Michael John Callahan

Dr. Chandler

ENG-3029-01

27 March 2012

Becoming M: discourse analysis using adult learners transcript

            The transcript of M and Ch gives plenty to those who till its fields and the bounty I have reaped has caused me to separate my analysis into two parts. My first extrapolation from the dialogue between M and Ch gave soundings of alienation as M struggled to adapt to technology in the classroom, and thus for the remainder of the first excerpt I applied a Marxist approach. Later readings of this same dialogue would completely change both my mind and methodology. I would find the dialogue not to be the “struggle” of a dislocated adult learner, but rather, that it was part of the greater human epistemological debate. M seemed waging a war within her over how knowledge should be constructed: shouldn’t her experience rule her understanding? How could she effectively transition between the rules of the paradigm she knew to applying an understood concept from the paradigm to a foreign object? Upon my later readings, I found these two questions to be at the heart of M’s speech. I have no intention of invalidating my original reading because of these late readings—especially as by keeping the genesis of the idea, it is indirect proof of method contained within this short work—so I lay the burden of judgment upon my reader to decide the value of truth that may exist within these pages. Hopefully my arguments are concise and lucid enough to convince you of one.

I. A Marxist Approach

1 Ch: So in 2002, you were word processing, typing papers. But in that math class you didn't want to use that math program

2 M: No.

3  Ch: Do you remember why? What were your feelings about it, can you remember that?

4  M:  I guess thought that I couldn't do it, I didn't trust myself, I didn't trust the computer, I was afraid.

            We can identify M as an adult learner and Ch as an educator. When M is asked why she did not want to use a computer for mathematics, M immediately switches the direct tone of her previous response in line 2, and chooses an ambiguous one with the word “guess” in her response in line 4.  Even though M has been participating in the larger world—where the computer has been existing—the computer has never been a part of M's immediate, necessary reality. Marx's theory of alienation is quite applicable to M's technology crisis: the miracles of capitalism, science and technology have given us computers. To M, the idea of human needs and potential can be probably be satisfied by her own faculties; computers are for typing—as referenced in line 1. A direct social function that a computer and fulfill in and of itself: a computer has a keyboard, therefore it is for typing. Technology is supposed to be a tool and she is feeling estrangement by the introduction of mathematics: “...I didn't trust the computer...” (4); in referring to preforming a function that is redundant, “...you know analyze it, the way that I could have done it myself”(9).  In line 9 M chooses the conditional word “could”. It is important to recognize that M is possibly admitting that she may not have been able to do the computational processing at the same level of the computer, but also that she is confused by this application of technology.

            What solidifies the application of Marx's theory of alienation is when M establishes the computer as the object of her alienation. In line 12, M gives a direct answer to an abstract question from Ch regarding the object of M's “resistance”; her tone is somewhat confused and questioning, but she answers with the image of: “...the computer?”  I think it is incredibly important at this point in the dialogue to shift the analysis from M to Ch. M is unwilling by line 13 to view computers as an educational tool. This “human function” of a computer does not exist within her worldview because of alienation and must be related to her by an outside means (Marx).

            This clash of worldviews, is the conflict that exists between M and Ch—at line 13. Ch identifies the possibility for individuality to exist with object of a computer by using phrases like “learning the program” and at line 15 she precisely elucidates M's problem as not “relate the computer to education”. It is evident from this speech that Ch is at least cognizant of the idea of computers as educational tools, if not completely accepting of this idea.  When Ch relays this clear articulation of a “normal” function for computers in an educational setting, M becomes further alienated in line 14 by accepting the authority of Ch as the “right way”, but still refusing to see computers as “necessary” (14).

II. The epistemological debate

            The rules by which M is accustomed to living by are shaken in her math computer class. The proof of this statement is in M's use of word “trust” in line 4. She trusts herself but not computers when math is involved. Her reasoning for this untrust is “That I could do it,” (6) and that the use of a computer for mathematics is redundant—“I didn't think that I needed...” This conclusion is an error in reasoning, because they place experience only had over that of experience yet to have.

            M's most immediate and willing memory of interaction with a computer is tactile; they are a sensory experience: “I was willing to type” (8). Using a slightly modified Kantian theory of empirical knowledge—since I'm mixing the kool-aid—we can establish a linear model of M's two computer knowledge experiences: 

                      M           

                “willing”                                                                       “No”

“typing”(sensory-line 8)_________________”math”(analysis/representation-line 1/2)

                     1                                                                                   2

The basis for assigning analysis/representation a higher numerical value is Kant's order of empirical knowledge (Kant). M's contact with the keyboard affects her senses, giving an immediate stimulus and placing the experience at a lower order of magnitude than M's math task, which while also one of experience, is of a higher order because of progression. M defines the tasks she must accomplish to achieve this progression of experience in line 9: “putting my information in there” and “trusting the computer to, you know, analyze it”. However, unlike the representations of letters on the screen in word processing—which she knew an A to be equal to an A—she is apprehensive about the representations her numerical data is to have in a machine she does not understand. After all, M has probably been raised to follow, or know Peano's idea of a natural arithmetic where an idea can be called a number that follows the follow scheme: 0, number, successor; and that also conforms to five propositions, the most important of which being 0 is a number and not the successor of any number. Does M know if computers also follow the rules of this theory? She has no idea. So 4 might not be 4 on a computer screen to her. M already knows how to interpret 4's and 3's and 2's. This is why in line 14 she says, “I didn't think it was necessary” and in line 17, “it made it more difficult”.

            So how to solve this little quandary? What M needs is a why; she needs to be aware of the theory behind the task. If we look in Excerpt Two-line 25, we find M finally achieving this progression of empirical knowledge through the application of theory in her next computer class: “it was a fun experience because the teacher was very good” ; “once we would meet in the classroom, and the other time we would meet in the computer lab”; “it was the actual hands on, how we would use it”. Now, if we look at the list of programs M experienced in this class: Excel, Word, PowerPoint and Project; M truly has come quite a distance since only being able to type. M has gained understanding in finding the answer to the why. M is satisfied—“very good”. If we look back to our typology of experience, we can see what the blockade was for M’s progression: “No”.  To effectively use of all of the programs in the Office suite requires the complex organization of data sets, graphical representations of objects in space and time, aesthetic taste and more, I would say that M has surpassed a value of “2”. This movement was enabled with the application of a little theory from her professor, as she admits to be the reason. M understanding is now truly progressing, but in order for further progression, M must constantly redefine her rules to avoid negative responses that are antithetical to her understanding.

Works Cited

Chandler, Sally. Adult Learners Transcript. Dr. Chandler. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <https://sites.google.com/site/eng3029writingreseach/home/course-documents/AdultLearnerandNewLiteracies.docx?attredirects=0&d=1>.

Kant, Immanuel, Paul Guyer, and Allen W. Wood. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

Marx, Karl, David Fernbach, and Ben Fowkes. Capital : A Critique of Political Economy. London [u.a.: Penguin in Association with New Left Review, 1990. Print.

-draft-
Rsearch Question: What alternative futures exist in the discourse of S and A?
Using a transformative methodology.
Methods to approach the text: Causal layered analysis (What are S and A's views of reality; What shapes them; who are the unseen agents that "exist" within the discourse?; how do the answers to all of these questions combine to form  alternatives to the metanarrative within the text?);  poststructualist theory (specifically examining the binary oppositions that exist within the discourse); and postcolonial theory (what culture dominates the discourse, and how does this shape possible outcomes of the narrative)
examination of an excerpt:
Excerpt 1
S so how do you think you felt about computers (when you were young- in grade school/middle school).
A I loved it - I loved it because, when I discovered what AOL was - that I could email my friends, put in little pictures, photoshop - all those things - and like chat with people my age - which can be dangerous.  We didn't have a computer, but we had web tv. 
Analysis:

Blog 5

 draft

A new approach: moving from the myth of American literacy to the reality of a sustainable literate America

Achieving “literacy” is often viewed as a threshold moment in our culture. It is a crossing over, which is recognized with both the award of degrees and entrance into greater spheres of economic, social and political influence for the person obtaining literacy. This prescription of literacy is problematic-- it is literacy as commodity-- instead of a literacy unto itself. The unfortunate truth is that what is masquerading as an American literacy, designed to carry both the cultural heritage of our nation and facilitate communication between its many disparate peoples, is a myth propagated by the capitalization of academia. Recently, due to the evolving demographic changes in the American population, numerous studies and researchers have undertaken the seemingly Herculean task of how to both properly educate and integrate non-native English speakers into the fold of the American educational system. The conclusion reached by the majority of these works of scholarship is that literacy itself--especially English literacy in America--serves only one function: for persons within a class to eventually place themselves on a market, obtain and maintain employment. This end does not only betray an ethnocentrism that is rampant within the academic community, but it is also evidence of the capitalistic nature of of modern scholarship. 

If a literacy is to exist without the market, it must be more than a complex, academic model supporting the larger economic paradigm of America. It must support both our country's people and their cultures, while still providing a means for their existence in a system of capitalism. If this is not accomplished, the transmission of both our collective identity as Americans and individual identities will be limited to the myopic myth of employment based literacy. Therefore, we must adopt a new model. I will expand on the problem and solution later, but a short outline on the tenets of this "Sustainable Literacy" is as follows:

1/ The idea of what is literacy must be fundamentally sound and true, viz. it must serve the totality of Americans.


2/ This new literacy must be both economically and pedagogically feasible for all educational systems in America to implement. If they cannot support the curriculum, then it is unsustainable.


3/ The new literacy must be socially responsible. The purpose of this literacy must be to facilitate communication, not stratification. By creating and maintaining a common base for a literacy that serves all Americans, this system will encourage opportunity without the need for external motivators.


-----draft-----