Literacy in the University: An Anthropological Approach - Essay Example

Bicultural necessity for Success In her essay en d “What Happens When Basic Cometo College?”, Patricia Bizzell (1986) argues that in order to succeed in university it is necessary to become ‘bicultural’. To keep the scope of her answer broad, Bizzell refers to the problems faced by basic writers when they attempt to make the transition into the academic world. Basic writers are “defined in absolute terms by features of their writing or in relative terms by their placement in a given school’s freshman composition sequence” (Bizzell, 1986, p. 294). Within her argument, Bizzell presents the three main approaches taken in attempting to understand these issues and the problems inherent in focusing on just one approach at a time, proving that a bicultural approach is the only equitable and serviceable approach possible. This idea of a bicultural approach is supported throughout Bizzell’s arguments by Brigid Ballard and John Clanchy in their article “Literacy in the University: An Anthropological Approach” as well as through my own college experience. The first approach to educating basic writers “says that basic writers entering college precipitate a clash among dialects” (Bizzell, 1986, p. 294) because their home dialect differs significantly from the diction and grammar of Standardized English widely used throughout the world of higher education. Arguments against the use of standard English indicate that students with differing dialects lose a great deal of their ability to communicate, suffer a reduction in the depth of their education because of the necessity of learning and adopting the academic system and represents a lack of recognition of the validity and unique expressive nature of the home dialects. Presenting a strong argument to the contrary, advocates of the Standard English approach merely need to point out the necessity of preparing students for success in an increasingly globalized world that depends on Standard English for a good deal of its communication needs. However, even identifying the appropriate language to use in a given academic paper can be difficult. “Gradually, the students learn that, when asked to write an essay on, say, language acquisition, the method of analysis they employ, the evidence they bring to bear, the language they use will be very different depending on whether they are enrolled in linguistics, prehistory, sociology, education or psychology” (Ballard & Clanchy, 1988, p. 172). This has led some educators to advocate a bicultural approach to education that allows students to participate in activities that encourage and celebrate the home dialect, such as journal writing, while also engaging them in active use and association with Standard English in the form of varying genres of writing within their fields of study. The second approach focuses on the ways in which basic writers shape their arguments, generally modeling them around the shape of their home views rather than selecting one of the more complex genres of university writing. Ballard and Clanchy define literacy as referring to “a student’s capacity to use written language to perform those functions required by the culture in ways and at a level judged acceptable by the reader” (1988, p. 166) where the increasing majority of the reader is well-versed in Standardized English. The argument here is not just one of whether home discourse or Academic discourse should be used, but also over whether the use of Academic discourse actually opens up pathways to new thought that would not be accessible through other means. According to Bizzell, participation in different types of academic dialogue forces students to examine different areas of thought they might otherwise never consider. “A corollary of this position is that whereas many genres, like the many dialects of English, are equally capable of generating complex thoughts, they are not capable of generating the same complex thoughts” (Bizzell, 1986, p. 296). The example provided illustrates how the use of a journal might help a student express their own personal feelings regarding a strong issue such as abortion while an academic paper might force them to consider the various approaches to the topic held throughout history, giving them a broader base of information upon which to base their information. The third approach suggests that the category of student writers classified as basic may not be developmentally capable of achieving college-level thought. Using this approach, Bizzell suggests teachers tend to focus more upon correcting those areas in which the student is deficient rather than focusing on teaching them what they need to know and finding out what they can contribute to the class. This concept is also mentioned by Ballard and Clanchy not in terms of whether or not students are capable of developing this type of thought pattern, but whether or not the university is making an effort to convey the rules of the academic culture sufficiently enough to enable these students to make the transition: “making the intellectual culture explicit for new learners is the best way of helping them effect a successful integration into it” (1988, p. 171). Arguments offered against this approach bring forward many of the same reasons given for the preservation of home dialects, especially the tendency for this approach to negate the validity of differing thought processes. Bizzell’s argument for the student’s need to achieve biculturality stems from the concept that viewing the problem through the narrow focus of only a single approach, whether student or teacher, risks miscommunication on a large scale, potentially leading to such loss of confidence that the student risks failure. This concept of a large gap in understanding and communication between the academic and the student is also mentioned by Ballard and Clanchy: “Despite their importance, these cultural understandings are rarely addressed directly … They are nowhere codified or written down, and yet they mediate crucially between the student’s own knowledge and intentions, and the knowledge and potential meanings that exist within the university” (1988, p. 166). The solution, Bizzell suggests, exists in a multicultural approach that recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of all approaches, especially as these students enter the academic world and begin experiencing this culture shock, and makes a conscious effort to study the effects of such bicultural attempts. While benefits of retaining a home culture are impossible to determine because of the infinite possibilities available, the benefits of gaining the academic culture are more quantifiable. One of these benefits is that students no longer see a world of absolutes, instead constantly questioning their own thoughts and arriving at well-informed ideas and convictions. Yet even this benefit is questioned as individuals who adopt an academic world view of constant questioning cannot easily return to a home view in which the parents expect to be obeyed without question when making decisions about their children’s lives. Again, though, it takes an academic who understands this home view to argue for its preservation as it is only an academic who can phrase the strengths and values of this culture to the rest of the broader academic community. This is a connection that many fear will be severed rather than strengthened by exposure to the academic world, but that has proven to be resilient. According to studies, students who no longer fully subscribe to their native home view tend to argue in its defense and maintain a connection to it for the familiarity of it if for nothing else. In addition, exposing students to a variety of genres of writing and thinking, through the use of a bi-cultural environmental structure, enables them to become competent in a variety of settings, providing them with a greater chance for success. “[L]iteracy is not a uni-dimensional constant capacity. In practice, literacy varies significantly with context of culture. It is never a case, beyond the most mechanical level, of individuals being literate or not literate. Rather we are all more or less literate in different contexts of culture at different stages of our development” (Ballard & Clanchy, 1988, p. 174). Through my own college experience, I have seen ample evidence that supports the concept that an ability to achieve a bi-cultural stance is necessary to achieve success at university. The fact that I now view my grammar school term papers as conversational writing indicates I have learned how to differentiate between the language used for one type of paper or another. It has been interesting to see how the language I use for one class differs from the language I use for another class, which differs even further from the language I use when I write a letter to my friend. Even with this difference, I realize I am still undergoing a learning process as I still come across papers that just don’t seem to meet what the teacher was looking for, indicating a gap remains between my thought processes and the processes the teacher is expecting for that level class. Like Ballard and Clanchy, though, I believe that any inability of a student to make the transition between home and academic world view is not necessarily a developmental failure that will take inordinate amounts of effort to correct. Instead, I think open communication between the teacher and the student, where the teacher provides greater degree of information regarding what is expected and how the student differs in their viewpoints would be helpful in providing students with the transitional information they need to go from one culture to the other. At the same time, this type of communication may give the student the chance to explain their own thought processes and learn how to share their unique view of the world with a wider audience. References Ballard, Brigid & Clanchy, John. (1988). “Literacy in the University: An ‘Anthropological’ Approach.” Literacy by Degrees. Taylor, Gordon et al (Eds.). The Society for Research into Higher Education & the Open University Press, Milton Keynes, pp. 7-23. Bizzell, Patricia. (1986). “What Happens When Basic Writers Come to College?” College Composition and Communication. Vol.37, N. 3, October, pp.294-301. Read More