Throughout our discussions of disciplinary literacy, we have observed how various groups engage in various literacies depending on the group involved. Each of these literacies possesses individual worldviews, specific terms and phrases, and a particular terminology that defines how to improve one’s understanding of the discipline. We’ve repeatedly touched on different ways to introduce this concept to students. A multiplicity of education videos, scholarly articles and education conferences have all pointed toward the importance of introducing disciplinary literacy to students. However, there is one question that I feel as though we should be asking: what about the teacher? If it is true that the students should be brought into the worldview and sociocultural perspective of students, then shouldn’t teachers be brought into the sociocultural perspective of students.
The last twenty years of language teacher education(or LTE for short) has focused on the emergence of sociocultural perspectives on teacher learning.(Editorial) However, I would argue that teacher learning should not just be restricted to pedagogical theories. Rather, it should also focus on student and teacher relationships and interactions. As Gee points out in his example of the father and son learning to read, both the son and the father occupy pivotal roles in the discourse of reading. (Gee) The discourse relies on the active participation of both parties in-order to achieve its intended effect. If this is true for as simple an activity as reading, then how much more vital must the relationship be between students and teachers in a public(or private/charter) school setting.
If disciplinary literacy can exist for something like skateboarding, then it would therefore manifest in nearly every peer-group.(Olshefski) Since that is the case, we must naturally assume that it exists in the student body. But, then again, we really don’t need to look to scholarly articles to uncover this fact. Everybody who’s ever been in a school knows this. There are always cliques: “preps” “jocks” “nerds” ect. And each one of these groups possesses a distinctive literacy. “Preps” have certain styles of dress. “Jocks” have certain body language and distinctive vocabulary. And “nerds” have very specific interests that probably differ from other peer groups. I will leave the specific interpretations of these habits to reader interpretation.
Furthermore, these literacies, these languages that students use, help to define their view of the world. This is shown in Kirkland and Jackson’s study of black masculine literacy. For their subjects, the world was defined by “a tapestry of traits, blacknesses and masculinities as to decode and encode texts.” (Kirkland and Jackson). While their study focuses on a particular set of test subjects, their findings on general worldview can be interpreted to apply for a variety of student literacies.
The fact is teachers teach people…not students…people. This is something that should never be forgotten. But those people occupy a variety of roles, one of which is student. And when you are a student, you have a particular worldview and set of concerns and problems.
I argue it is the obligation of the teacher to understand and recognize their role in the student’s life experiences. For students, concerns, either social or educational, effect how they operate and interact with education. Per example, there might be a teacher who wants to give their students a brand new and unique learning experience. However, this might not fit into the sociocultural perspective of the students, being something foreign and therefore stress inducing. A teacher may unintentionally make themselves into a enemy of their students due to an inability to recognize the sociocultural values of the student’s perspectives. A teacher might unintentionally give a particular set of students an over-inflated sense of ego due to mis-reading the values of that group.
Teachers need be develop the skills necessary to properly interpret the views and values of a student. That way, the teacher gains access to the mind of the students and can construct an education more fitting for their needs.
WORKS CITED:
Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714-725.
Kirkland, D. E., & Jackson, A. (2009). “We real cool”: Toward a theory of black masculine literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 278-297.
Olshefski, Christopher. (2019) “Skateboarding as a discipline” Duquesne University
Barkhuizen, Gary; Borg, Simon.Language Teaching Research; London Vol. 14, Iss. 3, (Jul 2010): 237-240.
From the Round Table 
Thank you for sharing this powerful reminder that seems so obvious, but is yet so elusive to our profession– that teachers– gasp– teach people. I can’t help but think back to all of my teaching as I read your post and I ask myself, “Am I reading the my role in my students’ lives” accurately?” And I can think of some clear moments that serve as evidence of serious misreadings and misconceptions of my students’ interactions with learning experiences. I also think that as teachers who love the profession of teaching, we can reflect our way into madness and discouragement– the majority of first-year teachers become all too painfully aware that of their mistakes, and can find themselves deeply discouraged that they cannot seem to do anything “right.” I think there needs to be a balance in the way we reflect on our teaching and also remember that learning can be painful. Perhaps relationship building and trust can only be done when teachers and students find a way to communicate. And as Gee notes, no communication works the same in all settings– Teachers, basically need to be learning new discourses with every group they encounter. This can be hard, but when it’s done well it’s definitely worth it.
LikeLiked by 1 person