“I'll speak in proper slang”: Language ideologies in a daily editing activity

Abstract

S The purpose of this study was to examine the language ideologies—the assumptions about the nature of language, language variation, and language learning—reflected in a widespread daily editing activity often known as Daily Oral Language or Daily Language Practice. Through a yearlong ethnographic study of grammar instruction in three urban, predominantly African American 10th‐grade English classes, two university researchers and the classroom teacher collaboratively analyzed the language ideologies reflected through the teacher's implementation of Daily Language Practice. Using methods of the ethnography of communication and classroom discourse analysis, they coded for the content and sources of recurring language ideologies and their links to state standards and assessments. Findings show that Daily Language Practice represented the English language as monolithic, language form as disconnected from meaning, and written Standard English as the only correct dialect of English. However, some students in the study concurrently expressed alternate language ideologies through their participation in Daily Language Practice, ideologies that forefronted language variation and its dependence on context and audience. Findings suggest that daily editing activities provide limited opportunities for students to learn about language in ways that build off their existing linguistic resources and that could enhance their literacy learning. El propósito de este estudio fue examinar las ideologías lingüísticas, es decir los supuestos sobre la naturaleza del lenguaje, la variación lingüí;stica y el aprendizaje del lenguaje, tal como se reflejan en una actividad de edición muy difundida conocida como Lenguaje Oral Cotidiano o Práctica Cotidiana del Lenguaje. En un estudio etnográfico de un año centrado en la enseñanza de la gramática en tres clases de inglés de 10° grado con una población urbana mayoritariamente afroamericana, dos docentes universitarios y el docente del aula analizaron las ideologías lingüísticas reflejadas a partir de la implementación de la Práctica Cotidiana del Lenguaje. Usando los métodos de la etnografía de la comunicación y el análisis del discurso en el aula, se codificó el contenido y las fuentes de las ideologías lingüísticas recurrentes y sus vínculos con estándares y evaluaciones. Los resultados muestran que la Práctica Cotidiana del Lenguaje representa la lengua inglesa como monolítica, la forma lingüística desconectada del significado y el inglés escrito estándar como elúnico dialecto correcto del inglés. Sin embargo, algunos estudiantes expresaron ideologías lingüísticas alternativas a través de su participación en la Práctica Cotidiana del Lenguaje, ideologías que reconocían la variación lingüística y su dependencia del contexto y la audiencia. Los hallazgos sugieren que las actividades cotidianas de edición proporcionan oportunidades limitadas a los estudiantes para aprender acerca del lenguaje de maneras que apuntalen sus propios recursos lingüísticos y que mejoren su aprendizaje de la le...

Developing disciplinary literacy in a multilingual history classroom

“…Godley, Carpenter, & Werner, 2007;Lee, 1995;Moje, 2007) on disciplinary literacy highlights the importance of knowing and valuing students' everyday literacy practices, to bridge common sense knowledge and uncommon sense knowledge. This is a very important issue that needs to be considered in functional approaches to disciplinary literacy in light of the results presented here.…”

Pre-service English Language Arts teachers’ development of Critical Language Awareness for teaching

“…Both classroom-based studies (Dyson & Smitherman, 2009;Godley, Carpenter, & Werner, 2007) and surveys of teachers (Blake & Cutler, 2003;Cross, DeVaney, & Jones, 2001) have demonstrated that many teachers erroneously believe that Standardized English is more grammatical than vernacular dialects and form negative opinions of students, particularly minority students, when they use vernacular dialects in school. Research also suggests that many teachers, including ELA teachers, lack basic sociolinguistic content knowledge (Smitherman & Villanueva, 2000).…”

“…Research also suggests that many teachers, including ELA teachers, lack basic sociolinguistic content knowledge (Smitherman & Villanueva, 2000). Especially in the content area of ELA, where language is the foundation of all the reading and writing skills taught, this lack of content knowledge often leads to harmful instructional practices and deficit views of students' literacy learning potential (Dyson & Smitherman, 2009;Fairbanks, 1998;Godley et al, 2007).…”

“…However, when issues of language are concerned, deficit arguments about poor and non-white students often reappear (see Hart & Risley, 1995 for an example). Widespread assumptions about the nature of language, or language ideologies, perpetuate the myth that Standardized English is better and more grammatical than the language varieties spoken by many black and Latino students (Godley et al, 2007) and thus perpetuate a deficit view of many students. To overcome this deficit thinking and develop anti-racist Critical Language Awareness for teaching, teachers must understand and acknowledge whiteness and Standardized English as non-neutral and to teach that ideologies surrounding Standardized English -historically the dialect spoken by affluent white people -work to reinforce existing structures of power that privilege middle and upper-class whites (Feagin, 2013;Leonardo & Grubb, 2013).…”

"Y'all and all these assessments is a little bit too much" : the effects of high-stakes testing on critical literacy pedagogy.

“…Most literature on implementing culturally relevant and critical literacy pedagogies presents both benefits and drawbacks to these practices, but some lack substantial discussion of the evident obstacle of high-stakes testing for teachers implementing critical literacy pedagogy and socially just education in an age of accountability (Borsheim-Black, 2015;Delpit, 1986;Godley, et al, 2007;Godley and Loretto, 2013;LadsonBillings, 1995;Rouland, et al, 2014;Young, 2010). Although research within critical literacy pedagogy mention high-stakes testing as a potential difficulty, there is little discussion of how teachers balance this pedagogy with the demands of testing.…”