Accommodating linguistic prejudice? Examining English teachers’ language ideologies

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to support the integration of scientifically grounded linguistic knowledge into language teaching in English Language Arts (ELA) classrooms through building an understanding of what teachers currently know and believe about language. Design/methodology/approach In total, 310 high school English teachers in the USA responded to a survey about their language beliefs. Statistical analysis of responses identified four distinct constructs within their belief systems. Sub-scales were created for each construct, and hierarchical regressions helped identify key characteristics that predicted beliefs along a continuum from traditional/hegemonic to linguistically informed/counter-hegemonic. Findings Key findings include the identification of four belief constructs: beliefs about how language reveals speaker characteristics, beliefs about how society perceives language use, beliefs about how language should be treated in schools and beliefs about the English teacher’s role in addressing language use. In general, teachers expressed counter-hegemonic beliefs for their own role and their view of speaker characteristics. They expressed hegemonic beliefs for societal perceptions and the dominant school language narrative. Taking a linguistics class was associated with counter-hegemonic beliefs, and teaching longer was associated with more hegemonic beliefs. Practical implications The findings of this study suggest that the longer teachers teach within a system that promotes hegemonic language practices, the more they will align their own beliefs with those practices, despite having learned linguistic facts that contradict pervasive societal beliefs about language. The Dominant School Language Narrative currently accommodates, rather that disrupting, linguistic prejudice. Originality/value A current understanding of teachers’ language ideologies is a key step in designing teacher professional development to help align teaching practices with established linguistic knowledge and to break down a socially constructed linguistic hierarchy based on subjective, and frequently prejudicial, beliefs.

African American Vernacular English in K–12 Education in Texas: An Interview Study of Education Professionals

“…For example, Razfar, Rumenapp, and Torres (2020) conducted focus groups with 15 administrators at majority-Black schools and found that, while many believed AAVE could be used as an educational resource for connecting with Black students, they also tended to believe AAVE "was a lesser variety of English and had no currency in mainstream U.S. society" (p. 16). Administrator beliefs about linguistic diversity are significant because research suggests they influence teachers' own beliefs and classroom practices (Blake & Cutler, 2003), and the longer a teacher works within a school culture that marginalizes AAVE, the more strongly that teacher will internalize a negative view of AAVE (Metz, 2019). Indeed, two massive surveys of teachers in Ohio (Diehm & Hendricks, 2021) and Missouri (Metz, 2019) found that even though most teachers reject the assumption that AAVE is inherently inferior to other varieties of English, they do not think it appropriate for classroom instruction.…”

“…Administrator beliefs about linguistic diversity are significant because research suggests they influence teachers' own beliefs and classroom practices (Blake & Cutler, 2003), and the longer a teacher works within a school culture that marginalizes AAVE, the more strongly that teacher will internalize a negative view of AAVE (Metz, 2019). Indeed, two massive surveys of teachers in Ohio (Diehm & Hendricks, 2021) and Missouri (Metz, 2019) found that even though most teachers reject the assumption that AAVE is inherently inferior to other varieties of English, they do not think it appropriate for classroom instruction. The tension between teachers' beliefs in the legitimacy of AAVE and their failure to honor it in their teaching has been explored in several case studies (Godley, Carpenter, & Werner, 2007;Metz, 2018;Orzulak, 2015;Wheeler, 2010;Woodard & Rao, 2020).…”

Unsettling language ideologies: Examples from writing teacher education in New Zealand and the United States

“…This ideology is prevalent across the broader American society (e.g., Arredondo, 2012;Baldwin, 1979;Greco, 2021;Martin et al, 2010;Sanchez, 1998) as well as in schools. In his survey of over 300 teachers in Missouri, for example, Metz (2019) found teachers held critical views of language; in other words, they "disagree with statements that associate language use with particular levels of intelligence, kindness or morality" (p. 25). At the same time, they see the larger US society as being suffused with linguistic prejudice, and thus, they "tend to support the idea that [standardised English] is correct, and that students should use [standardised English] rather than other dialects of English" (Metz, 2019, p. 25).…”

“…Martinez, 2017;R. Martínez, 2010;Metz, 2018Metz, , 2019. Educators, and many others across society, maintain beliefs about SL even without being able to specifically define the contours of that language (Flores & Rosa, 2015;Lippi-Green, 2012;Smakman, 2012).…”

Representation, Resistance, and Recovery: Cultural Trauma in Young Adult Literature

“…Given the increased attention to racial justice more broadly and antiracist education specifically, ELA teacher educators must be aware of the status and treatment of AAVE in K-12 institutions and perhaps reconsider the advice we give preservice and in-service teachers about how best to capitalize on AAVE proficiency. In this study, we contribute to recent research (Diehm & Hendricks, 2021;Metz, 2018Metz, , 2019Razfar, Rumenapp, & Torres, 2020;Wheeler, 2016;Woodard & Rao, 2020) that documents how AAVE is perceived and treated in classroom settings. We extend this work by drawing on a new data source: interviews with experienced Black educators who are themselves fluent in AAVE, have capitalized on this fluency in instructional settings, and who have seen up close how perceptions of AAVE among students, teachers, administrators, and community members affect literacy education for students whose primary dialect is AAVE.…”