I might be at a bit of an advantage, as I've read ahead a little in the class. I read through "The Linguistic Features of the Language of Schooling" and will be using some of that text in my reflection.
The question posed is how do we, as English teachers (or any teachers, for that matter) over come language barriers, such as dialects, in our classroom. Given the controversy over the use of AAVE in Oakland, this is an important conversation to have.
The first thing to consider is that the language used in education is much more lexically dense than the language students use on an every day basis. While this is partly because of the academic content in education, there are gramatical differences. These differences, in some ways, make education less accessible than it could be. A text book might be to hard to read or might be written in a way that does not engage the student. I don't feel that this is a student-specific problem. I think everyone has read a text book or essay and just wanted to get to the end because it was dense. This problem is amplified if the students engage in a dialect such as AAVE. If the language used in academics is already denser than what "standard English" would be, then these texts and lectures could be all the more dis-engaging to students fluent in a dialect of English.
What I thought was very important in the discussion of the Oakland AAVE classes is that teachers that engaged in AAVE and worked with it, as opposed to those who suppressed it, saw reading and writing skills improve. That essay also points to work done in Norway, where regional dialects are used in classrooms, but students are gradually taught a standardized Norwegian.
I think one way to do this in an English classroom is to not instantly say that something is wrong (doing so might make a student shy in the future), but instead use it as a way to show that language is alive and changing. It could make for an interesting side lesson on how AAVE functions grammatically. In addition, if students are able to see how AAVE (or their dialect) functions grammatically, and that there are "rules" to their style of speaking, than they may pick up on the rules of what we consider "standardized English".
I don't feel though that teaching standardized English in this way would necessarily demean other dialects. The essay on AAVE alludes to a "code switching" of sorts, that speakers of AAVE can also speak in standardized English. Students will be expected to communicate in standardized English in certain situations (such as job interviews) and as English teachers we should give them the tools they need to be able to do so. At the same time though, we cannot be insensitive to their culture and demean their language. Instead, we can show how their dialect works, how it compares to the standard, and have discussions on why the dialect is important to the students.
Something that goes right along with what you are saying is a point I believe Lanie raised in class today: we all speak differently everyday with friends, etc. than we do in the classroom, professional world, job interviews, etc. With that in mind, it makes perfect sense (at least to me) to teach and expect a knowledge and grasp of standard English regardless of one's native dialect or accent. Although I am not sure if my friends and I speak a dialect that is officially distinct from standard English, I do know that I don't use the correct grammar, syntax, or even vocabulary as is required by textbooks and most English teachers. And I believe that I am no different than a speaker of AAVE or any other dialect. Therefore, we should all be taught standard English. Standard English should not be held above any other dialect, however; there should be discussions about and tolerance for the many different dialects and languages that will find their way into a classroom. Students should learn exactly what we are learning now but can still be expected to learn a standard.
ReplyDeleteHi Alan,
ReplyDeleteYou made me think about a couple of things I haven't thought of before. You mention at the beginning of your post how dense the language of education can be, and I completely agree. Textbooks can even be dense and boring for those speakers whose everyday vernacular aligns more closely with Standard English than AAVE. To emphasize the ways I'm continually needing to refocus the lens through which I discuss the topics we've tossed around in this class, when we use AAVE so frequently as an example, I still frame the argument within an "Us. vs. Them" context, since I don't speak AAVE. But looking back on my own education, there were certainly times in high school when I read something for class and just slogged by way through to the end - and I loved English class! Academic speak can be tough, and it's important to keep that in mind for all students, regardless of their dialects, I think.
You end your entry with a great point: we should have discussions on why the dialect is important to students. If we're supposed to teach them that one dialect is in no way superior to another, it only makes sense that we should ask them why other dialects matter, what they mean to them as speakers, etc. This would also help foster an open learning environment in which it might be easier to make the argument that while all dialects are equal, Standard English is still the one that you have to know in most professional circles outside of high school. It seems basic enough, but involving students in the conversation makes great sense. Thanks for sharing.