Winia 1
Jennifer Winia
English 289
Dr. Sonja Andrus
23 April 2012
Annotated Bibliography
Block, Debbie Galante. “Bridging the Gap Between Teachers and Underprivileged Students.”
Teaching Music 17.2 MENC. (2009): ProQuest. Web. 22 Apr 2012.
In this article, Block contends that the key to connecting with students and being able to
effectively teach them, is in understanding the students’ primary discourse and
incorporating it into the curriculum. The author interviewed a doctoral student who had
formerly been the orchestra director in an urban classroom setting in Atlanta. Block
recognizes that often teachers have much different socio-economic backgrounds than
their students, which makes it necessary to bridge the gap between the discourses. In the
case detailed in the article, the orchestra director started a mariachi band in order to
connect with the primary Discourse Community of her minority students. The author’s
article supports some theories and contradicts others of James Paul Gee, in the essay,
Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What Is Literacy?. Gee believes
that underprivileged students cannot be successfully taught a secondary discourse, so they
need to learn to “mushfake” their way through it instead. Whereas, Block asserts that
embracing the primary discourse serves to excite the students about learning and
motivates them to master a secondary discourse.
Winia 2
Delpit, Lisa. “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed.
Ellen Cushman, Eugene R. Kintgen, Barry M. Kroll, & Mike Rose. Boston, MA:
Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 544-554. Print.
Lisa Delpit, an author and educator at Florida International University, analyzes the essay
by James Paul Gee, Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What Is
Literacy?, and points out Gee’s well-meaning, yet misguided assertions about extreme
difficulties of underprivileged students in mastering a dominant secondary discourse.
Delpit provides several powerful examples of students who came from impoverished
socio-economic backgrounds, who rise above their primary discourse to fully master the
desired secondary discourse and achieve the highest status within that discourse. Delpit
warns about the danger involved when teachers believe that they would be engaging in
political or socio-economic oppression of their students if they forced them to master a
dominant secondary discourse that conflicts with the morals and beliefs of their primary
discourse. Instead, Delpit encourages instructors to view the teaching of a dominant
secondary discourse to underprivileged students not as oppression, but rather as helping
them “cheat” their way into that discourse because of the acknowledged “inequity of the
system” (554).
Jones, Brian. “Socioeconomic Status and Classroom Discourse.” Examiner.com. n.p. 25 Oct
2011. Web. 22 Apr 2012.
Brian Jones, a K-12 Examiner in Long Beach, California offers this article as an
examination of how a dominant secondary discourse affects students from a low socioeconomic background, by not taking into account the students’ primary discourse. He
believes that currently, the leaders of the school’s discourse are not sensitive to the
Winia 3
special needs of students from low socio-economic statuses. Jones’ article seems to agree
with the theories provided by James Paul Gee in his essay, Literacy, Discourse, and
Linguistics: Introduction and What Is Literacy?. Jones suggests that the current methods
of teaching a secondary discourse in the schools only fuel the problems of disadvantaged
students by “hiding” them or putting them in remedial classes. Like Gee, he suggests that
teachers be trained to give more consideration to the backgrounds of students. The author
also contends that the teachers should allow low socio-economic status students to have a
different viewpoint than what the current curriculum calls for and that the teachers
“immerse themselves into the primary low socioeconomic discourse and negotiate it into
the secondary discourse on which a classroom runs.”
Jorgenson, Robyn and Richard Niesche. “Equity Mathematics and Classroom Practice:
Developing Rich Mathematical Experiences for Disadvantaged Students.” The Free
Library by Farlex. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom. 22 Dec 2008. Web. 22
Apr 2012.
In this report, the authors discuss the ways in which disadvantaged students are
unintentionally set up for failure in mathematics classes in which the pedagogy excludes
students who are disadvantaged. Jorgenson and Niesche point out that students who are
thought to have only a minimal amount of mathematical ability are quickly cast into
basic math classes where their learning potential might not be recognized. The low
expectations of the teachers are having a “self-fulfilling prophecy” effect on the
students, who then believe they are not capable of mastering the discourse. These
mathematical placement examples serve to highlight some of the problems with the
theories of James Paul Gee that are postulated in his essay, Literacy, Discourse, and
Winia 4
Linguistics: Introduction and What Is Literacy?. Jorgenson and Niesche illustrate just
how problematic it is for teachers to “not-teach” students because of the instructors’ own
mistaken assertions that the students cannot learn a secondary discourse because of their
backgrounds.
Kong, Jong-Gu. “A Teacher’s Deconstruction of Disability: A Discourse Analysis.” Disability
Studies Quarterly. 29:1. Society for Disability Studies. (2009): Web. 22 Apr 2012.
Jong-Gu Kong is the researcher and author of an article which seeks to demonstrate that
the powerful dominant discourse in schools do a grave disservice to autistic students by
labeling them as disabled. This approach keeps the autistic students segregated from the
other students, encourages those same students to view the autistic as “abnormal,” and
denies the autistic students’ access to dominant discourses. Kong is asking teachers to
change the structure of the discourse by altering the language to “construct (autistic)
students as able, then so they may be conceived.” In Kong’s opinion, school discourses
hold the power and limit the access to power for those who are labeled as disabled. The
author’s assertions support the theories of James Paul Gee in his essay, Literacy,
Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What Is Literacy?. Like Gee, Jong-Gu
Kong believes that the answer to lessening the struggles of disadvantaged students trying
to enter a secondary discourse lies in changing the structure of the discourse itself. The
author also agrees with Gee that it is the responsibility of the teachers to effect change
within the secondary discourse.
Paul, James S. “Teaching the Underprivileged Child.” Music Journal 25:9. (1967): Oser
Communications Group, Inc. Periodicals Archive Online. (2002) ProQuest. Web. 22 Apr
2012.
Winia 5
The author relays his experiences as a teacher of underprivileged ninth grade students,
and shares his realization that the students weren’t just poor, they were “deprived through
social or economic condition of some of the fundamental rights of all members of
civilized society.” In a community which largely disregarded them and home discourses
which gave them little attention, it became the job of a teacher to “change the course of
their lives.” This point of view seems to support the ideas of James Paul Gee, in the
essay, Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What Is Literacy.? It is
Gee’s opinion that a teacher should not “oppress” his or her students by ignoring the
structure of their primary discourse. Gee also believes, however, that teaching
underprivileged children a secondary discourse is nearly impossible. In contrast, Paul S.
James contends that motivated teachers can help their students overcome the
inadequacies of their primary discourse.
Young, Chase. “Building Literate Identities as Secondary Discourses: Research into Practice.”
TheBestClass.org 25:9 McGowen Elementary, n.d. Web. 22 Apr 2012.
Chase Young, reading specialist in a Title I elementary school, wrote this article to show
his understanding of the role of primary and secondary discourses on learning. The author
of this article uses the example of the changes that he made to his own lesson plans to
demonstrate how giving more consideration to language can empower students from
inadequate primary discourses. Young encouraged his students to correspond with their
favorite authors by writing letters containing an evaluation of the author’s books. As the
students began to think of themselves as literary evaluators, they began to feel
empowered and had more of a sense of belonging to the secondary discourse. This article
seems to challenge Gee’s theories regarding the oppression of students’ primary
Winia 6
discourse by teaching a secondary discourse. Contrary to Gee, Young believes that by
respecting the students’ primary discourse and incorporating aspects of that discourse
into their curriculum, teachers can actually strengthen the students’ ability to master a
secondary discourse.