1. In the Gee article, it is Gee who is speaking. He is speaking to an audience of either educators or anyone interested in education. In Delpit's article, she is speaking to Gee and those who are familiar with Gee's work. They are both arguing about dominant discourses. Gee says they can't be learned, Delpit says they can.
2. Gee makes an argument and Delpit responds with a counter-argument. They disagree because Delpit thinks that one can learn a dominant discourse and that just because you are not born into it, you cannot achieve it. Also, she argues that major problems in learning a dominant discourse are not always present. By saying that something cannot be achieved, it leaves a sense of uncertainty and hopelessness with teachers and students alike.
3. I might enter the conversation by responding to both of their articles. I would mention Gee's argument, agree with Delpit's argument and then introduce my own experience and knowledge, especially since English is my second language.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I liked your response, it was brief, and to the point and made a lot of sense. What struck me about it was that it was very close to my response (just with way fewer words)! Good job.
Hey. I liked your response because you pointed out each person's argument and you gave a personal reaction. I think the personal experience is crucial to engaging in an argument. I agree with you, I would side with Delpit because it is obvious that students can enter a discourse and then emerge out of it with a new dominant discourse. I think everyone pretty much sees the relevance of Gee, but the real-world application of literary discourses is better addressed in Delpit's piece.
Post a Comment