Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Response to Purcell-Gates


In her book, Other People’s Words, Victoria Purcell-Gates makes some interesting observations regarding the sociocultural view of how language and literacy is learned. Purcell-Gates also addresses some of the more important economic and political aspects that pertain to how education is dispensed within and throughout American society. By innovatively stressing the concept of viewing the world through the eyes of others, Purcell-Gates encourages us to observe educational and cultural theories through the appropriate “lens”. The ideas and theories introduced in this book are paramount to the learning process and deserving of more analysis, research, and detailed discussion.

Most people are capable of learning, but as Purcell-Gates argues, “their abilities are based on their individual life situations” (4). Unfortunately we have a tendency to judge people’s cognitive abilities based on the way they speak and use language. My studies in sociolinguistics have informed me that there is no right, wrong or best way to speak and that any language that serves its users is the accepted standard of that particular language community. The myth that some languages are superior to others has no basis in linguistic theory since there is no objective way to evaluate language to determine which one is better than the others (Crystal 7). Regrettably society gauges the intelligence of learners by the language and dialect they use. I believe it would be more constructive to study why low income and minority groups have low literacy levels and by viewing the world through their eyes or what Purcell-Gates refers to as the sociocultural theory lens (6).

Urban Appalachian people are representative of a group often though of as deficient in language, motivation, learning ability, and parenting skills. Public opinion perceives this group to be unfit and incapable of learning to read and write in Standard English. Purcell-Gates argues that this misconception is due to a cultural difference rather than a deficit (86) and urban Appalachians are merely immigrants to the literate world who must learn about the culture of literacy (180). I surmise that this group faces many obstacles to educational attainment due to the inherent characteristics of their culture. One of the challenges this minority group must deal with is that they are mostly white and of European descent, specifically Scottish-Irish-English ancestry, a class that is not associated with what the general public sees as a minority or protected class. Another obstacle is that this group is not politically organized and is therefore left to their own efforts and individual devices when dealing with school administrators and other bureaucracies. Perhaps the most severe and least visible impediment is the prejudice and stereotyping directed at urban Appalachians. Derogatory references, such as “hillbilly” and “white trash,” directed at this low status minority are still socially acceptable. This negative stereotyping further restricts the group’s access to educational opportunities. It is apparent that negative stereotyping of a language can serve as a mode of exclusion particularly when employed by the media to portray the users as ignorant. Until we can break this cycle of prejudice and discrimination low status groups will not be permitted to participate in the mainstream culture that holds the key to educational achievement.

Research indicates that it takes three generations of urban Appalachian culture to break the cycle of illiteracy. While Purcell-Gates’ efforts to bring literacy to two generations of urban Appalachians was noble, I do not entirely agree with her methods. I would argue that it may have been a mistake to attempt to teach the two generations simultaneously due to the cultural characteristics of these individuals. The child’s pride that led him to protect his mother from shame and embarrassment restricted her ability to learn. The mother’s candor about her inability to read and admitting it to people with the attitude that it did not bother her set a poor example, which hindered the child’s motivation to learn. Considering that the needs, motivations, and abilities of adults and children are different and the unique culture of this particular group, mother and son should have remained in separate learning environments. As teachers we need to adjust our pedagogy and implement more creative teaching strategies and methods. As educators we must develop curriculums that are flexible and permit access for all groups so that we may increase our expectations without lowering our standards.



Works Cited

Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Second Edition.

            New York: Cambridge University Press. 1997. Print

Purcell-Gates, Victoria. Other People’s Words: The Cycle of Low Literacy.

            Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1997. Print

No comments:

Post a Comment