In Lam’s article, Almon constructed an identity as a competent writer in English within an internet environment. This web-based communication space reminded me of Gee’s (2001) conception of an “affinity space.” An affinity group is devised of people who may be situated across a large space but share “allegiance to, access to, and participation in specific practices” (p. 105). According to Gee (2005), affinity spaces are defined by the following characteristics.
1. Common endeavor, not race, class, gender or disability, is primary.
2. Newbies and masters and everyone else share common space.
3. Some portals (points of entry to a social semiotic space) are strong generators.
4. Internal grammar is transformed by external grammar.
5. Encourages intensive and extensive knowledge.
6. Encourages individual and distributed knowledge.
7. Encourages dispersed knowledge.
8. Uses and honors tacit knowledge.
9. Many different forms and routes to participation.
10. Lots of different routes to status.
11. Leadership is porous and leaders are resources.
Do any of these characteristics relate to Almon’s web experiences? How did these characteristics support Almon’s identity construction and development of English writing proficiency?
How do affinity spaces differ from common classroom practices and educational policies? How might some of these characteristics be adopted in the classroom and what consequences might that have for English language learners?
Lam conducted the research for this article in 1997. Since then the internet has increasingly become part of our everyday lives. What implications does the prevalence of technology have for teaching English language learners in the 21st century? Is there still a “digital divide”?
Gee, J.P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. In W.G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 99-125). Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
Gee, J.P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the Age of Mythology to today’s schools. In. D. Barton & K. Tusting Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 214-232). New York: Cambridge Press.
Questions related to Fu and Matoush article
How do teachers make room for bilingualism and biliteracy in current educational contexts in which teachers and students are under close surveillance to ensure the dominance of English in instruction?
What can be done to improve the current educational policies in ways that are more conducive to bilingualism and biliteracy? What can individual teachers do to resist monoglossic ideologies?
What about multilingual environments or schools without bilingual teachers? How can teachers assess the content of writing if they do not understand the student’s first language?
No comments:
Post a Comment