In the 1940s, Westminster was a small farming community in the southern part of the state. Lush citrus groves, lima bean fields and sugar beet farms stretched in every direction from a modest downtown business district. Most of the men and women working in those fields were first- and second-generation immigrants from Mexico who were employed by white ranchers.

I like that you mentioned the accent and even the vocabulary as for me Gujarati and Hindi have kind of same accent but English is totally different and people born and raised here are hard to understand as some of them just gulp those words and you go blank as you are unable to understand what they are trying to say or explain.

Code switching- The practice of alternating between two or more languages or varieties of language in conversation. Anzaldua meant the same to switch between 2 different languages which you can fluently speak. She changes the language that she speaks depending to whom she talks to.

I totally agree with you on this. The different the people the different the language! But we need to adjust in this changing environment and even after learning maximum basic languages it will never be enough.

Anzaldua refers to her "home tongue with the languages she uses when speaking with her sister, brothers, and with her friends!
I saw many posts saying coming from a ‘bilingual’ house, as I came from India I use to speak Gujarati with my parents, Hindi with my friends and after coming here English with whoever the new person I talk to. I seem easy, but a very difficult task to do.

Why would we bog students down with foundational knowledge that can be answered in seconds through Google? We need to teach them to be critical thinkers so when they ultimately search out that answer, they can evaluate whether to trust the response they find. We need to teach them to be collaborators and talk with others about what they find to learn others’ viewpoints and expand their ideas. The foundational knowledge we used to have is shifting away from what it once was – to the point that I believe the points (b) and © are the foundational knowledge we should be teaching.

I think this idea goes back to something we’ve mentioned before – that students must be curious about something to dive into the creative realm about it. Using a tool doesn’t require creativity but being able to think about how a tool could be used is creativity for sure. Both these skills require new literacies in the classroom, but students have to be open to them. We can force them to use a tool – in this way, we get some new literacy but probably not a ton of creativity. We can suggest multiple tools which covers a lot of new literacies and maybe some creativity. Or, we can not suggest any tools at all and ask our students to seek them out which would require the most creativity. But if they aren’t interested in what they are doing (the topic, theme, subject, etc.) it will stifle creativity.

Yes you have to be open to new experiences to be creative. If you get stuck in the traditional simply for the sake that it’s what has always been done, then nothing can change or grow. We use those past experiences as Nancy said, but we have to be willing to take a chance on something new.

I agree with the idea that most schools are very instructionist and compartmentalized. Schools say they want to be creative yet they still have the same prescribed curriculum that follows a textbook (even though textbooks are not curriculum, but I digress) and has students amble through 45-90 minute classes on a rotating schedule of classes set as a playlist from top to bottom. What schools need is to hit shuffle on the mix and stop separating subject areas. Want to teach real math in a creative way? Partner with the science teacher to bring two subjects together in an authentic experience that asks students to solve problems and get hands out. Want to be more creative with your history lessons? Call up your favorite ELA teacher to bridge the real world with the fictional one in order to build connections and form opinions. Students need to know how to think rather than recite a list of information, which coincidentally is what many of our standards (Common Core or otherwise) are. How can we teach, encourage, foster, or expect creativity when there is a (sometimes exhaustive) list of requirements for each course? Until schools mix up the classes, the hours, the environment, and the curriculum, creativity will continue to be the “one extra” thing that gets dropped on top like a cherry but if it gets left off no one notices. The best way I’ve seen to create a learning environment like this is to literally begin from the ground up. Architects design spaces that have fewer walls and more collaboration space. Curriculum designers create hybrid courses with co-teachers to integrate multiple subjects together. Schools open with this ideal. We cannot make the shift over time easily. We cannot make the shift one at a time easily. We need whole staffs to get on board and jump in together.

I think prior to reading the widely varying ideas related to creativity, the definition I would have used would not have easily applied to all subject areas although with some creativity (ha!) teachers could have likely made it fit. I always associated creativity with aesthetic design and/or artistic ability. What I now recognize is that creativity is multi-faceted and encompasses different ways of thinking from convergent, divergent, and evaluative to considering elements of critical thinking and problem solving as ways to be creative. While some subject areas may fall more to creative products – like fine arts classes – there are many – math, science, language – that would benefit from students who challenge the status quo and think outside the box regarding process and analysis.

Anzaldua learned to not talk back to her parents. She also learned not to gossip. When she said “Flies don’t enter a closed mouth” that means she was taught that when she was a child.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Writing and the teaching of the craft has been healing space and nurturing conditions as I have worked with marginalized youth and women from diverse backgrounds. As difficult as the task is before us, I clutch this hope tightly and still hold to language as a life-giving (not only marginalizing, power wielding)force. Committed to that reframed perspective-lifelong learner. Is there any other way to teach?

I hear this Sara. Sometimes I struggle with the weight of it and the impartation of skills and information at the same time. Awareness IS key.

These are all key ways to address societal issues. How do we incorporate diversity of belief systems into multi-modal narratives? And address appropriate response and honor. These are unseen yet tangible elements of identity as well.

Yes. Language has power—life giving or the opposite. And as writers and teachers of writing do we emphasize the balance of when to write and when to be silent. Do we need to look at timing of voice more in light of cultural issues especially when the language has wielded power? And how does a writer then use language or quietness to let other voices surface? So good that you are having these conversations.

Working toward providing cross cultural collaboration opportunities in real world environments. Learning that each voice holds pieces to a complex puzzle.

Could this be fostered through better listening rather than responding skills. The ability to listen to voices and expose thinking to knew perspectives does not always mean immediate feedback or response. Just as we teach observance skills to young writers, we can teach keen listening as well. How can this be practiced in the online environment?

This is organizational in nature and so necessary. It’s like the pause, ponder, put in a space before the click. Having students share and explain curated collections at some point would go long way in demonstrating the value of this skill. I see this as a pause/reflection before creation.

I find this intriguing simply because of my years of teaching. I remember most of these being stated decades ago. With the exception of “digital literacy”, the others have been deemed a requirement for as long as I can remember. Of course, “citizenship” never referred to digital citizenship, but you still needed to learn citizenship to be a productive member of society. Problem solving and critical thinking have been buzz words in our field off and on for years. I think there are varying levels to all of these. I’m wondering if more emphasis is put on some rather than others when it comes to certain fields. Which leans toward your question of are there exceptions? Does everyone really need all of these to contribute to a society? I’m leaning toward no, at least not to a full extent.

I found that the clarification between what is built into a blackboard course at the outset helps and gets everyone on the same page. Ie. This is for our learning environment, this for getting to know each other, this is for resources, this is how we will interact with text. All teachers use the same tech differently so the intent of the substructures at the outset helps. Might seem rudimentary as a teacher but gains mileage for the student.

This ties in with our conversations this week in Zoom. I wonder if too many teachers get comfortable in their plans and are afraid to step out of that. Many are also not trained in this as they went to school years/decades ago and have failed to truly keep up. Sometimes old habits are hard to break. Sometimes it’s too hard to fight your own self-expertise ranking in technology and 21st century skills. =(

I lean heavily toward creativity being supported and fostered as opposed to taught. In order to provide the environment and opportunities for creativity, we need to examine the roll of technology in today’s classroom. Does it help or hinder? I can see cases where it supports creative thought, particularly in collaborative work. But there certainly seems to be times where it hinders as well. Part of creativity lies in imagining. As Mike mentioned in class last week, we first start to imagine when we read a story. Technology can take this step away as it easily allows us to find digital renditions of scenes that we would historically have imagined. I think the roll of technology is still being explored and that will need to continue as tech is often one step ahead of us.

We pull from our experiences in all that we do. It would be difficult at best to look at something and imagine what it could be without relying on past experiences. In order to build our knowledge base to draw from we need to be open to new experiences and be willing to engage in them.

he’s appealing to Christians by using religion as a part of a rhetoric

Yes indeed! What kind of words are those? Can we think of a good tone word here?

and why (according to Lincoln) shouldn’t humans judge other humans?

Here it seems like Lincoln i trying to lay out a footpath that will let citizens from not only the Union, but the Confederacy as well, know that his main goal is to create peace and try his best to satisfy everyone, all they need to do is ask.

What about that second clause though? What is he doing here? How can this be - to invoke the same god against each other?

Why does he draw this comparison? What would be the impact on audience(s)?

Why would he want to “play both sides,” so to speak? He does condemn the confederacy…and blame them really…so why do it in the way he does?

He’s talking about how after his first term,there’s no need for him to give such a long explanation of what he intends to do or expects to take place.

He uses god since Christianity was highly prevalent at the time and both sides(north and south) used it as a factor in their arguments for/against slavery. His argument was that god himself was supporting the war and demanding retribution for the harsh treatment of slaves with the violence of war. Since the South is a majority Christian, this could potentially change their minds about slavery since it did not seem at the time god was supporting the south, which cold mean not supporting slavery.

Yes! This is definitely worth exploring (and would be) in an essay.

Think about the culture at the time. Was divorce common?

This part of the speech appeals to logos very well by establishing why the Union is stronger or more mature well. It also appeals to ethos as it sets up the Union as a matured figure that the Constitution was built on

Yes…and why would make that point? What’s the impact on audience?

LOL

I also think that what she meant by code switching is all the different languages she has to speak to accommodate other people.

Lincoln clearly uses pathos with God to relate to the Christians that he is talking to , to create a bridge of understanding & irony though since they use Christianity as a justification of keeping their slaves.