Monday, August 2 (DJ #5)

Following the readings and discussions on “social worlds,” I couldn’t help but think of Beth Brendler’s course and learning about Communities of Practice. Although a bit different, they stem from the same idea that we have many identities to many different people and that the discourse in each of our “worlds” is varied. I think that social worlds is an easier term for students to understand and I would lean towards that phraseology if I were to teach it to my students. That being said, I think that the short story by future Ph.D student Jessica Dockter was an excellent way to teach the concept of social worlds. It really forced us to consider how these two young women differed from one another and how the forces around them really affected their discourse and action. I would definitely use this activity in my classroom because I think it allows students access to the text in a way that is relatable for them. It worked particularly well for this story because both of the girls were from the same town and of the same age (similar to our students), however their cultural, linguistic and family histories were very different. I think it would be great to actually map these worlds out and see where (and if) they overlap. You could bring in the idea of Communities of Practice into this as well by asking students to identify things that this group or world does or says that are specific to them and seeing where this language and action overlaps with other groups. As I write this out I am getting more and more excited to use it in my own classroom! (Now to just get a job…!)
The Enciso article really helped me to see other ways we can negotiate discussion of MC texts (or texts multiculturally). I really liked the idea of “talking back” that Enciso quotes from bell hooks because it is framed in such a way, like social worlds, that would be simple for students to comprehend. It also makes the texts come to life, which I think is a huge part of our role as English teachers. I would like to come back to this text after reading Maniac Magee because I think it would be very helpful to have the background knowledge going into it. Reading the transcripts of classroom discussion was fascinating—I think even this could be a useful tool in a high school classroom, in a way decoding or analyzing genuine responses to literature. One particular piece of the discussion really stuck out to me. At one point they are discussing a part of the novel in which “Maniac puzzles over the nature of skin color the meaning of black and white. Maniac belives that we are all many colors—black and white are meaningless” (28). One student responds, “We’re not white. We’re skin color. We’re not white” (28). This really struck me because I thought of two things: bandaids and crayons. Bandaids were designed to “blend in” with the skin as to not be seen. But they only blend in on certain skin. I would love to discuss this with my students. Crayons are another story, though they have gotten better. I really like this video, “Crayola Monologues” that discusses race using crayons and also delves into the history of Crayola and the color naming process:

I intend to show this to my students, it is short and to the point and I think it would be a great conversation starter.