Ball, A



Ball, A. F. (1994). Language, learning, and linguistic competence of African American children: Torrey revisited. Linguistics and Education 7, 23-46.

Abstract

This article is a replication of a research project completed by Torrey in 1972. In this article, Ball (1994) adopts and adapts part of Torrey’s study to generate an updated set of data. The background information that prompted this study is the idea that early research by Brewer (1986), Pitts (1986), Schnieder (1983), Labov and Harris (1986), Myhill and Harris (1986), Wolfram (1969) and many others have produced varied methods and results that create difficulty in determining commonalities and generalization for teachers to use. Ball felt a need to replicate one study and add to it, to find such commonalities in order to drive instruction for the future.

The theoretical approach Ball stands on is that “educational difficulties of African American youth (are) not due to linguistic deficiencies, but rather dialect differences” (Baratz, 1970). As a result, Ball writes her article with the purpose of presenting Torrey’s 1972 research along with her 1992 replica. Then she presents her findings and possible avenues for future research.

To begin with, Torrey chose 27 African American English speaking students and evaluated their language performance to measure the use of “four sibilant morphemes: third person singular and present tense verbs, contract copula, possessive, and plural” (Ball, 1994, p. 26). In other words, Torrey chose 4 grammatical constructs to measure student ability in. Torrey used six activities to measure use of the grammar patterns; context cues, picture meaning tests, reading comprehension tests, speech samples, oral reading, and direct questions about the grammar patterns.

In the first session, Torrey collected speech samples from the students in pairs. The second session used a picture meaning and context clue activity for pretest purposes. The third and fourth sessions were lessons centered on the four grammar patterns. The fifth session consisted of the posttest.

The training sessions included identification of the grammar pattern, description of the pattern, rules for the pattern, teacher modeling of the pattern, and student practice. Torrey found that “many students are able to use more MAAE (Mainstream American Academic English) than they actually use in most informal situations” (Ball, 1994, p. 30). In other words, Torrey found that students knew of the grammatical patterns, but did not often use them in informal settings. The results of the programmed lessons centered on the four grammar patterns showed an increase in student ability in all areas except plural and singular verb tenses.

Ball adopted and adapted this study to confirm Torrey’s 1972 results. Ball chose 31 second-grade students. Her study focused on the same four grammar patterns; however, she had two parts to her study. Part one mimicked Torrey exactly, and part two substituted literature based instruction for Torrey’s explicit instruction. Since the first part is comparable to Torrey’s I will not explain it in any further detail.

Part two, the literature based instruction, included lessons pulled from multicultural/African American cultural backgrounds. Each book has several demonstrations of Standard English use of the focus grammatical pattern. The books are as follows: San Souci’s (1989) The Talking Eggs teaches plural –s. Arkhurst’s (1964) Why Spider Lives in Ceilings teaches singular verb inflection and present tens verb. Mufaro’s Beautiful Daughters (Steptoe, 1987) teaches possessives. It’s my Earth, Too (Krull, 1992) and African is Not a Country…It’s a Continent (Lewin, 1990) both teach the copula morpheme. Finally, Hoffman and Binch’s 1991 Amazing Grace displays the full range of the grammatical patterns chosen for this study. The sessions derived from each book include specific instruction about the grammar pattern, and pointing out instances of it in the book, as well as a final writing piece where students are encouraged to use the focus pattern.

Ball (1994) found that in comparison, students taught with the literature based method made approximately the same amount of gain as the students taught with explicit instruction. Both types of instruction “had a positive and significant influence” (Ball, 1994, p. 38). In addition, most of Ball’s 1992 findings were similar to Torrey’s 1972 findings, thereby confirming Torrey’s work, and current educational agendas.

Recommendations generated from this study are to attend to clear student explanations when dealing with grammatical patterns, and avoid correcting student responses while collecting data. In closing, Ball (1994) calls for “deeper analysis and further consideration by educators and linguists alike” (p. 44).

Brice, A, & Roseberry-McKibbin, C (2001). Choice of languages in instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children. 33, 10-16.

Current literature on bilingual education suggests that working with children in the native or home language adds to a child’s ability to communicate in the second language. . Krashen (1985) found that using English for instruction of second language learners can make it more difficult for bilingual children to learn. Pennington (1995) found that “code-switching is a normal, common, and important aspect of bilingualism” (p.12). Pica (1994) felt that a child’s first language can influence the learning of a second language by way of linguistic, psychosocial, and cultural factors. These factors, which include learning pluralization rules, motivation and support of English in the home or community, can suppress the learning of the second language.

Brice and Roseberry-Mckibbin were looking to find strategies educators could use to aid students in acquiring English as a second language. They followed a model called Jacobson’s New Concurrent Approach for bilingual special educators. The model assumes that teachers and students have some knowledge in both languages and code-switching should occur only between sentences and not within a sentence. Nine strategies were suggested that could be incorporated formally in the classroom through IEPS or informally. The first strategy is Reiteration. This simply means that the speaker repeats what is said and is usually done during discussion. Another strategy is Vocabulary Checks. According to Brice et. al. (1997) bilingual students need strong vocabulary instruction to succeed in English classrooms. A third strategy is Maintaining a Flexible Environment. Students should be in an open setting which calling out is allowed, turn-taking is emphasized and there is an increase of wait time and opportunities to speak. Teachers should also accept all answers in either language. Native Language Appreciation is another strategy for teachers to use in a bilingual classroom. This simply involves using the student’s native language. Educators should also allow Spontaneous Language Use which allows students to code-switch. A sixth strategy is the Use of Code Switching as Economical Instruction. This is explained by the authors in that “it was more economical to use a Spanish word after the English word was provided than to offer a definition” (p. 14). An example being:

Teacher: “Mike, what is a stick? Palo [stick]. Mud likes to chew on a stick.”

A strategy called Flow of Instruction was suggested by Faltis (1989). This is where the teacher may use the native language of a student to prompt a student to continue communicating. The eighth and ninth strategy were taken from a study done by Brice (2000) where he studied a bilingual special educator giving language instruction to specific language-impaired children. Strategy eight is called Answering Questions. This simply suggests that the special educator should ask students more questions and in turn help them respond appropriately. The final strategy suggested is Expanded Vocabulary. This again emphasizes vocabulary instruction and the importance of the educator expanding his or her vocabulary use.

This article shows although educators may not be able to accommodate all languages in the classroom, using some of the native language will be beneficial. The strategies suggested can enhance a bilingual students learning. However, when decided what language to use in instruction, educators should be informed on proper methods of instruction.

Campbell, E. D. (1994). Empowerment Through Bidialectalism: Encouraging Standard English in a Black English Environment.

The researcher’s question was how to “balance the respect for students’ ethnic identity with the need to prepare them for the realities of functioning in a highly competitive, critical society” (p. 1). The approach the teacher took in this study was imperative to the success of the study. This study was done in a senior high school in a large metropolitan area of the Southeastern United States. The student make-up of the school is 81 % Black, 18 % Hispanic, and 3% White. The teaching faculty’s make-up is 25% Black, 18% Hispanic, and 57% White. The school has a population of 2,400 students in grades 9-12 with 1,072 qualifying under the District Comprehensive Dropout Prevention Plan. This information is important to the study to demonstrate the relevance of the study done with this population.

The twenty-one selected students were from one class of Speech and Debate. Some teachers noticed the use of oral SE was 10% lower than that of written SE. This observation was connected to the response by several teachers that “Those who speak SE are made fun of – ‘They want to appear White.’ ” (p. 4). With that being said the social implications of BE are numerous. The related research reveals that it was considered scientific knowledge that Blacks were “illiterate” and “ignorant of the rules of grammar” (p. 5). It is also noted that teachers of English need to be careful in their own personal attitudes and biases when it comes to speakers of BE. James Baldwin declares that, “A child cannot be taught by anyone who despises him” (p. 11). Since Black English is the language learned from family, friends and community it is essential for the teacher not to alienate the students for speaking BE (p. 8). The process of alienating the student will happen by calling SE the correct or right way of speaking with the implication of BE being the incorrect or wrong way of speaking. The terminology “Formal” and “Casual” would be a better approach (p. 24).

During this study the researcher utilized published findings and the instructor’s expertise to conduct the research. The study involved very specific assignments that were scaffold to improve the attitude and confidence of the students. The framework’s structure was as follows: Opening survey of speaker confidence, a planned self-introductory speech, whole class and small group choral readings (taped), individual poetry readings, class discussions on speech patterns and dialects, group improvisational skit presented in “formal” English, group skit presented in regional dialect or unique accent, impromptu speeches on topics of common interest, individual speech on a current event with the expression of an opinion on the subject, and a closing survey of speaker confidence (p. 26). Other aspects of the study included presenting individual and group readings to other classes with discussions about the power of language based on the outside readings (p. 26). The teacher was also sensitive to the fact that some of these activities may be “emotion-charged” therefore the researcher had black teachers on stand by in case they were needed to help discuss a situation. These black teachers were also given copies of the reading materials and spent time discussing the philosophy and the approach in case their expertise was needed (p. 27).

The researcher’s objective was to boost self-confidence and a willingness to speak in front of an audience by 10 points and encourage the reduction of BE by 50% usage during speeches from 80% of the 21 students. This study took place over a full semester. Materials for the study consisted of a variety of printed materials, tape recorders, headsets, tapes, poetry books (from library), newspapers and news magazines (p. 30).

Results revealed the increase of confidence which was proven by 15 of the 21 students participating in oral tournaments with three of the students being ranked in the finals. Also, the goal of 80% of the students using SE during speeches was superceded (p. 51). The parents of these 21 students commented enthusiastically regarding their young person’s interest in the Speech and Debate class as well as the competition tournaments. Basically, the results revealed that the attitude of teachers of English is imperative for the Black English speaking students to be successful in making the transition from “Casual” to “Formal” speaking.

Cronnell, B. (2001). Black-English influences in the writing of third-and sixth-grade black students. Journal of Educational Research. 233-236.

Researchers have found that oral language may influence written text. In this study Cronnell (2001) sought to find out “how dialect features might affect students’ writing” (p. 233). The dialect investigated is Black English. Other studies have found that the speakers of Black English main errors have phonological and grammatical features (Berdan, 1981; Dillard, 1975; Fasold & Wolfram, 1970; Labov, 1972).

Cronnell used end of year writing assessments from both grade levels – third and sixth. These samples were from ninety-nine third grade students in five different classes and sixty-eight sixth grade students in three different classes. The third grade students wrote an imaginative paper while the sixth grade students wrote a friendly persuasive letter. The study was performed in Los Angeles in a low-income elementary school in a predominately black inner-city area. Teachers from this school identified the students as black whose papers they submitted for the study. The papers were analyzed for errors deviating from the norms of Standard English. The study consisted of two different types of errors those that may be influenced by Black English and of those classified as hypercorrections.

Results revealed that 39% of the third graders’ errors were considered to be influenced by Black English while 33% of the sixth graders’ errors were considered to be influenced by Black English. The errors were further sorted into five categories: nouns, verbs, syntax (excluding verb and noun use), consonants, and vowels. Verb errors were the highest in both grade levels with the main mistakes being that of the “third person singular –s or –es in the present tense” (p. 234). Another main error was using past tense verbs and past participles – the absent –ed. This error was seen more in the third graders than in sixth graders. The errors in noun usage are the absence of plural –s and the absence of possessive –‘s. Again this was more common with third graders. The most noticeable error with syntax was the substitution of an for a. The most common error with consonants was the dropping of the final consonant such as pon for pond. Cronnell did not feel that the vowel errors were influenced by Black English since it is a common problem for all elementary students (p. 235).

Results from this study reflect that a large amount of errors from the writing assessments are characteristic of Black English influences. Nevertheless, the lack or abundance of errors did not necessarily define the quality of the writing samples. The study goes on to reveal that the “risk-takers” - those students who dared to write papers that were “lengthy, complex and interesting” have more potential as writers even though they may have made a lot of mistakes (p. 235). Cronnell realizes that the study had several limitations and if done under non-testing conditions may have revealed different results with fewer errors. In spite of the limitations of the study it suggests that dialect may be related to some of the writing difficulties black elementary students display.

Fogel, H., & Ehri, L. C. (2000). Teaching elementary students who speak Black English Vernacular to write in Standard English: Effects of dialect transformation practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 212-235

Abstract

The research reported in this article explores three different methods of teaching students to write in Standard English. Fogel and Ehri (2000) looked at various research stating that students were not being taught Standard English effectively, specifically students who speak Black English Vernacular—BEV (Harber & Bryen, 1976; Weems, 1993). With this information in mind, the researchers designed this study to “examine how to structure dialect instruction so that it is effective in teaching SE (Standard English) forms to students who use BEV in their writing” (Fogel and Ehri, 2000, p.215).

The researchers used 89--3rd and 4th grade students from two United States cities. The students included in this study were all BEV speaking children who exhibited nonstandard English styles in their writing. Six grammar structures were chosen for the focus of this study: possessive “s”, past tense “ed”, third-person present-tense singular “s”, plural “s”, indefinite article, and subject-verb agreement. Then, based on theoretical frameworks that state guided practice is important to transferring information (Zimmerman, 1989), these researchers constructed three learning conditions. The first condition was simply exposure (E) to the grammatical structures through literature. The second condition was exposure through literature and strategy-instruction (ES). The final condition was exposure, strategy-instruction, and opportunity for practice (ESP).

The hypothesis tested was that students in the third condition, given the opportunity for practice would perform better than students receiving only the E or ES condition. In addition to performance tasks, the students were asked to take a self-efficacy test to view student opinion about personal work and writing ability. The hypothesis about the self-efficacy was that students in the third condition have a more positive view of their work after the lessons than the students who only had partial conditions. Self-efficacy being based on the self-regulated learning approach connected with Zimmerman’s 1992 study.

The first part of research was a sentence translation task where students in all three conditions were presented with sentences using BEV rather than Standard English targeting each of the grammatical structures in question. The students were asked to translate these sentences into Standard English. This task was used as a pre-test. In addition, the students took a survey rating their opinion of their personal success in writing and grammar.

The second phase of research took place one week later, when students were presented with their specific learning conditions and then retested with the same translation task using different sentences. The exposure session had students listen to stories containing the standard form of the grammatical structures. The exposure plus strategy condition had students listen to the stories and look at a rules chart for each of the grammatical structures. The exposure, strategy, and practice group received the story, the rules chart, and an opportunity to practice and receive feedback about their task. All students were then given the posttest translation task as well as a posttest self-efficacy survey. In addition, all students were given three short-answer comprehension questions based on the exposure stories, and all students were asked to write a story.

When the results were analyzed, Fogel and Ehri (2000) found that the students in the exposure and exposure plus strategy groups performed relatively the same on the posttest, while the third condition group did 20% better. Their conclusion is that “there is little value in explaining linguistic structures to students if students do not also practice using the information” (Fogel & Ehri, 2000, p. 222). The writing tasks confirmed these results and showed that students trained with exposure, strategy, and practice “exhibited far transfer as well as near transfer to unpracticed as well as practiced writing tasks” (Fogel & Ehri, 2000, p. 225).

As for the results of the self-efficacy surveys, Fogel and Ehri found surprising results. The students had an elevated view of their ability before the research, and each of the tested groups improved their self-efficacy on the posttest, except the third condition students. These reverse results could be due to the fact that the views were elevated at the onset of the research and additional practice may have given students a more realistic view of their abilities.

In all, the research successfully showed that between exposure, exposure and strategy, and exposure, strategy and practice, the third condition is favorable for teaching Standard English grammatical constructs to students who write with BEV grammatical constructs. Exposure alone, and exposure coupled with grammatical rules will not effectively teach students to write using standard grammatical constructs for possessive “s”, past tense “ed”, third-person present-tense singular “s”, plural “s”, indefinite article, and subject-verb agreement. It seems that practice, exposure, and strategy instruction together are the best way to make a difference in writing ability.

Fogel, H, & Ehri, L.C. (2006). Teaching African American English forms to standard American English-speaking teachers. Journal Of Teacher Education. 57, 464-480

“African American English (AAE) differs from Standard American English (SE) on a variety of phonological, lexical, syntactic, stylistic, and usage dimensions” (p. 464). However, researchers such as Burling (1973) and Fasold (1969) argue that AAE is not lacking to SE in its structure and development. An issue that concerns researchers is that of low achievement of different cultures. Some feel that these “dialect-speaking students” have a more difficult time in school due to the difference in the English learned at home and the one they are expected to know at school. Goodman and Buck (1973) feel that the problem lies within the teachers’ negative attitude towards these students. With this becoming a problem “Hayes and Taylor (1971) concluded that establishing educational programs to teach teachers about dialect should be a major priority for educators and school personnel” (p. 466).

Fogel and Ehri (2006) were looking to find out how effective dialect instruction could be for SE-speaking teachers. The study took a self-regulated learning theory approach which believes that self-efficacy plays a central role in teacher and student performance. (Bandura and Locke , 2003) Fogel and Ehri wanted to “educate and sensitize teachers to the use of AAE dialect forms so that they would be better prepared to help dialect-speaking students in their classrooms to distinguish between AAE and SE features in the course of acquiring SE” (p. 467). The study focused on written instead of oral language proficiency.

Seventy-three teachers received three treatment conditions. One goup only received exposure to AAE text (E), another group was given exposure plus strategies (ES), and the third group received exposure, strategies and practice with AAE (ESP). The teachers were tested and trained in one session lasting sixty minutes. Their attitudes toward AAE and knowledge were tested before instruction. After instruction, teachers were tested with a sentence translation task and a story writing task. They were also given an attitude scale posttest.

Results on the sentence writing task revealed a significant difference on the pre and post tests. The results indicate that just by asking teachers to notice the AAE features in text showed a significant improvement in their AAE dialect forms. However, the gains were much greater in the groups who were given strategies and practice with AAE structure. In the story writing tasks, results showed that teachers given ESP did much better than those in the ES group, who did scored significantly better than those in the E group. On the attitude posttest, teachers showed a shift in attitude towards AAE after being exposed to it. When exposure was combined with instruction of AAE, greater attitude shifts towards the positive end occurred. However, these differences in attitude did not show a statistical significance.

This study indicates the importance of teachers knowing as much as they can about the different cultures and dialects that come into a classroom. This study looked to sensitize as well as educate teachers about the use of AAE in the classroom. The results revealed that instruction in dialects is effective. The most effective strategy is that of exposure to text, transformation strategies and practice using dialect forms. The findings suggest that if teachers work with AAE forms they may be able to use the skills they acquire to help AAE students learn and work with SE forms. It is important to know that dialect forms are not just learnt through exposure to speech but that instruction in the different forms can help students better acquire the knowledge needed to master the SE form.

Godley, A., Sweetland, J., Wheeler, R., Minnici, A., Carpenter, B. (2006). Preparing teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms. Educational Researcher 35,8, 30-37.

Abstract

The authors of this article write to point out the national problem of stigmatizing certain dialects. Their main purpose in writing is to shed light on and provide solutions for the problem. Their belief is that when teachers enter the classroom well-prepared for dialect differences, the necessary changes can occur to reverse the “damaging effects of widespread beliefs about and pedagogical responses to students who speak…stigmatized dialects.” This article reports research theories and gives tips for three major categories vital to teacher education programs.

The research reported in this article shows that there are prevalent “negative beliefs about the grammaticality, logic and even morality of stigmatized dialects” (Blake & Cutler, 2003; Perry & Delpit, 1998). The dialects considered to be stigmatized include African American Vernacular, Chicano, and Appalachian English as well as others. The researchers reported that “teachers are more likely to give lower evaluations to work presented orally by African American students, even when that work is equal in quality to work presented by White students” (Crowl & MacGinitie, 1974; Taylor, 1973) due to their vernacular.

The goal of this paper is to prepare teachers to meet the needs created by the negative beliefs and negative actions that stem from dialects varying from Standard English. Godley, Sweetland, Wheeler, Minnici and Carpenter dedicate much of their paper to three specific “themes that might serve as a foundation for courses and programs on dialect diversity for in-service or pre-service teachers.” (2006, p.31). These three themes include: “anticipating and overcoming resistance to dialect diversity; addressing issues of language, identity, and power; and emphasizing practical, pedagogical applications of research on language variation” (Godley et al., 2006 p. 31).

The first theme of anticipating and overcoming resistance is intended to teach teachers how to perceive diverse dialects. The most important goal of this theme is to insure that teachers do not view Standard English as a superior dialect. The researchers suggest making teachers aware of their own style variations in language in order to encourage a more positive view of various dialects. In addition to that, this theme must explicitly teach “affirming the value of vernacular varieties in order to have the most impact” (Godley et al, 2006, p. 32).

The second theme, addressing issues of language, power and identity, is geared toward engaging teachers in “explicit discussions of dominant language ideologies, their logic, and their presumptions” (Ball & Muhammad, 2003). Such discussions will prepare teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms. One suggestion is to encourage teachers to have such explicit discussions with their students, “which challenge powerful ideologies of standard language and color-blindness” (Godley et al, 2006 p.33)

The third and final theme aiding in preparation for a dialectally diverse classroom is that of emphasizing pedagogical applications of research on language variation. This theme recalls research stating that “practitioners may not link theory to practice without specific guidance” (Edmundson & Greiner, 2005). The researchers feel that pre-service and in-service opportunities must be give to show teachers how to make changes in the classroom.

To close their article, Godley et al leave three teaching approaches that should be used to prepare teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms. First, dialect diversity is a resource, not a deficit, meaning that teachers should “be familiarized with approaches in which students draw on vernacular dialects to excel in academic literacy practices such as essay writing and literary analysis” (Ball, 1995; Lee, 2006). Second, students benefit from learning about dialect diversity, meaning that students should be engaged in conversation about dialects as a way of teaching language as a powerful tool. Third, dialect patterns should be distinguished from errors in writing and addressed through a contrastive approach, meaning that students should be taught pattern differences in various dialects in such a way that they can apply it in their own writing.

When the methods stated in this article are incorporated into pre-service courses and in-service courses, teachers should be well prepared to teach in dialectally diverse classrooms.

Holm, Janie Butler, (1997) Standard English and Student Anger. The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), (ED 408 596), 1-7.

Abstract

“It is hardly news that upper-level composition teachers face serious difficulties in trying to teach writing to poorly prepared students or that students become angry about having to do work they consider remedial or unnecessary” (Holm p. 2). Through teacher inquiry, Holm exams this problem: “Given the effects of this disturbing cultural transition, what are composition teachers to do? How should teaching practices change, if at all, to address this new form of student alienation?”(p. 4)

In this article, Holm gives her perspective of reasons that a “mini-rebellion against Standard English” (p. 2) occurred in her junior-level college composition class, and ways to address this problem. “An unhappy students lost her temper in class, exclaiming that (1) she didn’t see why she has to learn Standard English, (2)Diana Hacker’s A Writer’s Reference simply reflects Hacker’s personal opinion, and (3) perhaps I, the teacher, am just too old to know current English usage. Three other students, though much more tentative, supported this student on the first point: they didn’t see the need for learning Standard English” (p. 2). According to Holm, “students feel a double resentment towards previous instructors when they find that their writing needs work: these educators have failed to educate, and they are sitting in positions of security and authority that are beyond the reach of the current generation; they associate Standard English with the elite culture whose doors they believe will remain closed to them, protest what they know is already good enough” ( p. 3). Holm further states that the new anger is “specific to recent ideological and socioeconomic trends-that is, it is specific to a population that is waking up from the American Dream”(p.4). Through teacher inquiry, Holm exams this problem: “Given the effects of this disturbing cultural transition, what are composition teachers to do? How should teaching practices change, if at all, to address this new form of student alienation?”( p. 4). Holm’s response is: “beef up tried-and-true classroom methods and to introduce a few new practices. Some are intended to persuade students that good writing skills are socially essential; some indicate that acknowledge and understand the social difficulties that college students now face; others are simply a matter of common sense for troubled times”(p. 4).

From this response, Holm came up with a way to approach composition by using these guidelines: Expect anger - she explains that it cannot be overlooked, but that it can be managed through open dialogue of student frustrations in a temperate manner in a ‘spirit of inquiry’( p. 4). If this does not help in a classroom setting, she suggests one-on-one conferencing as an additional time of discussion.

Do not assume that the value of what we teach is self-evident- She states that students need to be “reminded that English is a Global language. Standard English is the primary language ‘for international communication: for commerce and tourism, for science and technology, for economic and military aid, for air-traffic control, and for communication at sea. The extent to which English functions as an international language is unique in world history’” (Good English and Grammarian. Longman: London and New York, 1988, p. 2).” (p. 4) Holm makes several other suggestions: “(a) explain to students that in order to be functional at a global level, a language has to be standardized-that is apprehended at a distance and at a later time. (b) Standard English should not be presented as a superior dialect but identify it ‘straightforwardly’ as a privileged, white, middle-class dialect to be added to one’s repertoire of incalculably useful social skills, whatever one’s social identity. (c) demonstrate that, while non- standard usage is more suitable for some situations, Standard English is an essential communication tool, as it is the version of English that can be understood by the greatest number of people around the world. (d) point our that media in the culture do not use Standard English but speech dialects, and students should expect to find nonstandard English in newspapers, magazines, television, etc.”( p. 5 ).

Acknowledge the arbitrary nature of accepted language use- Show students how linguistic evolution as generated some ambivalence within Standard English, such that a writer may choose whether or not to capitalize the first word of an independent clause following a colon, whether or not to sue a comma after a coordinating conjunction when the combined sentences are brief. Suggest that a living, changing language system is sometimes quite unsystematic, that some of its irregular forms represent the collective preferences of speakers and writers. Prepare students for minor differences in usage in different professional contexts.

Establishing a consistent and trustworthy authority - Holm says, “ Not all composition classes can fully address the complexity of Standard English and this notion should be explained to students” (p. 6). Further, she contends that a good handbook/workbook that has been thoroughly examined for errors, typos and passages where practice contradicts prescription should be provided for students. The last guideline that she suggests is

Keep in mind the difficulty of learning Standard English- Holm states that students are effectively learning a foreign language, one that is particularly difficult to assimilate because it has so much in common with the language of everyday

speech” (p. 6). Holm explains how students do not know the technical vocabulary in which we try to explain Standard English, so keep the vocabulary as simple as possible. To help students become familiar with the composition terms, she suggest to write them out, ‘ parallelism’, ‘dangling modifier’. She also suggests that when there are multiple labels for the same feature, choose one. For example, “subordinate clause” and “dependent clause”- decide on the label and stick to it.

The results of teacher inquiry concerning the “mini-rebellion against Standard English” (p. 2) within her college composition class led Holm to these strategies, though she contends that “they are not guaranteed in the current social climate: (p. 7). She states that “there have been no further outbursts , and the general consensus in my classes now is that Standard English is an annoying but necessary evil. They are developing some of the skills they will need in order to articulate their frustration more effectively—and I would hope to persuade others of the need for constructive cultural change” (p. 7).

Jocson, Korina M., (2006) “There’s a better word”: Urban youth rewriting their social worlds through. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49 (8), 700-707.

Abstract

Research has found that studies with emphasis on sociocultural perspectives on literacy offer a frame work through which to explore the salience of poetry in youth’s lives. In this article, Jocson draws from works within New Literacy Studies to provide a look of urban high school youth’s experiences in a program called Poetry for the People (P4P). In this study, Jocson’s purpose is to identify some of the ways in which P4P was valuable for students in gaining writing skills, confidence in learning, self awareness and social conscience (p. 700). In this article, Jocson offers a theoretical framework on poetry within New Literacy Studies.

The site for this study is a comprehensive high school in California, who is the “flagship school site for P4P’s growing educational outreach in the community, a school-university partnership that began in 1996. P4P was actually inside English classrooms during schools hours, three times a week for a four-to-six week period of “collaborative interventions” (p. 703). Jocson started collected data in 2000 through a pilot study and used several methods-surveys, interviews, observation, collection of poetry-related artifacts, and official documentation. Data sources included student work, audiotaped conversations with students and teachers, and field notes from in and out of school. For this article, Jocson wanted to make a close examination of students’ past and current poetry to gain a sense of how they used poetry in their everyday lives.

Seven students of color were selected for this study based on consent, availability, gender, and grade level. They all were participants in the P4P program at one point or another during high school. Four students represent and underserved student population from one of two small learning communities. They were students “typically unrecognized” (p. 703) for their talent and intelligence within the larger school. Damon, a first-time poetry writer in P4P, who is one of them, and will be the only one who’s production of poetry will be highlighted in this article. Jocson will explain his process in creating “identity” (poem) as one example of the possibilities of (critical) writing and brings to “light the role of P4P’s pedagogy and curriculum in effective writing instruction” (p. 703)

Research in the article shows “P4P’s principal work has been to set apart poetry as a critical medium to move ‘the people’ toward social transformation-a move that advance poetry as a ‘conscious’- raising tool, ‘comprehensible’ and ‘not hidden away from ordinary people’ (Jordon, 1985, p.13) (703). P4P’s work is guided by a three-part definition of poetry: (1) is a medium for telling the truth, (2) reaches for maximal impact through the use of a minimal number of words, and (3) demands the utmost precision from words” (p. 701).

The study shows that with any P4P interventions, students were given a new topic each week- “from self-affirmation and profiling, to love and urgent poetry (not limited in this order). In the fall of 2000, the topics were “bringing it home,” “love,” “racial profiling,” “every word counts,” and “rhyme and rhythm.” Each topic was covered for a week, but (in that order), the first of which is suggestive of terms such as community and family that became the center of the whole and small group discussions. Ruth Forman’s (1993) poem “Young Cornrows calling Out the Moon” served as a beginning point for an assignment that called for similar themes. Students were asked to write a poem about their sense of community and family, or something related to their sense of home. “In response to this “bringing it home” (also announced in class as “self-affirmation”) assignment, Damon writes a poem called “identity.” In it he chooses to include his biracial background to respond to a world that challenges who he is and what he looks like. This gives him a chance to “voice some things that often went unsaid in conversations. This poem became for him a declaration, a rewriting of common misperceptions about being black and Filipino, and a place to construct self (McCormick, 2000).

“identity”

half and half

since the start of my path

mixed with the best of both worlds

genetics turned my naps into curls

hated on by many

despite my friendly personality i

i’m not the conceited type

i’m not the stuck up treatin others

the way they treat me

i look deeper than the surface

because i was not

put on this earth to harm one soul

i have no problems

cause i was

put here to contribute

slice through edge of happiness

and I ain’t close to done

Jocson explains that Damon used such writing devices as parallel structure (“i’m not…i’m not” in lines 7-8) to affirm what he not, which in the public’s eye had been a “conceited” biracial person. Having good hair or mixed skin tone was often the basis for these types of misperceptions according to Damon in an interview with Jocson, which makes reference to an on going biologically based debate about good verses bad hair that had been consistent with racist notions about beauty (e.g., Banks, 2000). In her further discussion with Damon, he shared that it was important to pint to physical features (“genetics turned my naps into curls” in line 4) and to assert that there is more to him than looks. Understanding complexities of being racially mixed, Damon said he would rather “contribute/ (and) slice through edge of happiness” than be seen as one with “problems.” Here Jocson says, “he was reversing common misconceptions about mixed children as confused beings, and he anticipated a time when his racial identity would never be questioned nor condemned” (p. 705) Then is final line, “and i ain’t close to done”, alluding to his plan to (“wanna make the world a better place to live in,”) both for himself, his siblings, and other bi/multiracial people. From their conversation, says Jocson, Damon “wants to change his surroundings and the relationships existing in them through the use of language in poetry”(p.705) .

The results not only show Damon rewriting social perceptions, but the act of rewriting the poem itself. The poem “identity” was originally written on several pages in shis miniature poetry notebook as assignment in P4P. Through several revisions at home and in-group workshops of his “identity” poem, Damon reduced the entire length of the original to a shorter two-page version, then to 49 lines, and then to “a crisp 17-line

poem” (p. 705). In another interview, according to Jocson, “he admitted that through his participation in P4P he learned to appreciate the revision phase of the writing process. This study shows that Damon gained certain strategies during the revision process such as the use of the thesaurus to pay closer attention to “certain words” and revise his work as least four times. The study points out that he carried this same attitude over to his writing of essays and book reports. Jocson says, “ ‘rewrite to rewrite’ became an important strategy for Damon and she argues that is a consequence of the socialized learning context provided by P4P’s collaborative intervention and writing guidelines along with a greater appreciation and understanding of the writing process”(p. 706).

Katz,S. R., & Stevens, S. A. (1997). Standard English Immersion for Native English Speakers. Publication of the Illinois Philological Association. 1, 1-8.

Katz and Stevens look at the benefits and methods of an immersion curriculum for Ntive English speakers when trying to acquire a Standard English dialect. Research has shown that when teaching grammar in isolation from meaningful content and actual use does not improve language skills. Patrick Hartwell also felt that although one may know grammar rules, they may not compose grammatically correct essays. Irene Broshahan and Janice Neulieb add that a major reason for student inability to acquire grammar knowledge is ineffective teaching. The authors felt that grammar instruction was lacking in three areas. One, is that it is not being taught properly, two, learning a set of rules and skills does not help students learn broader language skills and three, this instruction does not help students’ acquire the Standard American dialect. According to Krashen, “immersion has been shown to be the most effective way to acquire a second language” (p. 2). The authors continue that Standard English can almost be viewed as a second language because it is not used in everyday conversation.

In an immersion program, students learn a second language by using it while studying other areas. They do not study the language directly. The students are not asked to demonstrate correct grammar skills until early or mid-adolescence. Katz and Stevens argue that immersion would be successful in teaching Standard Dialect because it “imitates the process by which children acquire their first language skills in their home dialect” (p. 3). The immersion programs provide continual stimulation just as a child would naturally acquire his first language.

There are a few methods involved in immersion instruction. These methods would be a variety of speaking, writing, listening and reading activities. Reading to students, literature circles and book discussions are all effective immersion strategies. The authors also suggest a teacher/student dialogue journal. The student makes an entry and teachers respond. “Partners can question, react, challenge, or otherwise express themselves as freely as possible” (p. 5). The journals could also be used to practice editing and proofreading. Katz and Stevens also suggested using dramatic performance as an activity in immersion classrooms. Language is used as a way to communicate a message. Drama can also improve confidence and possibly an “attachment between the student and language” (p. 5). Students accomplishments can be kept and recorded through a portfolio showing growth.

Katz and Stevens remind the reader that it is important for students to value their home dialect. They suggest students be taught that in some situations their home dialect is less appropriate. Students should begin to recognize the differences in dialect and then be able to see that Standard English is linked to success in school and the professional world. They continue by stating that immersion does not threaten the home dialect which in turn can promote success in the bigger world without disturbing their home belief system.

Katz and Stevens conclude by pointing out that students who enter school without a foundation in Standard American English easily fall behind. They feel an immersion program will help the students “catch up” with peers and can even start in preschool. They feel that current grammar instruction does not give students the skills needed in Standard English. Specific grammar lessons do not improve oral communication but that students need modeling of Standard English.

Knestrict, T, & Schoensteadt, L (2005). Teaching social register and code switching in the classroom. Journal of Children & Poverty. 11, 177-185.

Gollnick and Chinn (2002) found that lacking skills in code switching and social register are linked to poor academic and social skills. Children who do not have these skills most often do not understand the language or codes being used at school with results in an inability to adapt socially and academically(Carroll 1994). Carroll (1994) looked at the teaching of pragmatic social skills. The Anerican Speech-Language-Hearing Association defines pragmatic social skills as “a set of rules governing how spoken language is used to communicate in specific contexts” (p 178). Carroll felt that these issues were only, if at all, addressed in schools by speech and language pathologists. Further research done by Montano-Harmon in 1991 revealed that children of poverty are usually only exposed to a casual register at home which is considered their home language. However, public schools operate and teach mostly in formal register. This causes a disconnect between the register the child is familiar with and the one being taught at school. The disconnection can lead to confusion and oftentimes behavioral problems. Payne (1996) also found that when students use casual register in a classroom it can be considered disrespectful and can lead to an unnecessary discipline problem.

The study done by Knestrict and Schoensteadt was observational. It’s purpose was to look at a school which teaches code switching and social register to children living in poverty. The researchers were also looking to find specific areas for further study. Knestrict and Schoensteadt observed the social skills lessons taught in a classroom for six months. During this time, teachers, administrators, and speech and language specialists were interviewed. The questions dealt with noticing change in academic success, behavior choices in school and behavioral flexibility.

The social skills were taught each day and all classrooms addressed the same skill at the same time. Role-plays were used for practice in the social skills. Students were first introduced to “code-switching”. Students and teachers then created role-plays and performed them. Examples were taken from actual incidences that occurred in the classroom. An example was given of students “capping” eachother (insulting for entertainment) in the hallway. Once the students walked into the classroom, the teacher prompted the students by saying “What’s Changing” (a catch phrase used to determine when it is time to code-switch). The students immediately stopped capping and changed to a formal register when they were in the classroom.

The second skill students were taught was how to translate registers which is related to code switching. A speech pathologist at the school stated that most of the students are fluent in a casual register whereas tests, textbooks and language of teachers is given in a formal register. She continued by stating that it is almost like teaching a second language and that direct instruction is necessary. The school creates activities that give students practice in changing from casual to formal registers. Older students are given journals and they may write in whatever style they choose. If a child writes in casual register, oftentimes the class will help translate it to formal registers. The students also translate text written in formal register to casual register. When it comes to testing, teachers remind students to “think in the formal register” (p. 182).

After observing for six months, the authors found there was a decrease in office referrals and that “teaching the specific skills is essential to both the academic and behavioral success these children are beginning to experience” (p. 183). Teachers and students both felt the skills were beneficial and necessary. This observational study showed an opinion that teaching the skills was a valuable use of teaching time and were a benefit to the curriculum. The results also revealed that the skills related “directly to the achievement gap between children in poverty and children in the middle class and above” (p. 184). This could change the way we teach children in poverty with regards to behavioral expectations and discipline. The authors conclude that further qualitative and quantitative long-term research is needed to evaluate the potential of the teaching strategies.

McLaughlin, M. (2002). The Discourse of whiteness in the evolution of one African-American student’s writing. 53rd Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Chicago, IL.

Researchers have discovered that although “whiteness” has no scientific definition it is prevalent in our English and Composition classrooms (p. 1). Gregory Jay declares that “whiteness” is made real as a “cultural ‘fact’ ” through avenues in society (Harris, 2001, p. 4). While Tim Barnett acknowledges that “rhetoric has not been able to question its own ‘white ground’ ” (“Reading Whiteness,” 2000, p. 10). Catherine Prendergast states that because of this “whiteness” racism is perpetuated in our classrooms (p. 1). This study examines the difficulties that one African American student has while trying to “assimilate the dominate discourse” in a composition classroom (p. 1). The comparisons used are a black female college freshman and a white male college freshman. They both have similar academic patterns and SAT scores (p. 3).

Their autobiographical essays explicated that their writing styles were totally different. While Kyle, the Caucasian male, used a “thesis-driven introduction” Rowena, the African American female, used a voice that was more conversational in tone (p. 3). According to McLaughlin, Chaplin acknowledges this as “recorded oral language” (p. 3) while Anokye (1994) states that “The storytelling tradition is strong among African Americans and … may seem to meander from the point.… This is a linguistic style which causes problems with American mainstream speakers who want to get to the point” (p. 48). These differences are maintained throughout the semester and the results are that Kyle’s exit essay is passed but Rowena’s is not. Therefore she has to retake the Developmental Studies English class again. During that time her efforts come to null as she continued to have a conversational tone in her essays which is not parallel to the “academic guidelines” of an essay. Again, her exit essay fails. Her instructor’s comments are that “it is hard to take a student who has grown up with bad speech, and then they put it in writing, and then they don’t recognize that it is incorrect” (p. 9). Rowena then had to take Developmental Studies English for the third time as well as a remedial English class.

After three Developmental English classes and one remedial English class Rowena had finally learned to use the “discourse of whiteness” (p. 10). She now writes with a thesis that she supports with detailed paragraphs; she does not veer off topic or uses any voice to distinguish her from any other college freshman who uses the “discourse of whiteness” (p. 10). McLaughlin emphasizes “Gone are the strong writing voice, the personal involvement in the topic, the vivid word choices, and the communicativeness of her writing, which are all elements of the discourse of ‘blackness’ ” (p. 10).

Despite numerous obstacles Rowena went on to graduate after taking

three non-credit Developmental English classes, two Freshman English I, and two non-credit Intensive Review Courses in order for her to pass the Regents’ Writing Exam and three out of four summer sessions to make up credits lost because of the plethora of non-credit writing classes (p. 11).

This academic experience displays “racial discrepancy that suggest ‘culturally sanctioned beliefs which, regardless of the intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have…,’ which is David Wellman’s definition of racism” (p. 11).

Pransky, Ken and Francis Bailey. (2002/2003) To meet your students where they are, first you have to find them: Working with culturally and linguistically diverse at-risk students. The Reading Teacher, 56 (4), 370-383.

Abstract

“Research has shown how attention to cultural mismatch may be a key to equitable school achievement” (p. 370). In this article, Pransky and Bailey (2002/2003) study “that learning is primarily a social and cultural process” (Genesee (1994; Vygotsky, 1986). Further they, hypothesize that “individual thinking is strongly influenced by cultural assumptions and beliefs”. They used several theories and concepts ( Discourse Community and mismatch theories, Constructivism theory, and ZPD- “zone of proximal development, which says it is the gap between what students can do independently and do with assistance) to study this hypothesis. Using a series of classroom vignettes, they determine the nature of how mismatches between home and school put students at risk. According to Pransky and Bailey (2002/2003), the goal is to identify underlying reasons why at-risk students are struggling and create new teaching practices designed to meet students where they are. They follow this group of students through 1st and 2nd grades.

They approach this study with at risk-students through an ongoing process of inquiry (Zeichner & Liston,1996) based in teacher research. The strategy they use is Reflective Process (Kolb, 1983) which can be summed up in four steps: awareness- the teacher notices a breakdown in communication(inability or unwillingness of student (s) to complete an academic task); inquiry –the teacher examines the nature of the lesson and identifies cultural assumptions that may negatively affect at-risk students (professional literature, perspective of someone who is familiar with the home cultures and any previous inquiry experiences; reconceptualization – with information, teacher reconceputualizes his or her perspective students, lesson, curriculum, or school culture; lesson – lesson is revisited, revised, based on the new conception.

According to the article, “as one develops more awareness, knowledge, and experience with a cultural perspective on learning, one is better able to reconceptualize and then redirect or refocus one’s teaching within the flow of the lesson” (p. 372). Using video and audio taping, and observation notes, Pransky and Bailey capture this process through examples in a classroom setting. In five case studies they illustrate how several theories support reflective practice.

The first case study vignette takes place in a first-grade ESL inclusion classroom. The lesson is about working with positive and negative behaviors in preparation for a heterogeneous group project. The classroom is also made up of Cambodian students, who have a Cambodian Title I paraprofessional, Seiha Krouch, available to them to help them understand classroom discourse. The question for Prasky and Bailey was: Were all students fully able to participate and advocate for their own learning needs in heterogeneous groups? Upon observation, they found gender, socioeconomic class, ethnicity and academic standing, affected the ability at-risk students to access the learning of the group. Pransky and Bailey presented to the children scenarios of negative behaviors in cooperative groups. Most of the students enjoyed pointing out their mistakes, telling them how to act in order to have harmony in a group. The Cambodian children, however, did not speak out and whispered only to Seiha. Then Bailey snatched work from Pransky’s hand, saying, “Give me the book! You’re too slow!” and then asked one of the Cambodian children to respond. They only whispered to Seiha and did not respond. Pransky and Bailey wondered if they did not have the language to explain it. To get insight, they examined two concepts: Discourse Community (Gee, 1990) and mismatch theory (Delpit, 1996; Pease-Alvarez & Vasquez, 1994; Shultz, Florio, & Erickson, 1982). “Each Discourse Community (ethnicity, job, families, religion, and sports) has its own particular rules and culture and uses language in ways that reflect and reinforce its norms and values. Children are trained to think, feel, believe, value and act in ways that identify them as members of their particular Discourse

Communities” ( p. 373). At Pransky’s school, most of the students and teachers are white and middle class to affluent, speaking the same discourse at home and at school, thus allowing the majority of the students to feel empowered in their school community. They found that “cultural assumptions about the nature of the teacher/student relationship strongly affected the lesson. Instead of them assuming that there was a deficit based on home, community or student (laziness, lack of intelligence, learning disability, lack of bedtime reading, parental indifference, too much television), they probed and found that Cambodian American children come from a culture where it is not permissible to critique one’s elders. They revisited the lesson and explained to the Cambodian children the difference in “school discourse and community discourse” (p. 373). They assured the children that in school in order to be considered a good student, students are required to participate in classroom activities. The next day, they readily participated in the activity.

In the second vignette, the lesson was discovering the concept of sound-symbol correspondences using the letter “t”. While they were going through the lesson, Pransky notices the “automatic choral response (“yes”) to his “throw-away” question: It’s important to listen, right? Then it occurred to Pransky if the children really knew what was involved in the listening process. He started “real-time” inquiry (to engage dialogue with students to discover the understandings they have of the lesson task or interaction). After this inquiry, he discovered that none of the students really understood why listening was important other than beyond “being good”. He then redirected the focus of the lesson to the fact that in school listening was connected to learning. In a nut shell, he “reconceptualized and refocused his lesson to be “no listening, no learning”. He continued with inquiry the next day and asked which body they listened with, they said, “eyes, bodies and finally ears”. According to Pransky, “students made this assumption based on teachers saying “Listen, eyes up here!” and their teachers’ exhortations to point their bodies toward the speaker, they connected their concept of listening as good behavior with doing literally what the teacher said, and finally to thinking.” (p. 375). In the Reflective process Pransky is led to “inquire more deeply about the particular function listening has within the classroom culture, the general ‘shared meaning’ of listening includes quiet bodies, eye contact, active focus, and active thinking. Through inquiry Pransky directly teaches them about the school culture’s meaning of “listen”. In this vignette, “cultural norms, assumptions, and learning expectations affect the learning environment. It further validates the Constructivism theory (children construct their own understanding of the world and take responsibility for their own learning as means to becoming independent learners)” (p. 375). “Therefore, a teacher’s job is to create appropriate learning contexts so students can construct, and take responsibility for, their own understanding of academic concepts”(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988;

Vygotsky,1986) (p.375). Pransky and Bailey conclude “Constructivist thought should help us see that while children indeed construct their understanding of the world, it is only within the parameters of a familiar sociocultural environment, thus expanding the idea that when working with at-risk students, teachers must focus on the sociocultural context of learning”(p. 375). In this vignette the children had constructed their understanding of “listening at school” on the basis of their home culture experience. “This differs from the dominant Community Discourse and as a result causes ambiguity between school, home and the dominant Community Discourse. One part of constructivism says that ‘students take responsibility for their own learning as a means to becoming independent learners’. To this, Pransky and Bailey contend, “it only fits into middle –class cultural norms in the United States, but it is not universal” (p. 375). The Cambodian American children in this study looked for “continued strong adult guidance, modeling, and structured practice-quite opposite of ‘becoming an independent learner’. This would be for them, disrespect in their home Discourse Community” (p. 375). Constructivism is a theory that helps explain how learning occurs. Pransky’s study in the first two vignettes conclude that constructivism “does not champion the best ways to learn because cultures are different. The activities are based in a particular cultural perspective on learning that comfortably supports and enhances the process of learning for many students – but not all students” (p. 376).

In vignette three, they continue to work with the same group later in the year. This time they are working on predicting words from pictures and initial consonant sounds. In the group, they are talking about the picture above the following sentence “Trucks carry dirt.” As they discuss Pransky asks, “What do you think the truck is carrying”? Jose answers, “sand,” and Pransky answers” That’s right. It’s sand. Or it’s something that looks like sand. Let’s read.” In reading the passage, he talks with Jose’ about the sounds of “s” and “d” in the word sand while pointing at each letter. He then asks Jose’, “Does “ssand” start with a “ d-d-dee”? Jose answers, “no” (reluctantly) Then he points at the “d” in “sand” and asks, “What’s something that’s like sand, but starts with a “d-d-dee?” Savun answered, “dirt.” Pransky’s inquiry was, why Savun had not pickup up on the wrong response at the opening of this discussion. He wondered if Savun was focused on something else, perhaps the nature of the group interaction or the school’s expectations of how students should relate to academic material. In examining this inquiry, Pransky is focusing on academic learning behavior not academic content. His “attempt to understand how the students were thinking about the academic task and what their understanding might be based on, was in the students’ ZPD ( the gap between what they can do independently and do with assistance the ‘zone of proximal development’”(p. 377). The previous academic successes in the classroom were based on choral answering, “reading” facial expressions, and copying what other students did. These strategies helped them in an environment in which they were not sure of the rules. In using the Reflective process, the study revealed that real-time inquiry was: why a student who had lots of structured practice in sound-symbol did not see how sand could not be a reasonable guess while looking at the word dirt. He recognized that he needed to refocus the lesson from “academic content to academic learning behavior”(p.377). Pransky found that “both Jose`’s and Savun’s difficulties started from the same overriding sociocultural need to listen and think carefully , attend to their own learning internally, and answer questions they ‘really know’ with confidence” (p. 378).

In Case study four, the strategy was Thinking skills – school versus life. Pransky formed a reading group in a second-grade class with children who had difficulty in reading comprehension. The group consisted of three Cambodian Americans, an African American, and a European American. He chose an appropriately leveled short story, “A day When Frogs Wore Shoes” (Cameron, 1986) The “objective was to work on students’ posing of skillful question as a key to reading comprehension”(p. 378). Pransky wanted to base the lesson in their understanding of the story’s underlying structure: the introduction and resolution of a problem as the plot develops. The characters included a set of bored children heading out to visit a father at his mechanic’s shop, but the father did not like to be around bored children. A good reader would wonder if the children will get in trouble when they visit the father, which increases interest in the story. They thought this would be an easy task, but it was not; the children could not understand what problem the children might have if they visited the father. After multiple rounds of questions, they could not figure out what the problem the might have been if the children visited their father. Next, Pransky refocused the questioning on real-life situations to see if the children could make inferences. He changed the dialogue and question to: “You got dirty outside playing. Your dad doesn’t like you to have dirty clothes; he gets angry if you have dirty clothes. You are about to see your dad. You’re walking in the house. Your dad is right there. What’s your problem? Chandra said: Uhh, I’m going to get in

Trouble” (p. 379). “The students showed that they could make and articulate inferences concerning their own real life situations. Starting there, the students began to learn to connect this skill to their own reading, but Pransky wondered why they could not do that independently from the beginning. The breakdown in communication and academic performance caused the necessity for inquiry, to generate multiple hypothesis as to why the children could not connect the abstract idea in the story” (p. 379). According to the research, Pransky’s and Bailey’s inquiry focused on one: “the author’s words in print had less primacy for them than their own feelings or ideas about the texts”; two: “if the students did not see that their home and life experiences could be applicable to many academic tasks” (Delpit, 1996; Health, 1983). (p. 380). Further the students may have felt disempowered within the classroom Discourse Community or by an inability to identify with, or make connections to, the characters, and situation in the texts (p. 380). They concluded that they were unsure as to why the children had difficulty with this academic task. However, there were good results: “students had well-developed inferencing skills that they could articulate in English; the students began to build a new awareness that their home experiences could be transferable to academic contexts; and with continued modeling, grounding, and practice, the students were able to internalize this awareness and skill to apply independently to their own reading”(p. 380).

In the last case study, they were with the same students, second year of a first-and second grade ‘looping’ ESL-inclusion classroom. They designed a long term unit based on a read-aloud of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (L Frank Baum, 2000, Harper Collins). With this case study, they wanted to highlight the connection between real-life critical thinking skills and academic contexts at school. The first activity had to do with an event in the movie not the novel. It was the scene when Dorothy ran away. The students were asked to make a list 10 things they would take tat could fit into a small suit case. All of the answers varied. The Cambodian children sat with Seiha, writing and discussing their lists. Their list included matches, small bags of rice, flashlights and batteries, coats and changes of clothes, and other food. The mainstream students’ lists were filled with toys, dolls, and computer games. With some prodding, a few children remembered to add a change of clothes and food (cookies). Pransky and Bailey concluded “the nature of the task and the cultural context determine, in many ways, the type and degree of student participation” (p. 380). The Cambodian students born and raised in a community of successful survivors of war, severe oppression, and refugee camps, knew a lot about the practicalities of ‘running away’. As a result, “they could make sophisticated choices within that realm of experience. They further conclude that the task and lesson content reflected the children’s home culture knowledge and build off their strengths and experiences. Second, with Seiha they were in a safe, supportive Discourse Community, creating a sense of empowerment within the classroom”(p. 380).

Results from these five case studies show that learning is primarily a social and cultural process. With this knowledge, it is clear that “instructional tasks are social and cultural tasks that students make meaning of based on their life experiences, (and school) experiences, Discourse Community training, and understanding of language”. This study reveals that teachers can work more effective with at-risk students using teacher inquiry during “real-time teaching, focusing on sociocultural issues that may cause ambiguity in an academic lesson. These vignettes validate that “students who are not members of the dominant community are often are at risk when the social and cultural fabric of their classroom learning interactions are foreign, uncomfortable, or confusing. As teachers, the study offers a wider perspective for looking at ourselves, our students, and our classrooms to meet students where they are and to examine how “the theoretical and practical elements of this framework apply equally to all learning interactions”.

Redd, T.M. (2001). “How I Got Ovah”: Success Stories of African American Compositions Students, Part II. Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Denver, CO.

This study was conducted to investigate how some African American students were able to greatly improve their use of Edited American English (EAE) during one semester of a composition course. Related research has documented using worksheets and explicit instructions as well as methods used for teaching second-languages to improve the use of EAE by African American students who speak AAVE (African American Vernacular English) (p. 2).

Redd used forty African American freshman composition students who attended Howard University, a predominately African American university. The make-up of students was fourteen males and twenty-six females. The study was conducted from the Fall of 1998 – the Spring of 2000. Redd’s question to her freshman students was for them to explain how they “got ovah” (p. 1). She wanted them to relay to her how they learned the correct use of EAE during their one semester of composition. The research declares along with Redd that AAVE is a “culturally rich and rule-governed dialect, that the lexicon of AAVE has revitalized the vocabulary of mainstream America, and that the rhythm and imagery … can enhance writing, including academic prose” (p. 1). Redd states that EAE is a “prerequisite” (p. 2) for effective communication in the world at large although it is not “linguistically superior to other dialects” (p. 1) therefore her students chose to write in EAE.

The study was conducted using portfolio assessment and discourse-based interviews. Redd assessed the entire portfolio looking for the disappearance of at least one type of error during the course (p. 5). The errors that were tracked were in the first marked drafts. She did not use any drafts that had already been visited by the instructor. Redd used these drafts to determine “successful” versus “struggling” students. The successful students mastered one type of error in the semester whereas the struggling students did not. The scores from attitude scales and computed mean scores were used to further compare the two groups of students. The discourse-based interviews consisted of questions pertaining to strategies used during the semester. These strategies are as follows: Problem Identification, Independent Study, Motivation, and Collaboration.

Results found were that the successful students were more accurate in identifying their spelling and grammatical errors and correcting these errors. Redd also found that the students’ attitude about language played a major role in the improvement of using EAE. She states that the successful students viewed EAE as the “universal” language while the struggling students viewed EAE as “white” (p. 10). The study did reveal that no one strategy used drastically helped the students improve. A study Redd cited suggested that students’ language attitudes play a major role in the target language (p. 10).

Szpara, M.Y., Wylie, E. C. (2002). Writing Differences in Teacher Performance Assessments: Effects of African American Language Use. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

Related research reveals that some features of African American Language (AAL) transfer from speaking to writing. One feature identified by Ball (1998) was the lack of the -s in the third person singular present tense. Another researcher, Smitherman (1992), found “the absence of the “ed” in the past tense verbs; the absence of the “s” in plural nouns, possessive nouns, and third person singular verbs” (p. 6) as well as several other missing features in the writings of African American students. Santos (1998) states that overlooking grammatical and syntactical features not aligned with Edited American English may be difficult for the reader since these features may negatively impact the writing (p. 6).

Szpara and Wylie set out to find the differences in the writing styles of African American and European American National Board candidates. The study utilized the portfolio entry from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Middle Childhood/Generalist certificate. These entries focused on classroom performance as well as relationships outside the classroom – students’ families, professionals, and other colleagues (p. 2). There were thirty-two candidates, eighteen African Americans including two males; fourteen European Americans including one male. The entry Writing: Thinking through the process was selected since a videotape was not required. The researchers did not want the assessors to immediately know the candidates race (p. 3). The method in which the researchers used for determining the presence or absence of AAL was developed by seven linguistic experts, five of the experts were African Americans (p. 9). The AAL category included many features common to the oral language of African Americans like the lack of –ed and –s. “The African American Cultural Indicators (AACI) included features such as use of culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1998), socially-conscious curriculum, and “high-talk” (Smitherman, 1977)” (p. 10).

The study’s qualifying question was is there “systematic evidence of the use of African American Language in a subset of written commentaries written by African American teachers”? (p. 15). The focus was on three areas nouns, verbs and lexical features. The results demonstrated that the expected features of AAL were evident in the written commentaries of the African American candidates (p. 31). The study also revealed that when comparing African American and European American candidates that African Americans had less Speech Code Errors (SCE) than European Americans who used Southern White English (SWE) but more than European Americans who used American English (AE) (p. 31). As a result of this occurrence a new hypothesis was formed - was there more formal writing experiences for those European Americans who did not used SWE (p. 31)? The background data revealed that that was not true; out of the eighteen African American candidates twelve of them held Masters level or higher qualifications while out of the fourteen European Americans seven held Masters level or higher qualifications.

Terry, N. P. (2006). Relations between dialect variation, grammar, and early spelling skills. Reading and Writing 19, 907-931.

Abstract

In 2006 Nicole Terry produced this article to examine the relationship between the African American English (AAE) dialect and the production of Standard American English (SAE) grammar. Terry began her article by very clearly stating that “AAE is not incorrect or bad English; rather, it is a distinct linguistic system that expresses semantic and syntactic information in alternative ways” (Terry, 2006, p. 908). Researchers believe, however, that reading and writing difficulties experienced by speakers of AAE may be related the difference in dialect between AAE and SAE (Baratz & Shuy, 1969; Craig & Washington, 2004; Dillard, 1972; and others). There are various views as to how AAE affects academic ability. Some say the teacher’s attitude sets a lower expectation and correlating instruction for these students, while others say that “linguistic mismatches between AAE and SAE could hamper performances by creating confusion” (Harris et al., 2001; Labov, 1995).

Terry uses her research article to explore four hypothesized goals. First, students using AAE speech patterns were expected to show less ability in spelling and oral production of the patterns. Second, AAE speaking students were expected to easily recognizing the inflections associated with the grammar patterns. Third, as students progressed through school, AAE students would improve in spelling, oral, and written patterns. Lastly, young children’s AAE is somehow related to their language and literacy knowledge.

Terry began the study with 116 average-performing students and narrowed the field to 92 students from varied cultural upbringings. Thirty-one of the students were in 1st grade, 30 in 2nd grade, and 31 in 3rd grade. These students were then classified as AAE speakers or SAE speakers through an oral language sample and a Dialect Density Measure. 45 were classified at AAE, all of whom were African American. The additional 47 students were categorized as SAE speaking students.

The research tested relationships between oral language patterns, spelling and grammatical structures. In order to test spelling, Terry (2006) gave each student a pretest sentence dictation using the four grammatical patterns or inflections (-ed, present tense –s, -ing, and plural –s) each ten times. An example of the sentence type used is: She hopes I am sleeping over (Terry, 2006, Appendix A). Underlined words are the focus inflections.

In order to test productive morphology or the ability to orally produce the focus inflections students were given a 20 item Hauerwas and Walker (2003) task. In this task, students were given a non-word and a context and then asked to produce a form of the non-word to answer a question. For example, “Say samp. _____ The girl likes to samp everyday. Today she samps. What did she do yesterday? Yesterday, the girl _____ (expected answer samped)” (Terry, 2006, Appendix B).

An additional task was administered to students to measure their orthographic recognition, or their ability to choose the correct form of a non-word when used in a sentence. For example, “Gaked. David Gaked his bike. Gaked. Then the child was asked to decide which of the three spellings (gakked, gakt, gaked) best represented the non-word” (Terry, 2006, Appendix C).

Testing was administered at the beginning of the school year during a 2-week time frame. Each task was scored for correctness and additional raters scored 20% of the tasks in each group, to insure reliability.

Results showed that “(a) the ability to spell inflected morphemes correctly is related to their elicited oral production and understand of these standard forms and (b) SAE speakers significantly outperform AAE speakers in both these skills” (Terry, 2006, p. 920). In other words, the hypothesis that AAE speakers would have less spelling and oral speaking ability related to the four chosen grammatical patterns than SAE speakers is correct.

The second hypothesis stating that AAE speakers would not have difficulty recognizing the SAE form of the word in comparison with SAE speakers was shown to be false. Differences in ability to recognize the SAE form of the word were obvious between the dialects. The third hypothesis: about spelling improvement throughout the grade levels was also confirmed. Finally, the fourth exploration also found “a direct association between variation in AAE use and reading performance among African American children in the primary grades” (Terry, 2006, p. 923; Charity et al., 2004; Craig et al., 2004).

Overall, Terry achieved her goals of exploring the relationship between dialect speakers and Standard English spelling and grammar performance. She encourages others to do more extensive research in the linguistic field to gain more definitive results.

Thompson, C. A., Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2004). Variable Production of African American English Across Oracy and Literacy Contexts. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in School. 35, 269-282.

Researchers have found that African American Students typically achieve lower academically when compared to their majority peers (Jencks & Phillips, 1998). Many feel that this delay in development is due to African American students failure to learn Standard American English rules. Craig and Washington (2004) found that “African American students who could dialect shift outperformed non-dialect speakers on standardized reading and vocabulary tests” (p. 270). “The African American child who communicates in SAE, as well as AAE, likely will find him or herself better able to match the language demands of the classroom.” (p 271). It has also been found that discourse context can influence the use of AAE. Craig and Washington (1994, 1998, 2002) has seen children’s use of AAE in spoken discourse during free play and picture description. The children showed “higher levels of dialect and more varied types in the picture description context than during free play” (p. 270). This showed that children’s AAE use during picture description is comparable to AAE use in the classroom.

The authors were looking to compare AAE usage in oracy and literacy contexts for elementary students. They wanted to know if their were significant differences in AAE used during reading and writing. They were looking for the characteristics of AAE during spoken discourse, reading and writing. They also wanted to find out if there were any significant differences in the pattern of usage in each context.

The study looked at 50 typically developing African American third grade students. All students spoke AAE and had no history of being enrolled in special education services. The students were given three randomly ordered tasks. One was picture descriptions, and oral reading assessment and a writing task. These were given individually and were examined by African American and Caucasian examiners trained for the tasks. The tasks were given all at once in a sixty minute period. For the picture description, students were asked to describe three pictures. The Gray Oral Reading Tests was given to students. This timed test measured reading rate, accuracy, comprehension and fluency. This was scored for AAE tokens and types and frequency of those tokens. During the writing task, students were told to write a story on a topic of their choice. Again frequencies of AAE types and tokens were calculated.

The results showed that all students used AAE during the picture description. Most students used AAE during the oral reading and “more than half the students produced at least one dialectal feature within their writing samples” (p. 276). There was only one students who made a complete shift from AAE to SE in the reading and writing contexts. The other students used AAE in reading, writing or both. The results revealed that most third-grade African American students use AAE but in varying amounts during spoken discourse. They also indicate that students use less AAE in the literacy context than the oral.

Results indicate that although African American children have been exposed to SE, they continue to produce AAE when speaking. The authors suggest future research in spelling ability to help understand the African American student’s ability to develop SE spelling patterns. In the writing task, students used significantly less AAE. This could be attributed to the fact that African American students have a model for spoken AAE but not for written AAE. Exposure and practice with written SE shows in their writing. “Writing appeared to support an entry into dialect shifting and the third graders’ emerging bidialectal skill” (p. 280).

Weinstein, Susan, (2006/2007) A love for the thing: The pleasures of rap as a literate practice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50 (4), 270-281).

Abstract

The fundamental framework for this study is provided by scholarship in the field of social literacies (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanic, 2000; deCastell, Luke, & Egan, 1986; Gee, 1996; Knobel, 1999; Street, 1995), whose writers contend that reading, writing, and verbal communications are all deeply contextualized activities that can only be understood by ascertaining the people, places, and powers that surround and inspire them. This field of writing also underscores the multiple nature of literacy (hence the pluralizing of the term), challenging the customary wisdom that is either literate (meaning that one can read and write in the dominant linguistic codes) or not. From 2001 through 2003, Weinstein documented the “out-of-school” (Hull & Schultz, 2002) composing practices of 10 inner-city Chicago youths. All wrote outside of school in ways that “sometimes belied their performance in the classroom” ( p. 270). The “imaginative writings” were in several genres- poetry, song lyrics, and occasionally prose. In this study, Weinstein profiles four young writers and rappers through observation, interviews, and listening to rap music to explore how pleasure in composing, culture, and out-of-school literacy can affect in-school engagement and achievement. Weinstein concludes that “imaginative writing served diverse functions for these youths: a venue for identity construction and experimentation; an outlet for expressing resistance to family, school, community, and societal norms; and a way to vent sexual and emotional frustration, confusion and desire” ( p. 270). Though she examined these functions, she noted that they demonstrated complex understanding of literary features such as figurative language, voice, and rhythm. “For all the writers, though, the one constant was that they derived some kind of pleasure from the writing they did outside of school” ( p. 271). Weinstein states “teenagers from across class and ethnic or racial categories eagerly read and write when they see a purpose to it and when they get something out of it. In this article, Weinstein narrows her study to one specific genre – rap and the four Chicago writers (Crazy, Jig, TeTe, and Mekanismn) who composed in that genre.

First, Weinstein distinguishes hip hop from rap. Hip hop “refers to the overall youth culture movement and rap to its vocal performances

(and their written texts)” ( p. 278). In an essay Mekanismn writes: “Hip hop…brings people together. It’s almost like a blessing from God. I know it is for the street cats because it gives them the extra strength to keep going and make more hip hop music. Black people got to love this something that they made, because what they were subject to and had to go through brought this hip hop, a beautiful movement that everyone could appreciate” (p. 278) Weinstein contends that hip hop as a whole is historically and culturally connected to African American dialect, music, and performance, and because of that it has gotten “negative attention because of its lyrics, its stories of historical sites of struggle for African Americans, use of African American Vernacular English and the highly sexual nature of many popular rap songs-damaging stereotypes of black men and women; and themes of violence and

drugs”(p. 278). For the writers in this article, rap- and the hip hop culture that spawned it- is an absolutely central discourse, sanctioned by their peers and by the artists they admire” ( pp. 273-274).

According to Weinstein, the importance of hip hop as a Discourse (widespread set of practices with established norms, conventions, and standards (Gee, 1996) within which and from which to write became clear to her as she listened to the music and interview each rapper to talk with each about his or her writing. In this study, Weinstein finds that “rap inspires a passion in each of the rappers in this

study” (p. 274). She explains in order to understand why and how so much learning (a site of learning, not only for youths who learn about writing through the genre, but also for researchers and educators who can learn about those youths through rap texts) can occur through this genre, she found that she would foreground the part that pleasure plays in the process.

Weinstein reveals how the young Chicago writers (three siblings) experienced pleasure in writing variously as fun, comfort, and satisfaction, and it is these elements more than anything else that keeps them composing. She exlains “when each rapper talked about his or her writing, a feeling solidarity, of belonging, of identifying oneself as a part of a larger whole came through—termed the pleasure of ‘Discourse membership.’” (p. 275). For example when she interviews Crazy, his enjoyment is putting the concepts in his head into external verbal form “self-expression,” his comments focused on the importance of having a ratified audience- members of a specific Discourse- with whom to share those creations. “This connection is what makes hip hop so powerful for youths: They know and care about it because it’s

theirs” (p. 275). “The connection Mekanismn feels with hip hop generally, and rap specifically, reflects a common emphasis within the Discourse on the conscious awareness of hip hop as a cultural and historical movement”(p. 276).

Weinstein explains, “Crazy’s pleasure is formulated in ‘self-reference, intertextuality’, and attention to the history of the musical genre and to the larger hip hop culture, which is the second pleasure (individualistic pleasure). He incorporates allusions to a number of popular artists in freestyle about his own experience and skills reflect the intensity of his identification with the artists and texts of genre” (p. 276). The way in which he identifies himself as a part of this Discourse demonstrates his pleasure. He speaks of the act of creating, ‘Like a painting, you make something, like an image, and only a certain number of people that see it can understand it’, and according to Weinstein, there is a certain thrill in exclusivity--in being a fan of a little-known band, in being invited to join in a selective club” (p. 276).

Jig enjoys the pleasure of separating himself into two identities in order to have total control over his self-representation and perception by others. Weinstein says, “He wants his audience to perceive him as a writer, and the pleasure that he describes as ‘fun’ in taking on an alternate persona it also, it seems to me, a pleasure in having control over exactly who people think he is as a writer, portraying two personas. (If I’m saying some decent stuff, then that’s me as Jig. But if {other freestylers} just said some crazy stuff that don’t really mean nothing, then its Sick Wicked {responds}”(p. 277).

TeTe wants to make people stop and notice her; to draw attention away from the rest of the group is a powerful pleasure for this little sister.” Weinstein declares, “They use writing to craft an identity that can be communicated with an audience, and when the writers sense that they have done that successfully, they experience a pleasure that then motivates them to continue to compose” (p. 278).

The last sense of pleasure these young rappers express is the sheer fun of the craft. Crazy says, “Oh, it’s fun, it’s almost like you’re a kid all over again, talking about somebody, like you back in elementary school, bringing back the kid inside, it’s just fun…I don’t take it serious( the rap battle). The rap battle is a verbal competition between two rappers who “freestyle or improvise lyrics against each other. Jig and one of his friends battle for six hours and have known each other for years. They have developed their rapping and writing skills together; they both understand that their play battles are just that – play – and that what sound like attacks on the surface in fact represent a ‘deep affinity’”(p. 279). With TeTe her pleasure continues in play with creating a persona of a person opposite of who she really is. She gets a response from her audience that gives her pleasure. “Play provides a site where she can safely transgress the rules of gender and try different ways of ‘doing’ sexuality and aggression in front of an audience that implicitly understands that it is play.” (p.279).

According to Weinstein, there is a “connections between rap’s deeply social quality and groundings in a well established Discourse and the please that its practitioners get from it. Young people connect to their lived experiences and to the cultures of their families and communities, and rap as an activity encapsulates all of these features, and a result, the connections that young people feel to it is particularly strong” (p. 280).

The results of the study points out that they were thrilled with being a member of the hip hop Discourse community, self-expression and self representation, and play (an activity that yields a child-like behavior. They were comfortable, and it was not unfamiliar to them. They had a purpose and audience which fueled the pleasure of writing and composing. They experienced writing grounded in their own culture and it connected them to a Discourse community (hip hop), which according to Weinstein’s interview with Mekanismn “is not a class, is not a race. Hip hop is skill-you “gotta” have skill. You can be a damn duck, you know what I mean?” (p. 272).

Wheeler, R. (2006). What do we do about student grammar--all those missing -ed's and s's? Using comparison and contrast to teach Standard English in dialectally diverse classrooms. . English Teaching: Practice and Critique 5(1), 16-33.

Abstract

This article is packed full of excellent resources for teachers who teach in dialectally diverse classrooms. Starting with an introduction to dialects in general, the author also includes information on public school system reactions, a vignette featuring code-switching in a 3rd grade classroom, and teacher responses to student vernacular. In addition, Rebecca Wheeler (2006) also dedicates a section to teaching the contrastive method for teaching formal and informal language that can be adopted and used in any classroom. There is also a section detailing results found in classrooms which used the contrastive approach to code-switching, and a discussion on approaching public educational policy for support with this method.

The author, Rebecca Wheeler begins her article discussing the research about dialects, centering mainly on the African American English dialect found in many urban schools. Much of the research states that teachers have poor expectations for students who speak dialects other than Standard English, and such poor expectations turn into self-fulfilling prophecies that narrow success potential for these students (Baugh, 2000; Delpit & Dowdy, 2002; Nieto, 2000). In addition to the negative views of students, Wheeler (2006) found that most teachers approached these students with a correctionist approach by marking dialect differences in writing as grammatically incorrect. Research is not favorable towards this approach to teaching Standard English, many found that “correction does not work as a method for teaching the Standard dialect to speakers of a vernacular” (Gilyard, 1991; Piestrup, 1973; Wolfram, Adger & Christian, 1999). Instead, contrastive analysis seems to be the most effective technique for teaching Standard English to students who do not consistently speak the Standard. Contrastive analysis is defined as contrasting “the grammatical structure of one variety with the grammatical structure of another variety (presumable the Standard) in order to add the Standard dialect to the students’ linguistic toolbox” (Fogel & Ehri 2000; Rickford 1999; Taylor, 1991; Rickford, Sweetland, Rickford 2004; Sweetland, ms.; Wheeler & Swords, 2006)

Wheeler (2006) spends the next part of her article discussing the obstacles posed by the public school system. She makes reference to the Oakland, California Ebonics debate of 1996 and the societal figures who spoke out against the affirmation of various vernaculars in school. She describes the fact that Standard grammar seems to be the only grammar acceptable in school systems, and that “anything else is broken, deficient, non-language, and the speakers are deemed broken, deficient, non-starters” (Wheeler, 2006, p. 18)

The author takes these dismal facts and shows how the contrastive analysis approach can be effective in improving the outlook for non-standard dialect speakers in a real-life classroom setting. The vignette shared in this article is taken from the third grade classroom of Rachel Swords in 2002. In the scenario, students in Ms. Swords’ urban, Virginian, class are reading a book in which the characters speak two different dialects. The students use the book to explore patterns of each dialect, and then role play using both formal and informal language for each character. The students transition easily between the informal and formal language, as well as drawing attention to instances when the pattern is broken and needs to be changed.

Two years before this scenario occurred, Wheeler (2006) hypothesized that students were writing following patterns of various dialects rather than those of Standard English, and teachers were marking such patterns as grammatically incorrect. She collected 100 essays from African American, low-income, third-graders to test her hypothesis. Wheeler discovered almost 36 different patterns, and confirmed that teachers were marking these patterns as incorrect English. From this discovery, she began teaching education students (including Rachel Swords) to use the contrastive analysis approach. Swords applied this information in her classroom as a way to better service her African American students who were scoring poorly on state-wide testing.

The method Sword followed is well detailed in Wheeler’s article. The contrastive approach chooses an informal language pattern—missing –s endings—and compares it to the formal language pattern—adding an –s to show plural. Swords created a chart in her classroom to explore the ways each style of language shows plurality, and using this chart, students were able to more successfully write Standard English sentences dealing with plurals.

Wheeler’s (2006) article then indicates instances of success springing from the contrastive analysis approach. In both 2002 and 2004 Rachel Sword’s “black and white students performed equally on statewide, year-end tests of reading” (Wheeler, 2006, p. 24). These results were the same as those found in 1991 when Hanni Taylor used the contrastive approach with African American college students. After one semester, “students taught with traditional methods did not improve” while “the class using contrastive analysis showed remarkable success.” In addition, Fogel and Ehri (2000) used the contrastive analysis approach and found that students “nearly doubled in their ability to produce Standard English forms.” Wheeler (2006) cites two other studies with the same results, all favoring the contrastive analysis approach over the correctionist approach.

The final part of Wheeler’s article gives vital advice to educators interested in adopting this approach in their schools. First, “leave race out of it” (Wheeler, 2006, p.26). Wheeler suggests that the term African American English never be mentioned, to avoid controversy. In addition, “affirm standard dialect mastery as goal” (Wheeler, 2006, p.26). This way, all participants are clear that students will only be using informal language as a means to discover formal language. Also, “let teachers discover respect for the home language themselves” (Wheeler, 2006, p. 27). After detailing what not to say, Wheeler gives ideas about how to approach school staff about teaching the contrastive approach.

Reminding teachers of their need to attend to student grammar is the first way Wheeler (2006) gets teachers on board. She shows them a student essay full of informal grammar and discusses the correctionist approach and its shortcomings. Then she teaches the contrastive approach as a tool that is successful in teaching formal grammar.

In conclusion, Wheeler (2006) encourages teachers to “stop punishing and disdaining students for the grammar of the home, and instead recognize students’ robust linguistic knowledge” (p. 31). The truths in this paper are practical and powerful for any teacher dealing with a dialectally diverse classroom.

Zuidema, Leah A. (2005) Myth education: Rationale and strategies for teaching against linguistic prejudice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(8), 666-675.

Abstract

In this article, Zuidema reveals “one of the few ‘acceptable’ American prejudices. In polite society, we don’t allow jokes that we consider racist or sexist, and we are careful not to disparage a person’s religious belief, but Language is another matter” (p. 666). According to Zuidema, “literacy educators must work to combat prejudice by dispelling linguistic myths” ( p. 667). She outlines Robert Phillipson’s, “idea of ‘practical’ prejudice referred to as linguicism. It is the assembly of ‘ideologies, structures and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) between groups which are defined on the basis of language’ (as cited in Daly, 1005, para. 4)” (p. 667) Further she references, “while most modern linguistics scholars acknowledge the existence of linguicism, their views have little influence on the general public (Smitherman, 2000)” (p. 667). Zuidema concludes, “the burden of preventing linguicism and countering its effects must fall elsewhere”( p. 667). Zuidema further alludes to ( Delpit (1998) who argues, “it is possible and desirable to make the actual study of language diversity a part of the curriculum for all students,(p.19).” (p. 667). Zuidema contends the classroom “is a major player in shaping language attitudes, and the classroom that is particularly crucial for the formation of ideas about language is K-12 level” (Smitherman 2000, p.396), English language arts teachers should create opportunities to shape informed, positive student attitudes about language diversity for all students” (p. 668).

She offers activities that will confront four myths about language. The first myth is English must obey the rules of grammar. Zuidema argues that it depends on the circumstances of different language speakers. She asserts, “if grammar is defined as the organic patterns of a language, or descriptions of these patterns, it is correct to state that English must obey grammatical rules” (p. 668). However, when linguists refer to usage, it is okay to break “socially imposed rules” as long as the message can be understood that a person is communicating. Having an open dialogue in language arts classrooms about language is one suggestion she offers for dispelling this myth. She suggests that the discussion come from the use of an analogy to distinguish between the two definitions of grammar: “A taxi must obey the laws of physics, but it can disobey state laws. How is English like a taxi?”(Lippi-Green 1997) After more questions and dialogue, she give one last follow-up question, “Who decides what is ‘good’ or ‘standard’ English?” to help students to consider the authority and motivations of those who control-or seek to control language use” (p. 669). The key is children learning and understanding early in their education that English must obey some kinds of grammar rules while having the freedom to disregard others in correcting misconceptions about language variation, according to Zuidema.

The second myth is: Some dialects and languages don’t have grammatical rules. She suggests that children discover other language systems for themselves through classroom activities in a language arts class. As an example, she gives Wolfram et al. (1999) development of “Illustrative Exercises of Grammatical Patterning,” to help adolescent learner ascertain the logical, rule-governed nature of such configurations as the a- prefix used in some Southern dialects and the invariant be from Ebonics. Students examine matched sentence pairs and use their intuition to answer questions such as, “does it sound better to say, “a-building is hard work’ or ‘He was a –building a house?” Zuidema points out that “learners are prompted to determine which inherent patterns or rules govern the use of the prefix”. She further contends that the challenge for teachers is to find ways for students to observe or experience the “rich complexities” of dialects and languages that are unfamiliar to them. In additions to these activities, she suggests several documentaries such as The Story of English (Cran, 1997), Story of English (Cran, 2005), and the film American Tongues (Alvarea & Kolker, 1986).

The third myth is: Standard English is better than other varieties. Zuidema argues that language is “subjective social constructions” (p. 671). She refers to (Lippi-Green 1997) conclusively that “standard English is an abstract ideal based not on speech but on the model of written language (p. 671). As an activity to dispel this myth, she suggests that students analyze collected speeches and writing samples to determine which ones are most likely to showcase formal Standard English. With this assignment, students should recognize that the written language follows the rules of Standard English. Then she recommends that they do the same type exercise with their own speaking and writing to see if they can determine the differences. She contends that they will learn to appreciate the differences in written and spoken language, thus understanding that language does not determine the intellectual level of a person.

The fourth myth is: English is not as good as it used to be, and it is getting worse. “ ‘There seems to be a widespread feeling that the English language is a fragile object and is constantly under siege,’ (Wolfram et al. 1999, p.100)” (p. 668). Zuidema says that the article“explains that English is constantly changing just as other languages do”(p.668). Zuidema contends that students need to see those changes themselves. As a class activity, she recommends that they parallel texts in Old English, Middle English, and early and recent Modern English (Wolfram et. al., 1999). As an example, she gives this webpage, georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/pater_noster.html, which is a historical tracing of “The Lord’s Prayer”. She further recommends teaching students about the “history of English including its interaction with French, Latin, Ebonics, Hawaiian Creole English, and Spanish, also helps students to understand how and why the language changes” (p 673).

In this article, Zuidema also makes suggestions for other classroom projects that will help students to identify and critique prejudicial portrayals of language, dialects, speakers, and writers. She explains that students can examine music lyrics, radio broadcasts, television shows, films, entertainment, magazines, novels, Internet sites, and video games to uncover the prejudices of particular segments of the entertainment industry. Further she proposes “examining Disney animated films”(LippiGreen, 1997), and the research of court cases concerning discrimination that stems from “linguistic prejudice”(p. 673). Lastly, she recommends that students investigate efforts to pass laws making English the official language of the Untied States.

In conclusion, Zuidema states her case on strategies for teaching against linguistic prejudice, “(linguicism) a gathering of ideologies, structures and practices systematically designed to create inequality in division of power between groups based on language” (Robert Phillipson, p. 667). She contends the only way to expose and disengage generations to come from participating in language prejudice is through language arts classes K-12. In this article she describes several student-focused activities that teachers can do with their students as ways to understand linguicism. Through research-based information, Zuidema explains the four myths about language that needs to be exposed: “English must obey the rules of grammar; Some dialects and languages don’t have grammatical rules; Standard English is better than other varieties; and English is not as good as it used to be, and it is getting worse”. Then she outlines ways to combat it. With the knowledge from this article, teachers and students are empowered to identify language prejudice, become a resourceful person regarding it, and practice ways to disengage it.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download