Steve Cha

Argument 76100o

Sauer

05/02/97

In the American teaching system, writing and reading seems to be the main focus of literacy, and oratory skills are not stressed. This is because most students learn grammar in writing, so it would seem that this grammar would cover orating. Yet, there are many other aspects to this subgroup within literacy. Every interaction one has with another, requires it's own set of "rules". As Gee wrote in his article Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics, he writes, "It is not just what you say, but how you say it."(pg. 5) The system needs to change, so that it can focus more of its resources on teaching how to interact in the world.

Many students learn how to read and write, however when it comes to speaking to other people, only a percentage of these students do it well. For instance at job interviews the applicants will probably know what to say in his mind, but when it comes to the actual interview, he will not do well on the interview, due to improper speaking skills.

Take for an example the paradigm case of John Kim. He lived his whole life in Kansas. His parents hardly speak any English, just knowing enough to open and maintain a dry cleaners. At home the only language spoken was Korean, so as a baby his primary discourse was in Korean. This distanced him from the other children, during the first years of schooling, because he could not communicate with any of his peers. As John Kim grew older, the situation did not change, even though his English improved more and more every day. It turns out that John never had much self-confidence within himself when it came to communicating with anyone, due to the earlier years of his life.

When people like John do not have much self-confidence, their oratory skills tend to be low. This is most likely due to the uncomfortable feeling of everyone watching him. But, if as a young child John Kim was placed in schooling that emphasized rhetoric skills, where he would get in front of the class to speak on a subject, then as he grew older, speaking in front of others would seem like nothing. Another important role of discourse, is during job interviews. Almost all jobs require an interview, in which one presents himself to the company, and within the thirty minute period in which one has, he must give the impression that he is right for the job. If one doesn't know the workings of a job interview, he will probably do poorly. But if the school taught him how to act in a job interview, and taught him how to show confidence, to keep his eyes fixed, to shake hands firmly, etc.. However, noticing that this is a problem only begins the process of finding a solution.

There exists another problem that needs to be solved: there are conflicts amongst the different approaches of scholars on how to teach students to interact with others in a way that will fit the situation. There are two main approaches amongst scholars, which I would like to mention. Both approaches lead to a different aspect of the problem, therefore after mentioning both approaches thoroughly, I will express the need to formulate a combination of these approaches to include all aspects of the problem. There is the approach that deals with the need for instruction in school to teach when to say what, so that students may be able to live in America, socially, thus named the Schooling Approach. Authors that advocate this approach include Linda Flower and John Hayes and Rodriguez. Another approach is the Interactive approach which argues that dialect is indirectly taught through the mere interaction with the people around him. Authors who are included in this group are John Ogbu and James Gee.

The authors of the Schooling Approach believe the school system can be devised to teach students how to interact in different situations. Flower and Hayes writes that through teaching people how to write, "the student is exposed to the formal descriptive categories of rhetoric,...and encouraged to absorb the features of a socially approved style, with emphasis on grammar and usage."(pg. 449) While Rodriguez believes that the bilingual education that was introduced to him in school, was the reason for being able to communicate in the United States. His story is similar to the boy in the paradigm case mentioned above, except Rodriguez was in a system that forced him to speak English at school. Both of these authors agree that the school system can be changed to teach social practices.

Flower and Hayes write that from learning how to write correctly, the "formal descriptive categories of rhetoric, modes of argument, definition, cause and effect, and modes of discourse, description, and persuasion"(pg. 449) are taught. Therefore, they express the need to teach students the correct strategies throughout the writing process. However, discourse is not just "grammar and usage", but it matters what situation one is in, and who one is talking to.

Rodriguez takes another side of the same approach. He writes from experience, saying if the school system he went through works, then other systems can be devised to teach the right skills needed to live functionally. However, this approach lacks some merit, because there were so many variables that constituted for his learning experience. He was transferred to a community of all white people, so his peers all were able to speak English. This could constitute for some of the learning of rhetoric.

The Interactive approach preaches that students can learn all they need to know about interacting with other people, by interacting with other people. Basically, the students are to learn as they go along, eventually realizing that a different discourse needs to be made up for different situations. Both authors mention that people lack certain "functional literacy" skills. Ogbu writes in Literacy and Schooling in Subordinate Cultures "that a greater proportion of minorities is not functionally literate. That is, they are unable to demonstrate the ability to read, write, or compute in social and economic situations that require these skills."(pg. 227) Gee believes "what is important is not language, and surely not grammar, but saying-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations."(pg. 6)

Ogbu believes the school system as it is now, hurts the minorities, especially the black community. Ogbu argues that it is due to the class and caste systems that still exist in America. Ogbu writes that in society today, the "traditional social and economic positions of blacks have not required much education nor rewarded blacks highly for educational accomplishments."(pg. 241) The reason for this, he writes, is because most of the people who "control their schooling perceive them and define their educational needs"(pg. 241) are mostly white. And with the prejudices that white people have against the minorities, they influence the schooling of minority children.

Gee writes "a discourse is a sort of 'identity kit' which comes complete with the appropriate instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize." Thus many people have more than one "discourse". He argues that "you cannot overtly teach anyone a Discourse, in a classroom or anywhere else...But by encultuation into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse."(pg. 7) He shows that when someone learns a second language it is not by sitting in a class room taking notes, but by getting involved with the culture and interacting with others who have mastered the particular "discourse". Even though this is true, unless someone encourages them to get involved in the culture and interacting with those with the "Discourse" mastered, then they will not learn it.

Yet, besides the problem that there is a need in the world today to communicate effectively, there exists a problem in how to teach the proper ways to communicate. Both of the aforementioned approaches deal with two different aspects of functional literacy. Yet, each approach leaves out the good point of the other approach. If there was a way to combine the both into one umbrella approach, then many problems will be eliminated. Not only would rhetoric skills be taught in school, but the child should be encouraged to interact with the world in as many different ways that he can. As the child goes through situations, he will learn the inner workings of many circumstances, and remember them as he grows older. And also, as the child learns, he will be able take on new situations without ever facing it before, because he will rely on similar instances of the past and improvise.

However, combining the two approaches into one has many problems that need to be resolved. I will not go into this, for that is what the other scholars are to do. I am just making it aware that the decline in oratory teaching is a major problem in society today, due to the many interactions one has to go through in a day. Without adequate social skills, many jobs are eliminated from possible jobs that should be attainable. Through the recognition of this problem, scholars can then work together to devise a solution, instead of arguing which approach is better. As Sylvia Scribner sees the importance to combine all definitions of literacy into one, this paper attempts to get others to see the importance of a single definition of functional literacy.