I honestly don’t know where to start from and so this time I might just walk you through how I read these articles and my thought process while reading it. I first read Leander and Boldt’s (2012) article about their concern with a pedagogy of multiliteraciies. They make the point that although the New London Group (1996) shifted a focus of one form of literacy to literacies and the multimodes in which these literacies can occur, the New London Group (1996) still thought of literacy practices as rational, structured and not messy. I would admit that it took me a while to see their point, and I only realized how important their point was when I read through Leander (2006) and Kuby and Vaughn’s (2015) articles. While I was reading the first article (Leander and Boldt, 2012), I kept thinking “Ooh these posty scholars are confusing me! I understand your point, but is this really necessary to make”. But guess what? It so is! Our literacies practices are messy. We often like to think e...
I read part 3 of the edited book by Alim, Rickford and Ball (2016) this week and I enjoyed reading every chapter and kept nodding my head all through in agreement. Because there are a lot of issues to discuss from the readings, I will only focus on 3 things I found interesting or helpful for my own research on language, ethnicity, and education. Raciolinguistics allows us to see how language and the people who speak it become racialized. It allows us to study how certain linguistic characteristics are racialized because they are spoken by certain racial and ethnic groups. Raciolinguistics shows how multilingual speakers who are very skilled in codeswitching between multiple languages (and language practices) are marginalized because they do not speak the language of power. Raciolinguistics ideologies challenges the monolinguistic, monoglossic, and ‘standard’ way with words by positioning language and language speakers as complex, valuable, and dynamic. In Paris (2016) we see in ...