Discourse as defined by Gee refers to the distinctive ways of speaking, acting, and writing. It is often coupled with the manner of interacting, dressing, mental thought, among other day to day activities. Discourses, in other words, refers to the cultural influences that contribute into the identity of an individual granted from the social setup in which he or she is exposed to. Therefore, Discourses are unique for particular groups of people depending on their cultural practises. It is essential to note that discourse is not static and easily changes from one way to another as people are exposed to different factors such as other identities, economic factors, and technology. Therefore, what could inform the Discourse of African American parent bread in a predominantly black area would not necessarily inform the Discourse of her daughter who had the privilege of growing up in a cosmopolitan residence. The application of discourse especially in learning institutions must, therefore, be tempered with a sense of sensitivity that takes in the interest of the entire student populace.
There is every reason to believe that the Discourse in which one belongs would advantage him or his group over the others within the local teaching context. This arises primarily out of the fact that Discourses have a fundamental influence in the delivery of teaching services. As mentioned, Discourse does not stop at mere ways of speech or writing, it goes deep into thinking, dressing, eating, and the psychology of the teacher and student. From the onset, such a setup would be advantageous to the members of one group over another. In the teaching context, one is tempted to believe that it would have an influence in not just delivery, but successful delivery which contemplates understanding and comprehension by the students. A good example is the current set up in the TESOL class where the use of slang by native speakers may make understanding difficult by non-natives. The trajectory assumed by the teacher which would be obviously influenced by the Discourse may not favour the others. Take the example of different thought processes since the thinking is also affected by the Discourse. While a teacher may prefer approach one to the solution, another group of students may prefer approach two. Even though the approaches could lead to the same consequence, the fact that varying approaches have been anticipated could result to conflict which if not handled well may escalate into differences.
There are several reasons that influence an active resistance from the students, families and communities using Discourse not privileged in the classroom. First, it must be appreciated that Discourse plays an essential role towards the successful achievement of the learning objectives. It, therefore, is an advantage for the group of students who share belonging in terms of Discourse with the teacher. This in equal measure disadvantages the other students who may fall out of place and find themselves out of context. This could cause animosity and dissatisfaction among the students. The fact that they feel out of place and lag behind may serve to develop resistance to the teacher. The situation is worsened in cases where the teacher fails to incorporate their beliefs and Discourses in the learning process. The student are likely to feel alienated by the system. They feel like the victims. This alienation and dissatisfaction would soon lead to the formation of subgroups in class. The subgroup that feels disadvantage would gradually start resisting the teacher. This is resistance should be tackled at the onset to avert a crisis. In some situations, unprivileged students would want to swap classes, they would want to be given convenient teachers who belong to a Discourse they can match and belong to.
Therefore, it is essential that a teacher gets it right from the beginning. A workable solution of averting resistance is to approach the learning process from a diverse perspective that embraces various Discourses or at the uncommonly least cognisant of the presence of different Discourses in the classroom. This would effectively reduce chances of isolation in class and lead to a cohesive class that is cognisant of different Discourses.
The solution to diversity of Discourses perhaps lies in the juxtaposing of different Discourses. It is incipient to appreciate the fact that Discourses from a historical and cultural leaning are as diverse as the people themselves. It would be essential for students to develop an understanding at the meta-level. This would be essential towards the successful comprehension of Discourses and the eventual overall understanding of language. An educator must consequently integrate the diversity in Discourses in whatever curriculum he adopts. This process could be achieved through the rational application of concepts and dynamics present in various Discourses. An educator who adopts this method is compelled back to the drawing board where he or she has to examine the mundane characteristics and determinants in one Discourse to another. After such a comprehensive analysis, the teacher would be best informed to develop a juxtaposed approach in the learning. This would have the intended consequence of non-isolation. It would have the effect of creating a belonging to all different groups. This could effectively eliminate the present disadvantages experienced in approaching learning from one’s own Discourse. However, it should be appreciated that such a process is not only tedious, it is also challenging to the educator. This could be explained by the fact that the educator naturally belongs to a certain Discourse that already influences her way of thought. Disengaging from that path and embracing a new path usually needs a lot of procedural processes and should be handled with patience.
In the end, the product that the educator develops must address the intended objectives and see to it that the entire audience does not lag behind but is carried rather forward to the completion of the learning process. Discourses could be muted afresh through such interactive and deliberate processes or alternatively, the current ones could be modified to the satisfaction of different groups of students.
References
Ali, B. (2006). Language Learning and the Definition of One's Social, Cultural, and Racial Identity. TESOL Quarterly, 40(3), 628-639.
Liddicoat, A. (2009). Sexual Identity as Linguistic Failure: Trajectories of Interaction in the Heteronormative Language Classroom. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 8(3), 191-202.
