Theoretical framework
2.3 The impact of Discursive practices on Teaching and Learning
succeed, access to social power and structures is allowed to people who have mastered the newly emergent, transformed dominant Discourse. The school as an institution is a reflection of the expectations of the broader society, and consequently, the Discourse of schools plays a vital role in determining the constructs of the dominant Discourses. All the stakeholders within the Discourse - the educators, parents and learners - need to become aware of the ways in which they are constructed within the Discourse, and the impact that this has on them as individuals, and on society at large.
be practised, and one cannot practice a skill one has not been exposed to, cannot engage in a social practice one has not been socialised into.
(In Gee, 1996: 65)
The importance of the discursive practices of the home cannot be emphasised enough in terms of their impact on the level of success of children in the literacy practices of the school - they form the foundations for literacy success at school. Therefore the home becomes a mirror image of the expectations of the secondary Discourse: parents offer support by reading to their children and setting themselves up as good literary role models, by providing access to reading materials and pre-school education, and foster practices such as independent thinking, which is valued in the school Discourse.
However, the reality is often very different to this scenario. School based and home based Discourses are often tangential, and consequently result in conflict for the subject, who has to adapt to the new Discourse or be regarded as Other within it. They often do not contain similar values, beliefs, attitudes and ways of being, causing conflicts within the lives of the learners as they battle to conform to expectations and the reality of the school.
In addition, socio-economic factors often impact negatively on the subject's mastery of the school Discourse. Parents who are unemployed, illiterate or simply too preoccupied with the daily struggle for survival cannot give their children basic grounding in the practices of school discourse, such as access to reading material and pre-school education. Gee notes that in cases like this, most notably in research conducted by the Bristol Language Project in Great Britain, a child's success at school was based on the acquisition of literacy conventions in the home environment and, this in turn, was dependent on the social class of the child. (1996: 24)
Thus, in the South African context specifically, school - based Discourses possess the possibility of being in conflict with the home Discourses of children of all races, where their home practices are seen as deviant and other. In cases where the educators are from a different racial group, or outside the immediate community, this is exacerbated since they are not familiar with the home discourse or the discourses of the community which transverse the learner's life. This is an issue that South Mrican schools are in the throes of tackling - the multi-cultural society that we live in has various codes of behaviour and religious beliefs, some of which are not acceptable in certain schools. However, the Educational laws governing diversity are seeking to redress these examples of intolerance, and much headway has been made into improving the ways in which school discourses have accepted home-based discursive practices which were once regarded as divergent, but are now described as different.
The Department of Education has held many workshops on this issue, the media has given prominence to religious practices at odds with the ethos of certain schools and have thus promoted awareness of these issues which has helped to create different practices within schools. Gee (1996) emphasises that in order to let people become accepted members of a Discourse, we have to accept their practices, their homes, their communities, understand them, appreciate them and be aware of Discourse-bound practices inside and outside of school. One cannot separate Discourse from the social fabric, indeed "Discourses are thus always and everywhere social" (Gee, 1996: viii).
Schools which fail to address the problems of learners from home Discourses which do not socialise the children into the discursive practices of a school recognise that there is a problem, but Gee admonishes educators not to place these problems solely
in the lap of the learner. The problem needs to be redefined as a challenge facing the school, as opposed to labelling the child as having a literacy problem or being academically deficient.
Educators must be aware of the possibility that mainstream school Discourse is able to disempower the non-mainstream learner by invalidating his sense of self. This necessitates a critical reflection of practices within the school which do not validate or empower learners of other cultures, or even learners from disadvantaged communities. A disturbing quality of Discourse is that it can be personified as a Coloniser - the outsiders are regarded as inferior and are kept as a sign of the power and prestige of the Discourse. Gee emphatically states that many language and literacy classrooms can be regarded as the Coloniser, producing such subordinate individuals, who accept and submit to the rules of the Discourse in such a limited way as to indicate that they are inferior to the members of that Discourse. Consequently, they work with the Discourse in creating and supporting their own subservience, and it is the duty of educators to "apprentice" them to the new Discourse, by exposing the discursive practices that are acceptable, and socialising the learners into these practices. If learners are only introduced to the academic discourse (ways of constructing texts, essays, speech which demand a high cognitive level and are structured according to appropriate stylistic features) at high school level, which appears to be the case for many African learners entering former HOR and HOD schools, acquisition of the secondary Discourse becomes very difficult.
However, Gee mentions that it is possible for them to acquire partial mastery of the Discourse, together with meta-knowledge and coping strategies, if educators expose
them to the structures and practices of the academic discourse. He refers to this as
"mushfake discourse" ... making do with something less, when the real thing is unavailable to you. (1996:147). Mushfake is regarded as a means of entry into the dominant Discourses, and although it does not entail full mastery of dominant conventions, Gee does not condemn it. In fact, he admires the proactive attempt on behalf of these subjects, to engage in dominant discursive practices, and to simultaneously redefine the conventions, using this to their own advantage.
Mushfake discourse is to name the game for ourselves and not in the interests of those elites and the token representatives they have designated to represent them in placating non-mainstream people.
(Gee, 1996: 147)
Thus, it becomes clear that the English teacher, and, I believe, all teachers, should act as socialising agents for learners who have not been exposed to the conventions of the dominant Discourses. Gee refers to such teachers as "gate-keepers" (Gee, 1996: 67) specifically since English teachers, with their expertise in essay-text literacy can allow their learners access to power through the mastery of this genre.
The terms "teaching" and "pedagogy" encapsulate the transformation that educators need to undergo in order to become effective in the classroom. Clarence-Fincham notes the difference between pedagogy and teaching when she quotes Lather (1991) and Simon (1992):
Pedagogy foregrounds the political nature of education and the connectedness and interrelationship between teacher, learner and constructed knowledge. This implies that the notions of the teacher as the neutral transmitter of innocent knowledge and of the learner as a passive recipient are fundamentally called into question.
(1998: 18)
Furthermore educators must be aware of the current issues in educational practices, and theories. For example, in order to scaffold pupils to the point where they are able to critically assess issues within subjects, educators must foster a climate of tolerance and respect in the classroom. These environments should be non-threatening and nurturing, where the learner is unafraid to speak out. Krashen's (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis state that emotions and attitude directly relate to the successful acquisition of a second language. His theory can be extended to the teaching of all subjects and serve as landmarks for educators who are keen to foster successful learning in their classrooms. Krashen based this hypothesis on the existence of an Affective Filter (Dulay and Burt, 1977), which prevents certain input from being acquired by the learner. The strength or the weakness of the filter determines the success of the acquisition: the presence of a strong filter means that the learner is anxious, lacks self-confidence and is afraid. In this case, the filter will impede the successful acquisition of the educator's input. However, where the learner is confident and highly motivated, the acquisition is far more successful since the affective filter is weak. Educators who are aware of the implications of theories such as these, will realise the importance of knowing more about their learners' lives and backgrounds, and will find ways of tapping into these reservoirs of information in order to facilitate the learning and teaching processes. They are able to be creative in the selection of reading material and texts for study, deliberately choosing material that will foster tolerance and respect for different cultures, or hold up issues for critical debate by the learners.
Home Discourses socialise learners into the cultural models of their particular group, and schools expect that the dominant cultural practices will be familiar to learners.
However, as Gee states, a knowledge of culture within one's group can be limiting in the sense that it allows one to generate stereotypes of others, and to think in a predetermined, predictable fashion. Educators need to expose these routine practices to learners, and consequently help them to develop alternative and more holistic views of society. Creative and innovative educators devise ways of ensuring optimal participation of all the learners, and encourage them not to simply accept what they are taught, but become active producers of their own knowledge. Teachers consequently have the power to hold up the practices of both the home and secondary Discourses to the light of critical discussion. In order to allow for diversity and difference within society, learners must feel secure in their validation of self, but also to be exposed to other discursive conventions.
It is evident that teaching involves both the transmission of content, as well as the more subtle aspects of the hidden curriculum. Gee places a huge responsibility on the shoulders of educators, particularly language educators, when he observes that the "
English teacher stands at the very heart of the most crucial educational, cultural and political issues of all time"(1990:68), and that all successful teaching is ultimately both a political and a "moral act".
In the context of ex-HOR and ex-HOD schools in South Africa, Gee's insight into the role of the teacher is commendable, but is also the source of extreme frustration to educators who are caught in the middle of politicians who appear to be proaetively engaged in ensuring that all children have the right to the same education, yet the reality facing them in the classroom is very different. Government's aims are laudable, but realistically speaking, for the teacher at the chalkface they appear too
idealistic with little consideration given to the practical issues. As noted earlier, issues of transformation such as cultural, racial and religious diversity are being addressed by government in the form of workshops and documents. However, addressing the physical needs of schools in the form of sufficient textbooks, teaching equipment, libraries, fully equipped laboratories, enough teachers, etc. has been passed on to schools as their responsibility. A Catch-22 situation arises in the case of schools who serve the poorer communities where parents cannot pay high school fees: no money is generated, and subsequently, the quality of the service offered by the school drops.
These educators need governmental support, not just in the form of new school buildings and extra classrooms, but also with regard to professional development as well as giving funding to the schools to implement intervention strategies which expose parents to the literacy practices of mainstream education in order that they socialise their children at an earlier age.
Often, it becomes easier for the school to place the academic problems of these learners onto the learners themselves, constructing them as deficient or lacking.
Alternatively, educators could emulate Pontius Pilate by washing their hands of the problem, blaming it on government's inability to address basic educational reforms.
Schools then perpetuate the problems by refusing to change their discursive practices, and subsequently "sustain the social hierarchy and advantages of the elite in society.... they become impervious to change, whilst placating people in society with claims that something is being done on their behalf'(Gee, 1990:30).