Connecting Gee, Brandt, and Alexander

We’re familiar with Gee’s idea that literacy in a “dominant secondary Discourse” brings “social goods.” How do Alexander’s findings confirm this notion? Notice on p. 556 how Brandt characterizes her own contribution to the conversation helping to fill in the “bigger picture” of the social and economic conditions that shape individual literacy. What does she mean when she writes that social and economic conditions shape individual literacy? What does her insight connecting individual literacy, social goods, and larger historic economic patterns mean for your own study of literacy narratives?

Alexander divided the literacy narratives based on the characteristics of the stories. The most common narrative written by the students is ‘Success narrative’. Success narrative view literacy as a mean to economic, political success and there is no limit of one’s background for achieving success. According to Gee, there is a discourse called ‘Secondary discourse’ and this is further divided into two types of discourses. One is ‘Dominant Discourse’ and the other one is ‘Non-Dominant Discourse’. Dominant discourse allows for the acquisition of social goods and status points, while Non dominant discourses do not. I think Alexander’s idea of success narrative connects to the Gee’s idea of Non dominant discourse. They both pursuit social success in our culture. When Alexander writes social and economic conditions shape individual literacy I think this relates to Brandt’s idea of sponsorship. Sponsors are usually located at higher social status and they enable, support, teach literacy to the individuals.

Pay attention to stories of Raymond Branch and Dora Lopez. Brandt summarizes her findings then explains what they mean in terms of her study. Could we say that these fit the pattern of what Alexander calls the “literacy success story”? Support your answer by pointing to and explaining particular details in their stories. How might Brandt’s analysis of their stories complicate your initial response?

Raymond Branch and Dora Lopez lived in similar period but their background was completely different. Branch received his first personal computer from this parents when he was twelve, and he had contact with the founders of the electronic bulletin boards in nation at early age. This lead him to become a successful freelance writer of software. He was in rich learning environment which was perfect for him to pursue his literacy development. However in the case of Lopez it was different. Her grandparents worked as farm laborers and her parents were part time workers. The first time she was exposed to computer was when she was thirteen. She needed to try harder than Branch to reach for the material and communicative system. She ended up working as a translator at a cleaning company. What this means in Brandt’s story is how important the sponsor is when it comes to achieving one’s literacy development. If there is a gap between the status of sponsors it affects to the person who is getting sponsored by them. I think these does not fit the pattern of what Alexander calls the “literacy success story”. Alexander claims anyone can achieve success regardless of one’s background.

Now turn to your set of student literacy narratives from the Rising Cairn Which of your chosen narratives include a literacy sponsor? Does this sponsor act in the ways Alexander and/or Brandt observe? Give two examples. Which ones seem to complicate their claims and how?

Brandt explained different types of sponsors in her readings. Sponsors recruit, regulate, suppress and withhold. I found two examples fitting to her standard of sponsors. In my literacy narrative, I acted as a regulator. I corrected the error of the exam I took in high school. By refuting the claim of my teachers I made it clear that interpretation of the literature could vary between people. Also in Shaylee’s narrative, her teacher acted as a suppressor. She put an end to the Shaylee’s reading book by authority.