Literacy Reading Group

Meeting on February 1, 2020

Readings: Totto-chan by Tetsuko Kuroyanagi (pgs 1-10 and 19-21): the book is an autobiographical memoir recounting the experience of studying in an alternative school. 

 Preface (Being in Trouble by Shirley Steinberg) to Re-theorizing Discipline in Education: This book aims to reinvigorate thinking on ‘discipline’ in education by challenging the notions, foundations, and paradigms that underpin its use in policy and practice. It confronts the understanding of ‘discipline’ as purely repressive, and raises the possibility of enabling forms and conceptualizations of ‘discipline’ that challenge tokenistic avenues for students’ liberation and enhance students’ capacity for agency

3. Excerpts from Mothering a Muslim, Nazia Erum: this book presents accounts of bullying, negative stereotyping, and segregation of Muslim children within schooling contexts. 

Our discussion primarily revolved around how we thought of ‘discipline’ in educational contexts: how it is informed by socio-cultural biases, how it tends to pathologize difference as deviance, and how it is frequently de-contextualised from a reflective understanding of the teaching-learning process.

Totto-chan provided a certain alternative model for pedagogic engagement with a child: an approach attuned to the particularities of the child, gently probing instead of imposing, trying to condition the child towards a self-realisation of the consequences of their own behaviour.  

However, a few concerns were brought up:

a) that while a pedagogic method attuned to individual behavioural traits may be useful, the process of understanding the individual child is fraught with problems. The child may not transparently reveal information that the teacher can learn from--many children are, in fact, already performing what’s normatively expected of them. How does the teacher have access to the particular subjectivity of the child; how can individual differences be observed outside normative cultural and psychological frames?

b) the story, where Totto-chan is considered a difficult child in one school and creatively conditioned by a maverick teacher-principal in another school conveys how there needs to be an alternative school and an exceptional teacher to hone the potential of the child. We discussed three issues with such an assumption: that alternative schools are not necessarily accessible to a large section of people; that our enjoyment of the story is premised on the fantasy of such an exceptional situation, not necessarily rooted in an understanding of how this may be practically translated in other schools; and how the consequences of such a conditioning may mislead the child from practically understanding how social norms assign social power and might also entail a kind of narcissistic self-validation. One of the members made a point about how she studied in a school where they were taught English at a level higher than what’s expected at the state board level (or at least that was the dominant narrative perpetuated by the school)--and while writing the board exams, there was a pride assumed in having to consciously dumb down one’s answers

3. In contrast to the last point, we discussed how Shirley Steinberg’s essay offered a slightly different approach. While not agreeing with dominant disciplinary codes enforced in schooling/educational contexts, she made a point about how she could teach her own children to negotiate the system better--to be aware of what the disciplinary codes are (to not be naively affected by them) but at the same time, develop a critical disposition towards them. However, there were concerns raised about who has to play such a role: should it be teachers or parents or students themselves? Given how the existing disciplinary codes are internalized by teachers, students, and parents in different ways, how is it possible to open up a critical conversation on the same?

4. For teachers, it becomes difficult to stay calm, navigate noisy classrooms, and many are not aware of how to intervene in a situation where students may get bullied or negatively stereotyped. While teacher-education courses now incorporate reflection exercises, there needs to be more emphasis in helping teachers observe student behaviour/difference in a critical conversation with normative cultural/psychological frames. Also, given that existing disciplinary norms actively work to discourage ‘noise’ and aims to steer conversational energy towards more controlled ways of speaking, it throws up a conundrum about how to encourage active conversations within large classrooms--it becomes important to re-think norms of classroom sociality/civility in relation to pedagogic goals. While discussing Mothering a Muslim, we noted how it is important that teachers encourage cultural self-expression of various students (apart from actively combating negative stereotypes in the classroom), but the approach in the book seems to be heavily influenced by a liberal diversity management discourse: that everyone gets the opportunity to validly represent themselves, but it not clear whether that facilitates a critical conversation around themes of cultural identity and power. Teachers may not be adept at moderating conversations in situations of conflict, to be able to distribute power in the classroom--this needs to be taken up as a problem in teacher education courses too. Further, there might be existing biases of the ‘liberal’ institution/teacher where a certain degree of cultural expression is allowed (or there are norms underpinning what counts as acceptable cultural identity)--for example, a ‘good’ Muslim vs ‘bad’ Muslim binary might still operate in a setting where negative stereotypes are combated. However, it is definitely instructive for teachers to consciously recognise how certain biases get almost invisibly reproduced and reinforced within classrooms--and to reflect on how and why that happens to be able to mould their pedagogies. Parents, too, need to be made aware of the various social and disciplinary processes through which children are being conditioned--the relation between parenting and teaching discourse has to be probed towards this end. 

2nd November, 2019: On developing pedagogies and how English is taught.

Developing Pedagogies: Learning the Teaching of English by Shari Sternberg and Amy Lee: The essay provides a critique of the discursive emphasis in the framing of English Studies and instead suggests a pedagogic framing instead, where ‘teaching’ itself is read as a critical text in relation to the teaching of content. 

1.   The way departments are demarcated/organised according to disciplines prompted one of the first questions for this meeting: what is English, how is it taught, and what can we learn from the teaching of English? We were primarily discussing the teaching of English within literature departments, which is the dominant imagining within Indian higher education contexts. 

2.   The way we imagine professors is also implicated in how teaching practices play out in a classroom. As students, we find it hard to imagine teachers as a work-in-progress. The way students imagine teachers impact how they engage with the syllabus, or even how they respond in class. Our own thinking of professors is complicated, too. Instead of necessarily keeping the dynamics of teaching in mind, we tend to think of the professors as specialists/experts. However, the teacher or professor in question is never really a specialist. A constant reorientation takes place within the classroom as interactions unfold, which does not always have space for imparting ‘specialised’ knowledge. 

4.   Here, even the vocabulary of specialisation can be called into question. This language of specialisation seeps into every aspect of academic work, and begins to show very early. In interviews for teaching positions, the questions revolve around what topic would the teacher in question teach rather than how it is to be taught. The understanding that each batch of students is different from the others is not a part of the interview process. Even the question of how anything is to be taught is frequently decontextualized: it becomes more about the techniques through which a text is to be taught rather than paying attention to the social and institutional conditions within which it is taught. 

5.   The idea of discipline in itself needs to be changed: not to merely see it as a body of discourse, but also as a set of pedagogic practices. Where pedagogy is in itself radically reimagined. However, this entails a conversation on institutional contexts and infrastructure too, since usually this kind of reimagination is always discussed in abstract and theoretical terms instead of practical changes. Additionally, one of the challenges in this kind of reimagination is the existing ideological structuring of the students themselves.

6.   Usually, teaching takes place within a community and through a broader social engagement. Yet the dominant perceptions of teaching reinforce the idea of individualised teaching. In such a scenario, even the role of the critical pedagogue as the one who has a critical view of the system, seems to create something of an “exceptional teacher” identity.

7.   Teaching is rarely discussed as a skill, and teachers do not seem to discuss their pedagogic practices. How can we focus on teaching aids, how can we learn teaching as a method? When we speak of teachers, we tend to approach them in terms of their “areas,” sanitising the process of academic work into one dimension. We ignore the other, very important half of academic work which isn’t ever the focus of training: how do you teach? What makes you a more effective teacher? Not only is no training provided for any of these aspects of academia, it is also assumed that proficiency in research is the goal to work towards.

8.   Do demonstration classes for new professors and new hires really help? Both the students and the teachers might feel that this isn’t how the classroom would operate in the absence of an external observer. How can classroom observation be assessed, taking into account the spectator’s influence on the participants?

9.   Additionally, the particularities of the discipline need to kept in mind, whether it is language teaching or something else. How can we think of pedagogic adaptation and reflection while keeping in mind the constraints of each discipline?

10.  How does a teacher put student writing in focus rather than the source text itself? Our understandings of student performance does not institutionally take into account student experiences and perspectives.

11.  The essay, however, does not provide examples of a real life classroom experience. While we don’t need prescriptive models, experiential narratives would be a good starting point to learn from, or to orient teachers with.

12.  We have to build conversations with texts, and more importantly, our assessment of students have to change. Designing assignments that present the process through which teaching takes place is one of the ways in which this can happen. We have to critique the existing measurement systems itself – since the examination questions don’t produce adequate qualitative enquiry.

13.  Students are structured and imagined as passive learners, and not as producers of knowledge and meaning. Thinking of creative ways to respond to texts while also providing direction (to help navigate the normative contours of the discipline) would be one of the ways in which we can shift the way we qualitatively analyse texts: writing a poem; translation exercises; editing; reimagining a scene in the text are some of the ways in which we can shift the way disciplinary understanding is assessed.

14.  Interestingly, where digital literacy is concerned, there is a sizeable community of English-language speakers who engage with texts within online communities. They analyse and edit their thoughts based on their understandings, respond to each other and build discourses together—we can learn from how such communities operate. 

15.  In central universities, where the curriculum is already decided – and generally much larger than the semester allows, how do you select portions from the text and learn how to emphasise pedagogic interests while also achieving the normative demands of syllabus completion? This might require an intuitive understanding of what the students would respond to while teaching or talking. The experiential anecdotes of the students in different departments would also help hone this understanding.

16.  Affective responses to texts are generally presented as a given, and not necessarily as the kind of thing that has a lot of cognitive work that goes behind it. The critical distance with which is supposed to be used while analysing an English text does not always leave room for the emotional response that it generates.

17.  There is a communication gap in both expectation and understanding, on the part of students as well as teachers. The expectation of mastery over the text makes them indict teachers. At the same time, teachers are frequently covering up their own anxieties in the classroom.

18.  How do we make students become aware of and part of the teaching community? Reading groups and online platforms might provide some models: where readers and writers engage in rebuilding the way the text is read and thought about. How can we reshape study groups to accommodate these models? How can we teach the process of analysis and teaching itself to students, so that they understand concepts that give them the tools of analysis?

Meeting on 19 October: How do we study the ‘syllabus’?

Readings: 1. We compiled a set of syllabi from various universities (mostly BA English honours courses) 

2. Curriculum Studies in India, Manish Jain: The essay presents a critical overview of the developing field of curriculum studies in India. 

1. We started by thinking about the distinction between syllabus and curriculum: while syllabus would typically refer to the ‘content’ of what we are learning/teaching, the curriculum would refer to the entire set of experiences constituting the educational process. We deliberated on whether we could have a holistic description/definition of curriculum. Given how it encompasses multiple components such as student and teacher experience, textual resources, pedagogic and assessment practices, and considering how curricular frameworks undergo self-critique and change, our understandings of curriculum are perhaps inevitably contextual.

2. The discussion shifted to thinking about the kinds of syllabus we have been exposed to. Most of us had studied English in BA and MA, and observed how the logic of periodization dominates syllabus design and changes do not attempt to self-critique and re-orient assumptions in the syllabus as much as just add on more ‘content’. This follows from the emphasis on syllabus volume within education structuring rather than questioning the principles through which the syllabus is designed: this is an argument that has been made by many within education studies debates in India. The practices encouraged within such a syllabus culture is, then, the production and acquisition of textbooks, preparation for examinations, and rote learning.The assumption is that the student is a full-time worker--only devoted to studying for the course.

3. We briefly noted how syllabus design cultures in schooling and even higher educational contexts have been significantly influenced by the Bloom’s taxonomy model, where the emphasis is on teaching skills abstracted from the content--the question of content, then, does not get adequately problematized. However, scholarship on curriculum formation has been increasingly problematizing the frameworks through which curriculum design happens--practically, however, this does not seem to significantly affect syllabus design processes.

4. Following from the previous point, we noted how the para-education industry (tuition centres) abets the tendencies of an educational culture focussed on ‘completing the syllabus’--this is further linked to aspirations for competitive exams frequently, a tendency that has developed since the formation of a tiered bureaucracy within the colonial system. The demand for coaching centres is influencing the growth of centres across regional contexts, which are aiming to provide local alternatives to branded institutes in metropolitan cities. We discussed how the negotiation with the syllabus in formal educational contexts is influenced by one’s relationship with notes, guidebooks, recommended ‘suggestions’ for exams, the kinds of tuitions one goes to--one attempts to crack/hack the syllabus through aids and supplements. This, in turn, influences approaches to teaching: one dictates notes (which students have to necessarily jot down for they will be useful later--this presumes a certain student literacy); or presents the content in a sequence (presentation of contextual ‘background’ followed by close reading of text) which is expected to be reproduced in exams.

5. The negotiation with the syllabus is also influenced by value-systems and practices within the educational institution--we discussed how this idea is captured by the concept of the ‘hidden curriculum’. The syllabus, in other words, is not ‘neutral’ or not received merely in terms of the formal content--the attitudes one develops towards, or through, the texts being read is influenced by pedagogic agendas, socio-cultural contexts, institutional practices, interpersonal relationships (student-student; student-teacher), among other factors. The ‘learning’ from the syllabus (in mediation with the many other educational and social processes) cannot be mapped merely in terms of normative ‘learning outcomes’ based on assessment of content knowledge. One of us noted how in their undergrad education, teachers taught apparently radical content  (sometimes by irresponsibly misreading the text) and challenged existing assumptions of students, but it left many ‘un-anchored’ rather than helping them re-construct and build new assumptions and reading/social practices.

6. Some of us noted, from the perspective of teaching a syllabus in accordance with the normative demands of formal education (teaching to the test), find it difficult to innovate or critically negotiate with the syllabus--students, themselves, begin to anticipate and expect a structure within which the syllabus is taught and a certain normative approach to teaching-learning, which makes it difficult to reflectively shape the course as one goes along. Given the institutional constraints within which we inevitably work, as students and teachers, two sets of questions came up: 1. How do students voice their opinions about the syllabus, how do we consider student disaffection against and demands for content? At the very least, we agreed that there should be a conversation on why particular content is chosen to enable a critical discussion on the politics and logic of the syllabus. 2. How do we conceptualise re-designing the syllabus within existing bureaucratic constraints? Some of us felt that pedagogy has to play an important role in negotiating occasionally inflexible syllabus--there has to be an active attempt to contextually reconstruct the syllabus. Quick fixes end up having little impact, or might  end up doing more of the same, so long-term processes (perhaps a plan to be executed over a few years) might be helpful to move towards more effective curricular innovation (allied to re-designing assessment and pedagogic practices along with syllabus change).

Reading: 

Introduction and Chapter 4, The Limits of Critique, by Rita Felski (2015): Felski breaks down the dominant practice of ‘critique’ within literary and cultural studies, exploring the kinds of ideas and assumptions that underpin this practice. The easy conflation of critique with critical thinking, and the denigration of other modes of engagement as ‘uncritical’, is questioned throughout this book. One of her key points is that critique cannot be accepted as the only mode of critical engagement, and literary methods must expand to make room for other modes, such as that of ‘affect’, to account for the emotive/more amorphous reactions that we have when we engage with literature.

1. The meeting began with a discussion on Felski’s arguments probing the construction of ‘critique’ as a dominant method (particularly in literary studies). The parallels between critique and ‘detective work’ were discussed: the tendency to be highly suspicious of the text and assume a position wherein one can (and must) unearth its ‘real’ implications. It was felt that these methods can sometimes have an element of self-prophecy, where the critic ends up at the same point where they started. It was also suggested that the ways in which we practice discourse is directed towards an older idea of historical progression (wherein human society is seen as moving towards some ideal point, so everything in the past is automatically inferior, or ‘less than’ the present) which enhances the critic’s authority.

2. There was an extensive discussion about what alternative modes might exist. The work of Joe Sacco was taken up by one of the participants, Ajith: Sacco did both archival and ethnographic work in conflict zones, so what would literary study upon his text do, beyond describing trauma? Ajith created certain figures, taking from Sacco’s work, to see how identity positions interact and bring out new forms of becoming/being. Felski’s book provides a vocabulary for such work, which brings in notions of affect in critique. Eve Sedgwick’s idea of reparative reading was also mentioned. Empathy and affective work can be linked to rigour in various such practices.

3. The discussion shifted to other contexts. What are the possibilities of imagining different kinds of discourse as critique--a conversation, for example, with friends, family, lovers, of the kind we regularly participate in? The usual presumption is that such encounters are not ‘critical enough’, but there might be alternative forms of criticality which this classification hides. This classification itself is useful when thinking about ‘critique’. How does such critique in everyday life differ from critique in academia?

4. The implications of these understandings of critique/criticism on changing political, institutional, and pedagogic dynamics were brought up. It was pointed out that methods acquire a certain sanctity within disciplines, which makes it harder to question their underlying assumptions. It was suggested that a ‘horizontal’ rather than vertical notion of critique could be conceived, where critique is one of many methods, rather than the method. It was suggested that there is a stagnancy of thematic readings within literary studies in particular, but it’s unclear whether this ties in with developments across other disciplines.

5. The issues of methodology and the researcher’s position was one of the points of discussion, with different perspectives emerging on how one’s own position can be conceptualised. This discussion began in the context of certain questions that become critical when engaging in scholarly work that deals with tribal subjects: how does one determine identity; structural-local mediations; how to adequately address resistance and identity in a study. Pre-determined methodological constraints exist upon such work, for example ethnographic work, which do not allow for certain kinds of questions. Methodology with a clear decolonial intent was seen as valuable, but concerns were raised regarding the applicability of such ideas. With regard to positionality, some felt that neutrality was indeed a possible position, whereas others disagreed, saying that there was no neutral position within a research environment (since it is also a social environment). Donna Harraway’s ideas were brought up in this context--‘new objectivity’, and the idea of accepting positionality--with questions remaining on the ways in which this played out in practice. Felski’s work seems to suggest a kind of ‘strategic essentialism’ as a way to navigate some of these questions.

6. There remained some unaddressed questions/aspects where Felski’s argument is concerned, and with affective engagement in general. Felski uses the term ‘pragmatic’--what does the word mean, here (in a philosophically loaded sense, or as practical tools of navigation)? What about the subjectivity of the person doing critique--can we find ways to understand that? Also, more broadly: what is Felski’s project--she recognises the gap between the intent and outcome of critique, but what political possibilities would a focus on affect open up? What ways does it offer to approach the relationalities of oppressor/oppressed: whether through inventing forms/genres through which we can intervene differently in the political space; or changing (and exchanging) disciplinary and methodological perspectives?

7. One participant raised the question of whether this alternate ‘affective’ criticality required training, the same way the critique as a mode does, and if so, what kind of training? This training would not only include the incorporation of particular vocabularies, but also disciplinary orientation, etc--certain normatives would be established, and this implies a need for caution. Are some affects prioritised over others, in such a process? (For example, how does one respond to a student expressing that they cannot affectively engage with a given text?) Affective responses frequently need to be validated, demonstrably articulated--certain affects may be left out in this process.

8. In terms of pedagogy, then, several concerns exist. Within several contexts, say, schooling, there are existing determinate frames within which texts are taught, which students and teachers both feel bound to follow, so how would an affect-driven mode take shape there? Some members suggested that the task of the teacher could be to bring in totally unfamiliar texts and demand creative responses, but classrooms are already vested with a set of normative parameters+social context, so this would not perhaps play out straightforwardly. One question that arose was whether teaching texts should ‘disorient’ student-readers or not. While some argued that disorientation was a necessary component of being introduced to a new mode, others contended that not all disorientation was productive or positive--disorienting the reader might actually take away their sense of authority within the classroom space.  

Reading: 

chapters 3, 4, 5 from Biliteracy and Education: English Language Education and India (2005) by Viniti Vaish:  Vaish’s research is done in the context of a single school in New Delhi (Rajkiya Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya), one run by the Delhi administration. These chapters in Vaish’s book examine the different pedagogies employed in the classroom teaching of English--namely, choral recitation, translation, and codeswitching. The quality of textbooks, social contexts of the classrooms in which English is taught, and the socio-cultural and pedagogic goals that the teaching of English aspires towards are some of the other themes explored in the research.  

1. We discussed how the presentation of content in the book, while lucid and written in short, direct sentences, seemed simplistic; there seemed to be a lack of an overarching framework and the author seemed to cherry-pick examples rather than adequately detail out the context of study (especially the context of teachers). The description of students--as somewhat unruly or inattentive--already introduces a bias about the context of learning. It is also not clear what the socialization of these teachers and students are. Language learning and language ideology is influenced by one’s socialization in multiple spaces (we discussed some experiential examples), so the lack of detailing in the chapters makes it seem as if the socialization is primarily happening in the classroom. Also, the author seems to be positive that the students are learning (using theoretical frameworks to justify her point) from classroom pedagogies instead of studying the student-faculty and student-student interaction over a period of time. 

2. Chapter 3 presents ‘choral recitation’ or the drilling method of learning words/grammar as a culturally situated pedagogy. There were disagreements regarding the implications of this method. Some argued that it is not enough to merely memorise the word, but learn how to use it in different contexts and towards different social agendas; some suggested that it may be useful to first introduce and learn vocabulary to be able to engage with textual material. Another limitation of the drilling or recitation method is that remembering and articulating words (and further fluently use them in conversations) are different tasks; one does not implicitly follow from the other. 

3. We also pondered over what ‘critical’ function memorising words might serve--it is difficult to understand the relation between rote learning and critical interpretive thinking. This is relevant even in university settings, where students frequently ‘memorise’ answers requiring critical interpretation. How does that shape one’s use of language to ‘critically’ interpret? 

4. The chapters present code-switching as an effective, and perhaps inevitable, mode of teaching and learning in bi-literate and multi-literate contexts. This was considered an important point since it reinforces the premise that boundaries between languages are artificially constructed. However, some of us argued that code-switching between two languages might have mixed implications for how grammar and idiomatic usage is taught--the logical principles of grammar might be incorrectly taught. Some discussed there might be productive implications for code-switching and translation in teaching regional languages. It was felt that language learning experiences in regional languages (the example of Hindi in English-medium schools in Delhi was used) was over-standardized and disconnected from contemporary usages, and could perhaps benefit from the evolving discourse of language pedagogy--perhaps this is because the conversations on language pedagogy in regional languages gets less attention or representation. 

5. Another point of discussion was how language ideology gets shaped. Chapter 4 argued about the importance of culturally situated textbooks and how cultural ideology would be shaped by the kinds of examples used in the textbooks. However, the mere use of diverse examples does not necessarily sensitise the student to diversity or necessarily teach the content effectively--both depend on pedagogic negotiations, relationships between students and teachers, socialisation, among other factors. Students are also picking up language from a variety of media--the prescribed textbook is always a limited source. Chapter 5 presents a set of aspirations students associate with English--that it will help students develop their ‘personality’ and mobilise greater social and economic power. We discussed whether that should be assumed as a default aspiration to begin with. For example, aspirations to communicate in English might serve functions of social bridging (talking to other communities), diverse career interests (not merely derived from some standardized or limited understanding of professional mobility). Students might also be expressing in English through different forums--one of the chapters presented the example of students writing journal entries in English (it might be for practise but also linked to expression of private thoughts). One’s relationship with language is also shaped by social and emotional relationships--we discussed the example of forming emotional bonds with teachers (there might be a gendered or community-based logic to it frequently). 

6. The question of how teaching English to address different social functions can be imagined in a standardized system was raised. While there are no easy answers, some suggested that perhaps the emphasis of teaching language should also engage with teaching approaches or attitudes towards the language; to initiate students into the language and then encourage them to reflectively explore it in their own contexts. The NCERT/institutional learning outcomes could also incorporate such an insight--the outcomes represented in the chapter seemed to speak to more limited needs. 

Readings: 

Building Multiliterate and Multilingual Writing Practices and Identities, Allison Skerrett: This essay spoke about the multiliterate reading and writing world in a classroom of fifteen to sixteen consenting students. Here, seven focal students were examined, with particular interest given to Nina - a Mexican American student who had a complicated relationship with both English and Spanish. The researchers in question looked at how engagement was increased by tapping into the student’s world outside of school: through cellphone literacy, notes left at home, and conversations between friends. 

A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World, The Douglas Fir Group: This essay offers a multidisciplinary theoretical framework, combining socio-cultural and neurocognitive perspectives to study as well as pedagogically navigate second language acquisition.

Given how much of SLA (Second Language Acquisition) research is mired in isolated disciplinary approaches, the essay by The Douglas Fir Group is a welcome attempt at combining/transfusing disciplinary approaches. The emphasis on the neuro-cognitive (not so much in terms of cognitive development as cognitive factors influencing language acquisition and usage) in relation to the social and ideological can be instructive in developing pedagogic orientations. However, the schematic organisation of the argument (for example, language learning and teaching happens across micro, meso, macro levels; there are ten thematic clusters along which language learning-teaching can be categorised)--perhaps inevitable in a theoretical project of such a scale--can also be questioned for its universalistic presumptions and the logic of categorisation. 

Some of the other criticisms of the essay which came up include: a) it is unclear as to how research informed by this framework can practically translate into teaching practices b) the technologization of language acquisition might work very differently for different social and material contexts--the essay tends to make the point about technology in rather broad strokes c) how can this framework be adapted to Indian contexts where SLA is far more complex? While some of the general aspects/approaches can be useful (displacing the monolingual vantage-point from the conceptualization of literacy research; considering the social, ideological, cognitive, affective aspects of language learning-teaching in literacy/pedagogic practice; recognising that people already work with an existing multilingual repertoire of words), the particularities will need to be figured out in relation to local variations of language use and acquisition. 

It was discussed how experiences of SLA in India might have a more complicated relation to ‘mother tongue’ acquisition and usage. While we may be (comfortably) speaking in regional languages within familial/social settings, our positionality shifts according to where we are speaking and who we are speaking to. In school, the disconnect from/lack of belonging to ‘traditional’ cultural values of the standardized regional language (we discussed the examples of Hindi and Bengali), the absence of multiple registers of the regional language being used within educational settings, along with the rote-learning approach favoured by language pedagogy (learning idioms), might not necessarily ensure a grounding in the ‘mother tongue’ itself. The emphasis on multilingualism might emphasise a token diversity of languages/identities operating in the classroom, but might not help flesh out the practices through which language learning can happen. We thought that we can read up more on the politics/modalities of first language acquisition, along with SLA. 

The question of how a multilingual orientation in literacy practice can be related to assessment was brought up. In a context where standardized assessment is allied to socio-economic mobility, the teacher might have to play the paradoxical function of both ‘empowering’ the student according to normative requirements as well as encourage a critical attitude towards such norms. It was also discussed that such a notion of empowerment was in terms of ‘market’ or ‘employer’ interests; that it might still be subject to socially discriminatory attitudes/dominant interests; and might not generate a critical discussion of what education, literacy, and ‘empowerment’ means for both the learner and teacher. This was a segue into a discussion on the other reading, Building Multiliterate and Multilingual Writing Practices and Identities by Allison Skerrett, where the premise of ‘literacy’ appears self-evident--it is not asked why is ‘literacy’ important to begin with, what ‘literacy’ exactly means, or what the agendas of literacy should be?