protagonist who excel in literacy from an early age, and display their accelerated skill to others.  Another interesting cultural narrative is the victim narrative.  Alexander illustrates this as, “a victim of negative literacy experiences, in or out of school; casts blame for negative literacy experiences” (615).  In these literacy narratives, the protagonist often plays the role of the victim, and puts blame on others such as a parent, teacher, etc. for their dismay in reading or writing.  They often do not take blame for their displeasure in literacy and are quick to point fingers to other people for their so-called “wrongdoings”.

ENG 110I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction: I didn’t change much in my introduction paragraph.  I kept the basis of it the same in my final draft, with some minor tweaks.  I added a few better transitions in between my introduction sentences of the text.  I kept my opening sentence as I felt it was a satisfactory hook.  I also didn’t make any changes to my thesis as I believed it was portrayed exactly as I initially intended.

Evidence and Explanations: Besides adding a new paragraph, I kept the same quotations from my first draft to my final draft.  Through revision, I felt that my evidence was sufficient in what I was trying to portray to the reader.  In terms of my explanations, I added more in various sections of my paper.  I went back and added a deeper analysis to some quotes and tried to make new connections that may have not been there in my first draft.  I tried to add more “I Say” as opposed to parts where I may have had too much “they say”.

Reorganization:  I did not move any specific sentences or statements around in my paper.  However, I changed the order of my paragraphs.  In my first draft, I believe I had my shortest body paragraph  ordered last, right before to the conclusion.  Through revision, I believed that this was a bad way to leave the reader off at the end of the paper, so I switched that paragraph with a much stronger one.

New Paragraphs: One of my paragraphs in my first draft was a paragraph I had written for a homework assignment that I felt fit in with my paper.  Through revision, I realized that this paragraph did not fit in very well to my paper.  I wrote a new paragraph comparing the “abstract” section of a paper and Gee’s “significance” building task together.  I felt that this paragraph was much stronger than the original paragraph I had in its place.  I think this move improved my paper.

ENG 110I

1.  I believe I work well with Gee’s concepts throughout my whole paper.  I talk about Gee’s seven building tasks of language often throughout my paper, and I even connect Gee’s idea of Discourse to Haas’ study of Eliza.  However, I can still add more analysis and explanation to the connections I make with Gee’s ideas and the other texts, along with the general discourse of science as a whole.  I will be adding another paragraph to my paper that connects Gee’s “significance” building task to the abstract section of the IMRAD format.
2. I do a good job at using a certain language throughout my paper.  I use similar language phrases and words to make it as easy as possible for my readers to understand the information I am conveying to them.  It works well in my paper as shown by my peer review comments.  My peer group gave good feedback in terms of how easy it was for them to understand the points I make in my paper and it was not too difficult for them to understand the connections I make as well.
3. In my second paragraph, I talk about the “practices” section of the building tasks of language.  I make only simply connections and give a simple analysis, so I need to revisit this paragraph in revision and tune it up.  I can make deeper analysis and connections to ensure the reader will be hooked after my first body paragraph and want to keep reading my paper.
4. My analysis of science discourse reveals to the reader that by using the IMRAD format and keeping Gee’s seven building tasks of language in mind, you will have the best opportunity possible at writing a good research paper that will convey information to the reader in the best way possible.  Using Haas’ journal as a reference since she follows both of these guidelines, I prove to the reader it is not very difficult to be a part of the discourse of science.

ENG110I

–  Literacy can be defined in numerous different ways of context, but has a specific meaning when it comes to Discourse.

-This mastery allows the person to be an active member of the Discourse and they can implement this Discourse into their values, beliefs, and actions.

– In her first two years of school, she simply read text to retain information but she was able to teach herself new reading techniques and strategies as the years went on.

These are compound sentences because I take two independent clauses that share similar ideas, and I connect them using connecting words such as “and” and “but”.  I connect these independent clauses together to emphasize the connections and information they share, and to make my sentences more fluid for the reader to understand.  

 

-However, the results section is the core of the paper because it presents the reader with new knowledge.

-Although it is not often valued as largely as the other aspects of IMRAD, the identity of the author is vital for the reader’s relationship with the paper.

These are complex sentences because of the subordinating conjunctions I use such as “although” and “because”.  In the first sentence, I use “because” to explain the first clause in the sentence using the second clause. In the second sentence, I use “although” to emphasize a change in tone.  The sentence prior to this one states information, and I use “although” to indicate to the reader that this sentence will contain information that relates to the prior sentence, but may state different information.   

ENG110I

Original Paragraph:

According to Gee, it is difficult to achieve full literacy of a new Discourse.  Literacy can be defined in numerous different ways of context, but has a specific meaning when it comes to Discourse.  Gee explains, “Thus, I define “literacy” as the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse” (Gee 9). Using Gee’s logic, full literacy of a Discourse means a person has mastered the specific Discourse in which they are attempting to acquire.  This mastery allows the person to be an active member of the Discourse and they can implement this Discourse into their values, beliefs, and actions. In the work of Christina Haas, there is a study she presented that takes place over the four year college career of a student named Eliza.  Haas kept track of Eliza’s literacy and understanding of college level text and how she interacted with the text. In her first two years of school, she simply read text to retain information but she was able to teach herself new reading techniques and strategies as the years went on. Haas states, “By her senior year she often viewed texts as multiply connected-to authors and scientists, to other readers, and to historical circumstances-and even demonstrated some understanding of her own connections both to scientific texts (and, by implication, to their authors) and to the objects of her own research” (Haas 69).  Eliza was able to achieve full literacy in the Discourse of college level understanding of text after four years in school. It was a gradual progression to reach this level in her academic career, but through perseverance and hard work, she was able to achieve it. She proves Gee’s idea of the difficulty of achieving literacy in a Discourse wrong as she prospered her senior year.

Revised Paragraph:

Every person conforms to Discourses which define how he or she acts in certain social institutions.  According to Gee, it is difficult to achieve full literacy of a new Discourse.  Literacy can be defined in numerous different ways of context, but has a specific meaning when it comes to Discourse.  Gee explains, “Thus, I define “literacy” as the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse” (9). Using Gee’s logic, full literacy of a Discourse means a person has mastered the specific Discourse in which they are attempting to acquire.  This mastery allows the person to be an active member of the Discourse and they can implement this Discourse into their values, beliefs, and actions. In the work of Christina Haas, there is a study she presented that takes place over the four year college career of a student named Eliza.  Haas kept track of Eliza’s literacy and understanding of college level text using the method of observation and how she interacted with the text. In her first two years of school, she simply read text to retain information but she was able to teach herself new reading techniques and strategies as the years went on as stated by Haas, “By her senior year she often viewed texts as multiply connected-to authors and scientists, to other readers, and to historical circumstances-and even demonstrated some understanding of her own connections both to scientific texts (and, by implication, to their authors) and to the objects of her own research” (69).  Eliza was able to achieve full literacy in the Discourse of college level understanding of text after four years in school. It was a gradual progression to reach this level in her academic career, but through perseverance and hard work, she was able to achieve it. She proves Gee’s idea of the difficulty of achieving literacy in a Discourse wrong as she prospered her senior year.

ENG 110I

 

Gee talks about the “seven building tasks of language”, with one of these building tasks being the act of “practices” (activities).  There is a difference between one saying something and actually doing it, and this is how Gee describes the difference between simply informing someone of something, and showing them how something is done.  Gee states, “By a “practice” I mean a socially recognized and institutionally or culturally supported endeavor that usually involves sequencing or combining actions in certain specified ways” (Gee 32). Using Gee’s logic, the act of practices is the most relevant when it comes to the science discourse.  In science, without proof from tests and activities there is no solution to solving a hypothesis. These experiment results are vital to the research of scientists and the validation of their work. Similarly, in the work of Nair and Nair, they present to us the IMRAD format as means for the organization of a research paper.  Using the formula, explaining results of the test, experiment, etc. is the most vital part of a paper. Nair and Nair explain, “Thus, the value of the paper depends on what is contained in this (Results) section, and it must be presented in an absolutely clear manner in just the right number of words, neither more nor less” (Nair and Nair 20).  As Nair and Nair explain, this section of the paper presents new knowledge to the reader and is based off the results of the activity or practice the author preforms. The author must use a practice as stated by Gee to achieve these results. The practice used can be an experiment or test, leading to the description of the results to the reader.  

 

According to Gee, it is difficult to achieve full literacy of a new Discourse.  Literacy can be defined in numerous different ways of context, but has a specific meaning when it comes to Discourse.  Gee explains, “Thus, I define “literacy” as the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse” (Gee 9). Using Gee’s logic, full literacy of a Discourse means a person has mastered the specific Discourse in which they are attempting to acquire.  This mastery allows the person to be an active member of the Discourse and they can implement this Discourse into their values, beliefs, and actions. In the work of Christina Haas, there is a study she presented that takes place over the four year college career of a student named Eliza.  Haas kept track of Eliza’s literacy and understanding of college level text and how she interacted with the text. In her first two years of school, she simply read text to retain information but she was able to teach herself new reading techniques and strategies as the years went on. Haas states, “By her senior year she often viewed texts as multiply connected-to authors and scientists, to other readers, and to historical circumstances-and even demonstrated some understanding of her own connections both to scientific texts (and, by implication, to their authors) and to the objects of her own research” (Haas 69).  Eliza was able to achieve full literacy in the Discourse of college level understanding of text after four years in school. It was a gradual progression to reach this level in her academic career, but through perseverance and hard work, she was able to achieve it. She proves Gee’s idea of the difficulty of achieving literacy in a Discourse wrong as she prospered her senior year.

ENG110I