[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RE: [xmca] Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac

 -  <!--  /* Style Definitions */  p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal 	{mso-style-parent:""; 	margin:0in; 	margin-bottom:.0001pt; 	mso-pagination:widow-orphan; 	font-size:12.0pt; 	font-family:"Times New Roman"; 	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.fieldlabel 	{mso-style-name:fieldlabel;} @page Section1 	{size:8.5in 11.0in; 	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; 	mso-header-margin:.5in; 	mso-footer-margin:.5in; 	mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 	{page:Section1;} -->   I am interested in student participation at the other end of the educational continuum, namely on the college level and specifically related to class differences.  Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac’s work seems to fit with what I have read about retention for first generation, working class, and other marginalized students. Working class students do not leave the university because of a lack of ability, funds, or confidence. They report leaving because of a feeling of discomfort, primarily focused on their estimation of their language ability (Penrose) or their feeling of comfort in the classroom (Adair).
  With adults being able to discuss these feelings of discomfort seems to be very helpful. I have given presentations about the imposter phenomenon and the diverse ways that people cope with the feeling of being unaccepted at the university—including a range running from a fear of failure to the fear of success.  Students who do not leave, can feel driven to over-achieve or to procrastinate because their culture is not accepted by those in power.  The stress caused by feelings of being an imposter in the university setting intensify on higher levels for both graduate students and professors.  We never quite feel at home at the university.
  I have focused on how to design writing assignments that combine students’ cultural experiences with academic study. Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac’s article makes me think more about the classroom organization whereas I have been focusing more on the structure of the assignments.



Nancy Mack

English Department
Wright State University


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>
Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009 7:47 am
Subject: RE: [xmca] Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Jay
> ,
> It seems to me a playing out - at least to some extent of 
> Bourdieu's larger theory.  That increasing the cultural 
> capital of the teacher in relation to the class would increase 
> the level of social capital, which would lead to some of the 
> findings they present.  A lack of cultural capital (usually 
> assumed on the part of the students) would certainly lead to 
> more difficulties in communication and the students feeling more 
> uncomfortable in class.
> But this leads to a fairly radical assumption on the part of the 
> authors concerning habitus, even in terms of Bourdieu's 
> theory.  That is that cultural capital can be taught 
> overtly, as cultural capital - Bourdieu seems to emphasize that 
> we learn cultural capital more or less unconsciously, through 
> everyday experience in the right situations (whether it is with 
> parents or in a school system where the type of cultural capital 
> that leads to easy social capital is pervasive).  I'm not 
> so sure this is possible.
> I have another difficult which is that I read habitus as 
> defining class distinctions rather than cultural distinctions, 
> and that I'm not sure his ideas translate between the two, or 
> make that much sense if they do.  The types of cultures 
> like Latino/Latina cultures are going to have class distinctions 
> defined by different habitas, defined most easily by different 
> levels of economic capital, and different recogntions of 
> symbolic capital (and symbolic violence),  To say a 
> population so large has a single type of habitus I think is 
> problematic - especially when using a terms such as 
> collectivist, which is both categorical and far too broad I 
> think to be really salient in describing classes, let alone 
> entire cultures (I think level and type of social capital might 
> be more appropriate if you are going to use Bourdeiu's theory as 
> a starting point).
> Michael
> ________________________________
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Jay Lemke
> Sent: Thu 12/3/2009 12:16 AM
> To: XMCA Forum
> Subject: [xmca] Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac
> I don't know how many people have yet had a chance to look at 
> the MCA 
> article-of-the-month (Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac on 
> communicative 
> habitus and attunement in classrooms).
> I must have missed something, so could someone explain to me how 
> they 
> derive the hypothesis that the more culturally attuned classroom 
> will 
> have more criticism (by the teacher? or by everyone?) and less 
> praise, 
> than the mismatched classroom?
> And what do you think generally about the methodology in this work?
> JAY.
> Jay Lemke
> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> Educational Studies
> University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> Visiting Scholar
> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> University of California -- San Diego
> La Jolla, CA
> USA 92093
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list