Running head: AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH
AND WRITING INSTRUCTION
Effective Writing Instruction for African American English
Speakers
Crystal Polite Glover
ABSTRACT
Urban students
who speak African American English (AAE) are at an academic disadvantage when
their linguistic abilities are undervalued and underappreciated. When urban
teachers of writing lack knowledge of the oral and written features of AAE,
they are likely to overlook the strong ties that exist between their studentsÕ
home language and cultural identity (Dyson & Smitherman,
2009). Teachers of writing in urban schools must acknowledge studentsÕ home
language and help students make connections between the features of AAE and
Standard American English. Strategies for improving the literacy performance of
AAE speakers include professional development for teachers, contrastive
analysis, flexible communication, and explicit instruction on code switching.
Public
schools across America are failing to meet the literacy needs of students of
color (Geisler, Hessler,
Gardner, & Lovelace, 2009). Since 1971, African American, Latino/Latina,
and Native American students have significantly underperformed Whites on
national achievement tests of reading and writing (National Assessment of
Education Progress, 2009). In 1998, White 8th grade students scored
26 points higher than Black 8th graders on national writing
assessments. The point differential between the national writing scores of
Black and White 8th graders remained unchanged at 26 points in
2011. For 12th grade
students in America, the point differential in writing scores between Whites
and Blacks has increased over time with Whites outscoring Blacks by 21 points
in 1998 and 29 points in 2011. This chasm is widely referred to as the
Black-White achievement gap (Jencks & Phillips, 1998).
Educational
researchers have identified a multitude of factors that hinder the literacy
achievement of students of color and reinforce the Black-White achievement gap. In a study of the relationship between
dialect shifting and reading performance, Craig, Zhang, Hensel,
& Quinn (2009) uncovered two factors that negatively influence the literacy
achievement of students of color: home literacy practices and the nature of
early reading instruction. While
the home literacy practices of White, middle class children are closely aligned
with the academic expectations of early literacy instruction in schools, Black children
are far less likely to own their own books, be read to daily, or have exposure
to a variety of print materials (Craig, Zhang, Hensel,
& Quinn, 2009). These and other factors prevent Black students from
achieving the same levels of academic success as their White, middle class peers.
Another
factor that affects the literacy performance of African American students and inevitably
contributes to the achievement disparity between Blacks and Whites is oral
language. Many African American children adhere to a unique linguistic dialect that
differs from the form of Standard American English (SAE) used in American
schools. Educational scholars who
have studied this dialect refer to it by a variety of interchangeable terms including
Black English, Ebonics, African American English, African American Language,
and African American English (OÕGrady et al., 2005). African American English (AAE)
is a term widely used by scholars in the last two decades to describe the
dialect spoken by some African Americans.
Frequently
spoken in large, urban areas, AAE is a systematic, rule-bound, syntactic speech
system that promotes cultural unity among its speakers (Rickford
& Rickford, 2000).
Speakers of AAE often use this
unique dialect to express their most heartfelt emotions of joy, happiness,
humor, anger, or frustration (Sealey-Ruiz, 2005). Despite
its rich, cultural heritage, AAE is often associated with deficient
or substandard forms of communication (Thompson, 2002). Teachers of AAE speakers often
underestimate the extent of the linguistic abilities their students possess (Wheeler,
2008). These teachers are likely to require African American students to
exclusively use SAE when engaged in
reading, writing, and speaking activities and avert student attempts to speak
or write in their native dialect. This type of instructional practice can send children
the message that their way of speaking is unacceptable and incorrect. According
to Godley et al. (2006), teachersÕ unwillingness to acknowledge alternative
English dialects can lead to lowered teacher expectations as well as lowered
literacy performance for non-standard English speakers. Dundes
& Spence (2007) suggest that the Òdevaluation of a way of speaking is based
on the power structure and not on the inherent value of a dialect [which] reveals
how our social norms unfairly disadvantage an entire segment of the populationÓ
(p. 85). Thus, teachers of AAE
speaking students have the responsibility of helping students succeed in tasks that
require the use of SAE without belittling or devaluing studentsÕ home language.
However, research suggests that very few teachers are prepared to accomplish
this task (Dyson & Smitherman, 2009).
Teacher
preparation and professional development programs do little in preparing
educators to meet the literacy needs of AAE speakers (Wheeler, 2009). Teachers
lack knowledge of the oral and written features of AAE as well as its
historical evolution and significance. Without this knowledge, teachers are
likely to overlook the strong ties between studentsÕ home language and their
cultural identity (Dyson & Smitherman, 2009). The large number of AAE speakers in
AmericaÕs urban schools warrants the need for educational research in this
area. As the White-Black
achievement gap in writing continues to prosper, literacy educators are
obligated to seek avenues for minimizing the blaring differences in the
achievement levels of Blacks and Whites. This paper will address the role of AAE
in the academic performance of Black students. Specifically, it will answer the
following questions:
1.
What does research say about the impact of AAE
on writing development?
2.
How can we prepare urban teachers of writing to
provide culturally relevant literacy instruction for speakers of AAE?
African American English
Historical Background
African
American English is a pidgin-Creole whose origins have been linked to many West
African Languages as well as the early English creoles that evolved in Africa
and the African Diaspora (Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Stockman, 2010; Taylor, 1972). During the
late 19th century, Southern White American slave ownersÕ attempt to
deny slaves the right to oral and written communication resulted in hybrid
versions of speech comprised of Hausa, Mandingo, Vai,
Wolof, and Southern White English (SWE) (Coleman & Daniel, 2000). Fear of
slave solidarity and rebellion eventually provoked the creation of laws making
it illegal to teach slaves to read and write (Coleman & Daniel, 2000).
South Carolina became the first state to pass legislation which prohibited
slaves from learning to read or write in 1740 (South Carolina Slave Code,
article 45).
Whereas,
the having slaves taught to write, or suffering them to be employed in writing,
may be attended with great inconveniences; Be it enacted, that all and every
person and persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach or cause any slave or
slaves to be taught to write, or shall use or employ any slave as a scribe, in
any manner of writing whatsoever, hereafter taught to write, every such person
or persons shall, for every such offense, forfeit the sum of one hundred
pounds, current money.
Furthermore,
slaves were physically separated from other members of society and forbidden to
attend schools. Desperate to form
communal ties with other natives of their continent, African slaves brought to
America adopted clever means of communication that combined both verbal and
nonverbal communicative tools from English and their native languages (Coleman
& Daniel, 2000). Thus, African American English evolved as a culturally
unifying means of communication for Blacks in the United States (Stockman,
2010).
Features
While
African American English has been regarded as illogical and flawed, it is in
fact a sophisticated linguistic system comprised of logical features and rules.
Educational researchers have documented syntactic, phonological, semantic, and stylistic
characteristics of AAE (Baxter & Holland, 2007; Dyson & Smitheran, 2009; Fogel & Ehri, 2010; Thompson, Craig, & Washington, 2004). Space
and time constraints prevent the inclusion of a comprehensive description of
the features of AAE. Thus, this section will include a brief overview of the
key features of AAE in the categories of grammar, pronunciation, verbal
traditions and semantics.
One
prominent grammatical feature of AAE involves the use of the word be before another
verb. For example, in the sentence ÒShe be ridinÕ her
bike to schoolÓ, be is used to
suggest the habitual nature of the girlÕs tendency to ride her bike. In other
words, the speaker is suggesting that the girl always rides her bike to school.
In this case, ÒbeÓ does not refer to the tense of the verb, but rather the frequency
of the action. This grammatical feature is commonly used among AAE speakers (Dyson & Smitherman,
2009; Smitherman,1998). The absence of the verb ÒbeÓ
(in any form), known as Òzero copulaÓ, is used to describe events that
are currently taking place. In the sentence, She ridinÕ
her bike to school, the speaker is indicating that the girl is riding her bike
to school right now. The use of zero copula can be
traced to West African languages such as Twi and
Yoruba in which copulative verbs are rarely, if ever, used (Smitherman,
1998).
AAE
also contains distinctive features in pronunciation. Speakers of AAE use
variations of SAE that characterize their speech and language patterns. One
example of this phenomenon is what linguistics refer
to as post voliac R deletion (Smitherman,
1998). This occurs when speakers of AAE drop or omit the R sound at the end of
words. Therefore, one would say ÒmoÓ or ÒpoÓ rather
than the SAE versions of the words ÒmoreÓ and ÒpoorÓ. Another pronunciation
feature of AAE involves the digraph ÒthÓ. Speakers of
AAE pronounce words ending with th using the sound made by
the letter f. In AAE, mouth is pronounced as mouf, death becomes def. Researchers have linked this nuance
to languages of West Africa that have no sound for the th combination. It is believed that slaves
from West Africa began using the most similar sound in their language to the th
sound in SAE, which resulted in this tendency (Smitherman,
1998).
Verbal
traditions are another common feature of AAE. Speakers of AAE engage in
dramatic dialogues that emphasize the use of entertainment and humor. A
prominent verbal tradition in AAE speaking communities is the verbal game known
as playing the dozens. In this linguistic battle, players create spontaneous
jokes about the physical, mental, economic, etc. status of the opponentÕs
mother. The jokes, usually performed in front of a group of onlookers, are
intended to be harmless. Players attempt to Òone upÓ each other and win the
favor of the crowd. The dozens originated from the selling of slaves in America
(Sealy-Ruiz, 2005). African slaves in good physical shape were sold for the
highest prices, while slaves in poor shape or those with disabilities were
combined into groups of twelve and sold at a discounted rate (Sealy-Ruiz,
2005). These groups became known as ÒDozensÓ and members were subjected to even
more deplorable conditions than slaves who garnered a high sales tag
(Sealy-Ruiz, 2005). The depressing conditions often pushed slaves to their
limits and invoked turmoil among the group. To avoid punishment for physical
attacks against one another, members of the dozens resorted to linguistic
challenges to demonstrate their prowess(Sealy-Ruiz,
2005).
Another similar verbal tradition among AAE
speakers is the use of braggadocio. Smitherman (1998)
defines braggadocio as Òhigh talkÓ. Using this form of self -promotion AAE
speakers tout their beauty, strength, possessions, intelligence, etc. A popular
version of braggadocio can be found in rap music. In the lyrics of rap songs,
rap artists are notorious for citing the superiority of their rhymes in
comparison to other rap artists. They boast of their extravagant wealth,
lifestyle, and material possessions. Braggadacio is
commonly found in AAE speaking communities as men, women, and children interact
in their daily lives.
Semantics
also play a significant role in the oral production of AAE. Historically linked
phrases such as Òforty acres and a muleÓ or Òthe three-fifths ruleÓ have cultural
relevance and importance to AAE speakers. The term Òforty acres and a muleÓ
refers to the United States governmentÕs failure to follow through on its
promise to compensate slaves by providing them with reparations in the form of
forty acres and one mule. When AAE speakers use this term, they are
highlighting the longstanding ill-treatment of Blacks in America. Smitherman (1998) portrays the semantics of AAE as, Òenduring words and phrases, widespread words and phrases
that go across generations, go across classes, that have been around for a long
time and that in fact reflect the reality of the African American experienceÓ
(p. 23).
Another
semantic feature of AAE has its roots in the traditions of many West African
languages. The idea of taking a word or phrase and assigning the opposite
meaning to it is common in West African languages. AAE speakers have adopted
this practice and use it on words such as ÒbadÓ meaning something is really
good and ÒsickÓ referring to something that was performed extremely well.
Interestingly, many of these words have crossed over into the mainstream public
and are used by speakers of SAE. In these cases, the words or phrases become acceptable
and are no longer attributed to AAE but are rendered acceptable by the general
public. Smitherman (1998) describes this concept
using the example of the high five. She suggests that this Americanized
tradition originated from a West African practice which calls for a person that
is in total agreement with something another has said to put his or hand in the
other personÕs hand as an indication that they in fact support the speakerÕs
thoughts.
Communicative
Disconnects Between Teachers and AAE speakers
Speakers
of AAE are mistakenly viewed as cognitively deficient. According to a study
conducted by Bowie & Bond (1994), a majority of elementary school teachers
equate AAE with the use of faulty, illogical grammar, and view AAE speakers as
being Òlazy and sloppyÓ in their speech. This deficient view of AAE and its
speakers is prevalent among a large majority of SAE speakers. TeachersÕ
perceptions of AAE create covert biases in the classroom and negatively influence
the instruction that African American children receive. Many White middle class
teachers view SAE as correct while other English dialects are seen as
subpar. As a result, teachers
engage in a corrective approach with AAE speakers. Many teachers employ
corrective methods when teaching reading and writing to children that speak AAE.
When well-meaning educators correct studentsÕ use of AAE without acknowledging
the documented features of AAE that represent Sociocultural ties to a studentÕs
home, family, and community (Wheeler & Swords, 2006), students receive the
message that their way of speaking is wrong and should be converted to SAE
without regard to the context in which it is used. Furthermore, speakers of AAE
are led to believe that they are the only population that speaks a dialect
which deviates from SAE (Wolfram, 1999). These unharmonious relationships lead
to communicative disconnects between teachers and students.
In
their study of the role of AAE discourse in writing classrooms, Dyson & Smitherman (2009) explore the relationship between an AAE
speaking emergent writer Tionna, and her SAE speaking
classroom teacher. Tionna, an energetic, boisterous 6
year old enjoys writing and talking. Her writing reflects the AAE she uses when
speaking. TionnaÕs teacher, hoping to improve TionnaÕs writing, makes suggestions that disregard TionnaÕs clever use of AAE and transforms TionnaÕs writing from AAE into SAE, citing the AAE version
as wrong and not, Òsounding rightÓ.
At times, Tionna is confused and silent when
asked to correct her writing to make it sound better. The teacher, not recognizing
TionnaÕs use of AAE, simply sees TionnaÕs
writing as an incorrect version of SAE. Like Tionna,
children that speak AAE imitate the voices of the people in their families and
communities. For these children the AAE they speak is a direct reflection of
the language they hear spoken by their parents, grandparents, community members,
friends, preachers, radio hosts, favorite musical artists, and so on. To be
told that the way they speak or write, ÒdoesnÕt sound rightÓ communicates to AAE
speakers that everything they know and understand to be true and acceptable
about the way they speak is wrong.
In
2012, Johnson and VanBrackle studied the responses of
test evaluators to AAE, ESL, and SAE errors on a state mandated writing exam.
Using actual essays from a previous state writing exam, the authors
intentionally inserted errors reflective of AAE, ESL, and SAE into nine writing
samples for raters to evaluate. There were three samples, a low, intermediate,
and high, for each of the linguistic dialects (SAE, AAE, and ESL). Eight errors
were inserted into each of the nine writing samples. Despite, the equal number
of errors present in each sample, the authors found that raters demonstrated a
bias toward errors that were written in AAE. Specifically, the researchers
found that a low essay written in AAE is 4.2 times more likely to receive a
failing score than a low essay written using errors typical of ESL students. In
contrast, a low ESL essay was only 0.3 times more likely to fail than an
intermediate AAE essay. Across the board, AAE writers appeared to be at a
disadvantage when compared to other writers at the same level. Intermediate
essays written in AAE were 7.6 times as likely to fail as intermediate essays
written in SAE. High AAE essays were 9.1 times as likely to fail as a high SAE
essay. The authors concluded that discrimination against the written features,
often considered errors, or AAE could at least in part account for the
discrepancies in the scores of AAE and SAE speakers on standardized tests. Biased views of AAE and speakers of AAE
can place these students at an academic disadvantage.
National attention was given to the growing communicative disconnects between SAE teachers and AAE speaking students in 1979 when seven parents sued the Ann Arbor school district claiming their childrenÕs reading failures were the result of ineffective teaching practices that did not take into account their childrenÕs home language. The parents felt that the school district did not adequately prepare teachers to assist the literacy development of children whose home language differed from SAE. The court required the school district to implement programs that would educate teachers about the features and characteristics of AAE. Seventeen years later, the Ebonics debate was initiated in Oakland when the school district there passed a similar mandate. Despite attempts to legitimize AAE as a systematic linguistic system, most people continued to view AAE as a substandard version of SAE. Even prominent African American leaders such as the reverend Jesse Jackson spoke out against the mandate saying, "I understand the attempt to reach out to these children, but this is an unacceptable surrender, border lining on disgrace" (Lewis, 1996, p. B-9). Jackson later retracted his statement after delving deeper into the mandate by stating, "They're not trying to teach Black English as a standard language. They're looking for tools to teach children standard English so they might be competitiveÓ (Davidson, 1996, p. A-5).
Strategies for Teaching Writing to AAE Speakers: Recommendations for
Teachers
Students that speak AAE perform less well than their SAE speaking counterparts on national assessments of writing. Bidialectal students, or students that are able to code switch from AAE to SAE, outperform their peers that exclusively speak AAE on both reading and writing assessments (Craig & Washington, 2004). Teachers that are uninformed about the features of AAE are unable to determine when errors in studentsÕ writing are related to their dialect. Fogel & Ehri (2010) described the following example of a how a teacherÕs lack of knowledge about AAE may cause him or her to misdiagnose a studentsÕ correct response as wrong:
When teaching various word families such as the fan/ran/man set, AAE Speaking students may offer dialect appropriate instances such as hanÕ (hand) or sanÕ (sand). Teacher rejection and repeated correction of such instances without some acknowledgement of their source are likely to result in studentsÕ feeling linguistically inadequate, insecure, and confused (Baratz, 1969; Delpit, 1998; Smitherman, 2000). (p. 466)
Examples such as the one given above
indicate the need for teachers of AAE speakers to have some knowledge of the
characteristics of AAE. In 1971, Haynes and Taylor found that educational
programs on dialects were necessary for teachers and other school personnel involved
in the literacy instruction provided to AAE speakers. Still K-12 schools
continue to offer little if any professional development for teachers related
to the type of instruction required for AAE speakers. Educational researchers
have recommended the inclusion of culturally relevant teaching practices in
teacher preparation programs for preservice teachers (Delpit, 1998; Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Gay,
2002). Likewise, researchers support the education of teachers through
linguistic and cultural awareness programs (Wolfram, 2000). As teachers gain
knowledge of teaching strategies and practices that support the writing
development of AAE speakers, AAE speaking students are likely to see gains in
their performance on standardized tests of writing.
Contrastive Analysis
A
well-documented strategy for assisting AAE speakers with their writing is
called contrastive analysis (Fogel & Ehri, 2006). In this instructional approach, the
grammatical features of one dialect are highlighted and compared to the
features of another dialect. Using the contrastive analysis approach, students
are able to gain specific knowledge about their own language system and compare
those features with SAE (Fogel & Ehri, 2006). There are many advantages to using the
contrastive analysis approach. First, the approach supports the acquisition of
SAE without belittling the studentsÕ use of AAE. Second, the contrastive
analysis approach is derived from the teaching-English-as-a-second-language (TESL ). It has been successfully used to provide SAE
instruction to foreign students attempting to learn SAE.
In
their 2006 study on language and culture in the classroom, Wheeler and Swords cite the
benefits of using a contrastive analysis approach to teaching literacy to AAE
speakers. While demonstrating concepts regarding the variety in
languages and the ways in which people vary their speech depending on the
situation, Wheeler taught her third grade students to compare various features
of their home language to aspects of SAE. After studying the way some authors
use varied language in childrenÕs books, students used a contrastive
approach to produce their own pieces of writing. One student in the class wrote
a book which featured a main character who used non
standard versions of English. The student included an authorÕs note which let
readers know that his use of varied language with the main character was done
intentionally and that he was aware of the more widely-accepted standard
version of speech.
Communicative
Flexibility
Dyson
and Smitherman (2009) support the use of a strategy
they call flexible communication to assist young AAE speakers with writing.
Communicative flexibility draws on studentÕs home language and the talk they
use during dramatic play. As part of this strategy, children are exposed to diverse
literature; instructed on language through dramatic play; and taught to stay
attuned to the diverse voices in their homes, schools, and communities (Dyson
& Smitherman, 2009). Children focus less on
Òsounding rightÓ, and learn to recognize and appreciate when certain forms of
English are most appropriate.
Dyson
(2004) suggests that having students ÒdivideÓ their speech into categories of
home and school language is an
unrealistic task given the complex
nature of childrenÕs lives. The author insists that childrenÕs ability to use
language flexibly is disregarded when they are asked to simply make a choice
between the way they speak at home and school. Children need guidance and
flexibility in the varied ways that language can be used, adapted, and modified
in their writing.
Code
Switching
Another
strategy that has proven useful in improving the writing of AAE speaking
students is code-switching. Code-switching pedagogies encourage the use of
studentsÕ home language to situate and dissect relevant contexts for the use of
SAE (Bakhtin, 1986; Delpit & Dowdy, 2002, Wheeler
& Swords, 2006). ÒRather than regard [AAE] features as incorrect,
code-switching pedagogies require that teachers make a
transition from the paradigm of correction to helping students use language
patterns for appropriate settings. Ò (Hill, 2009, p. 12).
By allowing students to choose the most appropriate language for a given
situation or purpose, teachers demonstrate respect for diversity and an
appreciation for linguistic and cultural differences (Wheeler& Swords,
2006). Thus, teachers must be
versed in the comparative characteristics of both SAE and AAE in order to
assist learners in making connections between the two.
Hill
(2009) cited an example of an effective use of code-switching as instructional
tool as outlined by Wheeler and Swords (2006). It refers to the feature of AAE
in which an owner + the object owned= possession:
The [AAE]
feature friend houseÉcorresponds with
the [SAE] feature friendÕs house.
Rather than assume that students do not understand possession, teachers must
juxtapose grammatical differences side by side and help students determine the
appropriate context for use (Wheeler & Swords, 2006) When writing a non
standard narrative, for example, friend
house would be appropriate. FriendÕs
house would be appropriate for a formal essay or standardized test. (Hill, 2009, p.12).
Creating
Curricular Bookends
Dyson
(2004) highlights the importance of beginning and ending writing endeavors with
a public forum in which students give and receive feedback; report on the status of their
work; and share their final publications with a group of their peers. The
author points to the success of Rita, a classroom teacher in her yearlong
ethnographic study of first grade students, in using a bookend approach to
support and develop her studentsÕ writing in the classroom. The students in
RitaÕs classroom Òhad decisions to make about what and with whom to write; they
had to consider varied strategies for participating in writing events, be those
strategies about encoding words or collaborating with othersÓ (Dyson, 2004,p.
188).
Dyson
insists that a bookend approach to writing with AAE writers helps teachers
Òaccess childrenÕs sociocultural resourcesÓ (2004, p.188). Having open-ended
periods of writing allowed both Rita and her students to communicate,
collaborate, and learn from one another. The type of instructional learning
that takes place during a bookend approach offers opportunities that are not
readily available in more traditional approach to writing instruction. Using a
bookend approach provides opportunities for AAE speakers to converse in
their native dialect as they use feedback from peers to produce writing that
most clearly expresses their intended meaning.
Conclusion
Despite
abundant educational research citing AAE as a rich linguistic system, children
that speak AAE are at a disadvantage in AmericaÕs public schools (Baratz, 1969; Delpit, 1998; Rickford
& Rickford, 2000; Smitherman,
2000; Wheeler & Swords, 2006). Teachers lack the knowledge of nonstandard
dialects that children from diverse backgrounds bring to the classroom. By
engaging in strategies such as contrastive analysis, flexible communication,
and code switching, classroom teachers can help speakers of AAE become more
proficient writers. The strategies cited in this article will help teachers
recognize and appreciate the cultural richness that is present in the
linguistic features of AAE. Likewise, the use of such strategies will help
teachers acknowledge the strengths that speakers of AAE bring to the classroom.
The
false assumption that these students are unintelligent and lack sophisticated
use of language serves to further marginalize them and stunt their
opportunities for academic achievement. Teachers of AAE speaking students
require professional development in the areas of nonstandard English dialect
speaking students if we are to improve literacy instruction and achievement of
African American students in urban schools and take steps towards bridging the
linguistic divide between SAE speaking Whites and AAE speaking Blacks in
America.
References
Bakhtin, M.
(1986). Speech genres
and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Baxter, M. & Holland, R.
(2007). Addressing the needs of students who speak a nonstandard
English
dialect. Adult Basic Educational and
Literacy Journal,1(3),
145-153.
Bowie, R. & Bond, C.
(1994). Influencing teacher attitudes toward Black English: Are we
making a
difference? Journal of Teacher Education,
45, 112-118.
Coleman,
R., & Daniel, J. L. (2000). Mediating ebonics. Journal
of Black Studies, 31(1), 74-95
Craig,
H. K. & Washington, J. A. (2004). Oral language expectations for
African American
preschoolers and
kindergarteners. American Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research , 47,
450-463.
Davidson,
R. (1996, December 31). Jackson supports Oakland
Ebonics; In reverse, he says school
board action was
misunderstood. Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette. Reuters News Service, p. A-5
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2OQxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mW8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6455,8926
Retrieved October 19 2010.
Delpit,
L. (1998). What should teachers do? Ebonics and culturally
responsive instruction. In T.
Perry
& L. Delpit (Eds.), The
real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the education of African American
children (pp. 17- 28) Boston: Beacon.
Delpit,
L. D. & Dowdy, J. K. (2002). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on
language and culture
in the classroom.
New York: The New Press.
Dundes, L.
& Spence, B. (2007). If ida
known: The Speaker versus the speech in judging black
dialect. Teaching Sociology. 35(1), 85-93.
Dyson, A. & Smitherman, G. (2009). The Right (write) start: African
American Language and
the
discourse of sounding right. Teachers College Record. 111 (4), 973-998.
Gay, G. (2002). Culturally
responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse
students:
Setting the stage. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15,
613-629.
Geisler,
J. Hessler,
T. Gardner, R. & Lovelace, T. (2009). Differentiated writing interventions
for
high-achieving African American elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics. 20
(2), 214-247.
Godley,
A., Sweetland, J., Wheeler, S. Minnici,
A. & Carpenter, B. (2006). Preparing teachers
for
dialectally diverse classrooms.
Educational Researcher, 35 (8), 30-37.
Hill, K. D. (2009).
Code-Switching pedagogies and African American student voices:
Acceptance
and resistance. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literature. 53 (2),
120-131.
Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (Eds). (1998). The
Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC:
Brookings
Institution Press.
Johnson, D., & VanBrackle, L. (2012). Linguistic discrimination in writing assessment: How
Raters react to African American "errors," ESL errors, and standard English errors on a
state-mandated writing exam. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 35-54.
Lewis,
Neil A. (1996, December 26). Black English is not a second language Jackson
says. The
New York Times:
B-9 http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/23/us/black-english-is-not-a-second-language-jackson
says.html
Retrieved October19 2010.
National
Assessment of Educational Progress.( 2009). The nation's report card: Trends in
academic progress in reading and
mathematics 2008. Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009479.
OÕGrady, W. Archibald, J. Aronoff, M. and Rees-Miller, J. (2005). Contemporary Linguistics.
New
York: Bedford/St. MartinÕs.
Rickford, J.R.
& Rickford, R.J. (2000). Spoken Soul: The story of black English.
New York:
Wiley.
Smitherman, G.
(1998). ÒDat teacher be hollinÕ
at us: What is ebonics?Ó TESOL Quarterly. 32
(1),
139-143.
South
Carolina Slave Code. (1740). Article 45
Stockman,
I. (2010). A Review of developmental and applied language research
on African
American children: From
a deficit to a difference perspective on dialect differences.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41, 23-38.
Taylor,
O. (1972). An introduction to the historical development of Black English: Some
implications for American
education. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools. 3(4),
5-15.
Thompson,
C., Craig, H., & Washington, J. (2004). Variable production of African
American
English
across oracy and literacy contexts. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools. 35,
269-282.
Thompson, R. (2002). African
American English and dialect awareness in English
departments. (Research
Report No. ED 475742)
Wheeler, R. (2008). Becoming
adept at code-switching. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 54-58
Wheeler,
R. S. & Swords, R. (2006).
Code-switching: Teaching standard English in urban
classrooms.
Urbana, Il: National council of Teachers of English.
Wolfram,
W. (1999). Repercussions from the Oakland Ebonics
controversy- The critical role of
dialect
awareness programs. In C.T. Adger, D. Christian,
& O. Taylor (Eds.), Making the
connection: Language and academic achievement among
African American students
(pp.
61-80). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.