University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perceptions about and strategies for African American speakers of Ebonics

(USC Thesis Other)

Perceptions about and strategies for African American speakers of Ebonics

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
1

PERCEPTIONS ABOUT AND STRATEGIES FOR
AFRICAN AMERICAN SPEAKERS OF EBONICS

by

April Lazette Parker

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2015

Copyright 2015 April Lazette Parker

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
2

Dedication

This body of work is dedicated to all the unsung heroes who make children believe they
can live a life of purpose and substance, and to all the first generation college students who have,
and will, step out on sheer faith and dare to believe in the impossible. Finally, to my only
begotten, Jordan Thomas Parker, who has the shameless audacity to believe he can in a system
that tells him he cannot. “Keep pressing toward the mark!”

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
3

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the support of my family and friends, without whom this
work would not have been possible. First and foremost, I thank God for giving me the passion
and desire to run with patience the race that is before me. I thank my church family for giving me
wings to fly. For over 30 years, you’ve been my rock and you taught me to lean wholly on God.
My mentor, Dr. Margaret P. Douroux, has been a guide and living example of how to persevere
through life’s challenges. To my family, by blood and by water, whose strength I draw on daily;
we are a strong bunch with abounding love. I continue to learn unconditional love because of
you, especially my parents: my late mother, Lois Brown, and my late father, Herman Brown and
Gwen, my other mother. To the “village,” your love and support means so much, and it is
impossible to describe what your friendship has meant. To my cousin, David Moses, who is the
most unreligious spiritual guide I could have ever taken on this journey with me. You are my
maya, my james, my ossie and ruby. To my one and only son, Jordan, may you always seek to
serve Him in whatever you do, because therein you will find peace.
Finally, I must acknowledge the guidance of my instructors at USC, my dissertation
committee, Dr. Alan Green, Dr. Sharroky Hollie, and my chair Dr. Sylvia Rousseau. Dr.
Rousseau, the world may never know the impact you have made in the field of education, but we
know. Your students, and the institutions you have served know; more importantly, God knows.
To my USC classmates, I know I could have finished by myself, but I would not have had the
same rich experience. This endeavor has been transformational, and I’m glad to have been
surrounded by a group of intellectuals with kindred passion for education and young people.
Thank you to Taniko Woods, my USCEDDBFF. From the first class to the last, we made it
through long nights and unrelenting workloads. We supported and inspired each other to keep
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
4

going with just the perfect dose of performance orientation. To my dissertation group and study
partners, Rita Suh, Clarece Weinraub, Yulonn Harris, Topekia Jones, Marianne Geronimo, Dan
Osterman, and Deborah Albin. Iron sharpens iron, I believe we were sharpening tools for each
other and provided the necessary support to accomplish a task as tedious as this one.
Thank you to all of those who traveled on this life-changing journey with me.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
5

Table of Contents

List of Tables 8

Abstract 9

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 11

Background of the Problem 12

Statement of the Problem 15

Purpose of the Study 17

Research Questions 18

Theoretical Framework 18

Importance of the Study 19

Limitations and Delimitations 19

Definition of Terms 20

Organization of the Study 23

Chapter Two: Literature Review 24

The Origins of African American Language 24

Pidgin/Creole Theory 26
African Retention Theory 28
Features of Ebonics 29
The Habitual be 30
The Stressed been 30
Multiple Negations 30
Why the Distinction Matters 31
The Role Perceptions Play in Achieving SE Proficiency 32

Perceptions about African Americans 32
Perceptions about Ebonics Outside the Education Field 33
Perceptions about Ebonics Within the Educational Field 35
The Additive Features of Ebonics 37
Instructional Strategies that Promote Proficiency 40

Researched-Based Approaches and Strategies 40
Making Cultural Connections 42
Contrastive Analysis 42
Cooperative and Communal Learning Environments 42
Instructional Conversations 42
Academic Language Development 43
Advanced Graphic Organizers and Use of Visual Elements 43
Attempts to Correct and Erase 43
Code-Switching 44
Inequitable Policy Toward Language Minorities 45
Conclusion 45

Chapter Three: Methodology 48

Purpose of the Study 48

Research Questions 49

Conceptual Framework 49

Delimitations and Limitations 51

Qualitative Approach 51

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
6

Participant Selection 52

Participating Schools 53

Participating Classrooms 55

Teacher Participants 56

Data Collection 57

Collecting Observation Data 59

The Teacher Interview Data Collection 59

Focus Group Data Collection 61

Validity and Reliability 62

Human Subjects 62

Summary 63

Chapter Four: Findings 64

Data Analysis 65

Findings from the LDP School 66

Background of the Teacher in the LDP School 67

Strategies on an LDP School 68

Making Cultural Connections 69

Contrastive Analysis 70

Full-Inclusion Language Use 74

Cooperative and Communal Learning 77

Instructional Conversations 78

Academic Language Development 80

Advanced Graphic Organizers 81

Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching 81

Disengaged Learners 85

Knowledge and Perceptions of Ebonics: Teacher of the LDP School 85

Findings from the Non-LDP School 89

Background of the Teacher of the Non-LDP School 89
Strategies in a Non-LDP School 90
Silent Reading 91
Classroom Discourse 91
Correcting-Contrastive Analysis Challenges 92
Performance Incentives 95
Knowledge and Perceptions of Ebonics: Teacher of the 96
Non-LDP School
Summary 99
Summary of Findings in Relation to Research Questions 105
Research Question 1 105
Research Question 2 105
Research Question 3 106
LDP School 106
Non-LDP School 107
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 110
Summary of Overall Key Findings 110
Research Question 1 110
Research Question 2 111
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
7

Research Question 3 112
Recommendations 112
Implications for Practice 113
Future Research 115
Conclusion 116
Limitations 117
References 118
Appendix A: Teacher Interview Comparison Chart 127
Appendix B: Matrix of Findings 137
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Instrument 140
Appendix D: Classroom Observation Instrument 149
Appendix E: Student Focus Group Instrument 153

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
8

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1: Ethnic demographics by school 2013-14 54

Table 2: Criteria for school selection 54

Table 3: Teacher profile 57

Table 4: Criteria for teacher selection 57

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
9

Abstract

This qualitative study explored how perceptions of African American language, referred to in
this study as Ebonics, impacted achievement for African American students who speak various
forms of Ebonics. Ebonics is a language variety spoken in some form in some aspects by 90% of
African Americans (Smitherman, 1999/2001), yet few schools acknowledge its role in African
Americans’ access to opportunities to learn. Among schools that do acknowledge this group of
students, the term Standard English learner (SEL) is most commonly applied. This study looked
at strategies two teachers used, one in a secondary school with a researched-based language
development program (LDP) and one in a secondary school without a formal language
development program. The researcher explored teachers’ perceptions of African American
students and Ebonics (Hollie, 2001, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007), and
examined the role that teachers’ knowledge about Ebonics plays in the teachers’ instructional
strategies intended to facilitate proficiency in Standardized English (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
The researcher observed classroom instruction during an 11th-grade AP language class and a
12th-grade remedial English class, and conducted teacher interviews and student focus groups.
There was confusion around Ebonics and slang among teachers and students, even when teachers
showed great degrees of knowledge about Ebonics. Students in schools structured around the
principles of research-based LDPs, where teachers saw students’ home language as an asset,
were more apt to engage in higher order and critical thinking academic discourse when they had
the option to use their home language and SE. Instruction in contrastive analysis provided
students opportunities to make conscious and informed selections about when to use the most
appropriate language, but could have been more explicit. Both teachers needed to strengthen
their pedagogy to increase participation, and both teachers demonstrated care and concern, even
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
10

though research has indicated that LDP strategies are more effective means of demonstrating
care and concern.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
11

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
More than ever, teachers are being challenged with the growing demand to meet a variety
of language needs in order to educate students adequately. In the 2010–2011 school year, 49.5
million students were enrolled in United States public schools, and enrollment is projected to set
new records every year until 2021–2022, when it will reach 53.7 million (National Center for
Educational Statistics [NCES], 2012). Of the 49.5 million currently enrolled, 9.1% is learning
English as a second language and is referred to as English Learners (ELs); another group of
language minorities more difficult to identify are Standard English learners. Standard English
learners (SELs) include African Americans, American Indians, Mexican Americans, and
Hawaiian Americans, for whom Standardized English (SE) is not native (LeMoine, 2003).
According to Hudley and Mallinson (2010), students who enter school speaking SE will
encounter texts, media, testing materials, and other forms of print in a familiar language.
Standardized English–speaking students are likely to have teachers who speak in a language
pattern and register already familiar to them; these students—and their language—are valued.
Additionally, their vocal patterns, syntax, intonation, and pronunciation will be understood.
Students who speak a Nonstandardized form of English will have a different reception.
Speakers of Nonstandardized English often face a grim experience. Students who speak a
Nonstandardized form of English begin school already at a disadvantage and enter a system that,
in many cases, is not prepared to meet their literacy needs (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). They
will encounter teachers, learning environments, and textbooks in SE—a language different from
what they speak in their home environments. As a group, Nonstandardized English speakers are
perhaps the most overlooked, underserved, miseducated, and discriminated against language
minority population in the history of American Education (Hollie, 2012; LeMoine, 2003). Many
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
12

researchers have explained that Nonstandardized English speakers are likely to be taught by
teachers who perceive their language and culture as odd and not valuable (Hudley& Mallinson,
2010; Davila, 2012; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hollie, 2010; Okoye-Johnson, 2011).
The views teachers express or demonstrate toward speakers of Nonstandardized English,
and the instructional strategies teachers use, may cause students to become discouraged about
school. If teachers are conveying to students—directly or indirectly—that their language is
improper, their culture is not valued, and behaviors are pathological, students may dismiss the
importance of education altogether (Hollie, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2009). Teaching strategies
have a strong influence on English proficiency; therefore, teachers need to adopt specific
approaches to meet the language needs of Nonstandardized English speakers in order to help
them achieve English proficiency. The aim of the study was to explore how teachers’ perception
of Ebonics impacted achievement for African American students who spoke a form of Ebonics,
and secondly to look at strategies teachers used to develop English proficiency in these students.
Background of the Problem
The achievement gap in English language arts and other content subjects between African
American students and their Caucasian English Only peers has been persistent. African
American students are classified as English Only, yet according to the NCES (2012) their
performance on standardized tests is closer to EL students than to their Caucasian English Only
peers. This parallel performance with EL students is of special interest because African
Americans are classified as English Only in the test reporting system set up by the U.S.
Department of Education, whereas EL students are acquiring English as a second language.
Despite their classification, SEL students’ home language is not SE, yet they are expected to be
successful in acquiring SE without targeted instruction. By contrast, ELs receive targeted
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
13

instruction to acquire English (Fisher & Lapp, 2013). The classification of English Only for
students who speak a variation of the standardized form of English overlooks the complexity of
language variations. Overlooking the language needs of African American students who are
SELs is consistent with the negative perceptions of and responses to African American students
and their language (Green, 2001; Rickford & Rickford, 2002; Smitherman, 2007).
The history of African American language use in the United States is significant because
African Americans are considered native English speakers, yet they do not speak SE; they have
an English vocabulary, but their grammatical and syntactical structures differ from SE.
SELs currently experience the most educational difficulty in American schools. Their
difficulties are linked to the historical context of SELs’ introduction to America. African
Americans, American Indians, Mexican Americans, and Hawaiian Americans were enslaved,
conquered, or colonized by the US, and, according to Ogbu (1998), these groups have a narrative
that differs markedly from that of groups that voluntarily immigrated to the United States. Ogbu
(1998) has posited that, descendants of enslaved, conquered, and colonized peoples considered to
be involuntary immigrants have perceptions of American society and American education that
have been shaped by their oppressive experiences in America. The experiences of involuntary
immigrants also influence teachers’ perceptions of the value of students belonging to this
population and the language they speak (Freire, 1970; Ogbu, 1998). Other scholars believe that
teacher perceptions about language variations spoken by involuntary immigrants play a
significant role in the achievement gap and inequities in education (Hudley& Mallinson, 2011;
Darling-Hammond, 2007, 1999; Davila, 2012; Flores, 2007; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hollie,
2001; Ladson-Billings, 2006; LeMoine, 2001; Okoye-Johnson, 2011; Pearson, Conner &
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
14

Jackson, 2012;). Tracking achievement gaps is one way the inequities in education can be
analyzed to understand factors that could be contributing to the disparities.
The manner in which achievement gaps are reported, however, complicates tracking
performance related specifically to language variations of African American students.
Achievement gap reports identify disparities in language arts between races; specifically, African
Americans and Hispanics, both of whom are frequently compared to Caucasians. Other
achievement gap reports identify disparities in language arts proficiency between ELs and
Caucasian English Only students. However, there are no reports that identify, track, and monitor
the performance of SELs compared to Caucasian English Only students because that category is
not officially recognized on a federal or state level; therefore, the data are not disaggregated
according to the category of SEL. Some Mexican Americans, African Americans, American
Indians, and Hawaiian Americans are considered English Only, but large numbers of students in
these groups belong to the SELs group—and are not officially recognized as a distinctly different
language category. Their performance is not monitored or evaluated for contributing factors
related to language. Instead, they are reported by racial subgroups, a practice that could cause
factors related to language to be overlooked. Even though SELs and ELs struggle to attain
English proficiency, only ELs' achievements are examined on a national level to monitor their
progress toward becoming English proficient (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002; Okoye-
Johnson, 2011).
Addressing the specific language needs of all students struggling to gain access to the
curriculum requires understanding language variations. Part of the national goal to assist ELs in
becoming proficient includes appropriate evidenced-based instruction to achieve language
proficiency (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Preservice education for teachers includes
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
15

specific instruction in teaching ELs. In-service education can help teachers learn strategies for
teaching ELs. When teachers receive specific instruction for ELs, students are able to implement
instruction that enables EL students to be reclassified, demonstrating that appropriate research-
and evidenced-based instruction is beneficial in achieving mainstream literacy (NCES, 2002).
When provided targeted instruction similar to what is provided for second language acquisition,
SELs can achieve literacy and proficiency in SE (Hollie, 2001).
Proficiency in SE is the path to literacy, and literacy is critical to accessing education,
basic civil rights, and social mobility. The academic achievement of African American SELs is
significant to this research, as African American students’ academic performance more closely
resembles that of English Learners than that of Caucasian middle class students who are also
classified as English Only (NCES, 2002). Equity in monitoring African American SELs’
progress does not exist, nor is there equity in helping teachers understand and prepare for
teaching African American SELs. Do you have a citation for this specific point? Furthermore,
scholars have argued that the educational system that African American SELs enter is not
accepting of language differences, and, as a result, these students meet with unwelcoming or
even hostile receptions to their culture, their language variation and their language development
needs (Hudley & Mallinson, 2010; Davila, 2012; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hollie, 2010;
Okoye-Johnson, 2011; Perry & Delpit, 1998).
Statement of the Problem
When research refers to the academic achievement gap, it is typically referring to the low
academic performance of African American and Latino students as compared to their Caucasian
and Asian American peers. Omission of an important factor in African American students’
academic performance is the language variation spoken to some degree by 97% of African
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
16

Americans in the US (Smitherman, 1977). In most data, with rare exceptions, African Americans
are reported as English Only; on the other hand, the data make distinctions between Latinos in
general and Latinos who are ELs. Incorporating the language factor in assessments of African
Americans may be key to understanding their education experiences and low academic
performance. It is not clear why English Only African American students’ achievement in ELA
parallels that of ELs instead of that of their English Only Caucasian peers.
Teachers would benefit from being educated on language variations in general, and
African American language variations specifically. Because of the historical treatment of African
Americans in the US—including discrimination, oppression, segregation, and stereotyping—that
these factors could have an impact on perceptions of African Americans and perceptions of the
language they speak is understandable (Green, 2002; Rickford & Rickford, 2002). Perry (1998)
has stated that Black language is the last uncontested arena of Black shame; indeed, Baugh
(2001) has noted the historical practice of categorizing Ebonics as subordinate—even
pathological—whereby many speakers of Ebonics have been erroneously assigned to remedial
classes because of their speech patterns, when in actuality they were using different but not
deviant English language variations.
Language is recognized as a significant factor in academic performance, and it is
generally understood that targeted ELA instruction for the language needs of language minorities
is beneficial in attaining English proficiency and subsequent literacy in the curriculum.
Evidence-based instruction is provided for ELs; however, instruction is not afforded African
American SELs. African Americans who are SELs and therefore are expected to acquire
proficiency in SE do not receive broad support for evidenced-based instruction to attain English
proficiency. In many instances, ELs and SELs attend school together, and the EL group will
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
17

receive attention for their language needs, whereas the African American SELs will not, because
the African American student is categorized as English Only. To be clear, the designation of SEL
is recognized by some school districts, but EL is recognized nationally (Okoye-Johnson, 2011).
Further, financial support and systems for SELs are only a faction of the support for ELs
(Okoye-Johnson, 2011). Educational policy and legislation do not support SELs, even though
both groups perform parallel in English. Some scholars have argued that the disparity in
treatment is an extension of the broader treatment of African Americans in America.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to explore how the perception of Ebonics impacted
achievement for African American students who speak a form of Ebonics, and secondly to look
at strategies teachers use to develop SE proficiency for SELs. This purpose was rooted in an
interest in understanding the relationship between language and English language arts
proficiency, including literacy that could be intensifying achievement gaps between African
American students and their Caucasian peers, who like African Americans, are classified as
English Only
Drawing upon parallel from the literature, the expectation is that African Americans’
performance in English would resemble their English Only peers instead of ELs who are
acquiring a second language. Scholars such as Smith and Crozier (1998) have rejected this
practice of assuming African Americans are English Only; they explained that the grammatical
structures of Black languages of the African diaspora are far more different from the Germanic
language upon which English is based; consequently, the language African Americans speak
cannot be a dialect of English. They have argued that EL classification should be permitted for
African American students who meet the appropriate criteria. Data from the Department of
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
18

Education (NCES, 2002) have shown a significant number of ELs who received targeted
instruction successfully achieve English proficiency; still, many African American students have
been denied the opportunity to receive targeted instruction for their language needs because of
their English Only designation.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are as follows:
1. What strategies are teachers in urban secondary classrooms using to assist African
American students in acquiring SE in a school that has implemented a program that
includes professional development and teacher support for a targeted program that
incorporates researched-based, culturally relevant teaching?
2. What strategies are teachers in urban secondary classrooms using to assist African
American students in acquiring SE in a school that has not implemented a program
that includes professional development and teacher support for a targeted program
that incorporates researched-based, culturally relevant teaching?
3. How do teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of Ebonics influence the teaching and
learning relationship between teachers and African American students whose first
language is a form of Ebonics?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study comes from the culturally relevant teaching
theories and practices posited by scholars and practitioners Gay, Ladson-Billings, LeMoine, and
Hollie. Culturally relevant teaching practices build on the home languages of the students, and go
beyond language to include the strengths of students’ cultures. The aim of culturally relevant
teaching is to enhance students’ academic achievement in a way that affirms and validates their
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
19

history, family, and culture while deflecting the negative effects compelled by the dominant
culture (Ladson-Billings, 2009). As LeMoine and Hollie (2007) have stated, negative attitudes
about students’ language and culture lead to dramatically reduced expectations and low
outcomes in student achievement. The study will examine the role of language in the classroom
and the strategies the teachers employed to facilitate African American students’ acquisition of
SE.
Importance of the Study
This study is designed to provide insights for K–12 educators to understand why African
American students’ academic performance parallels that of ELs more than that of their
Caucasian peers who are also classified as English Only, and to recommend programmatic
changes to ameliorate the problem. The relationship between language and literacy is critical; in
many cases, a student’s language will determine his or her school experience and the outcome of
his or her future. Scholars are concerned about how pedagogy and curriculum continue to punish
students by not providing them adequate preparation to meet academic demands. Okoye-Johnson
(2011) argued that it is unreasonable for educational leaders to hold students to increased rigor in
testing and graduation requirements without providing equitable preparation. The futures of these
students are at risk because language proficiency and literacy are linked to graduation rates,
education attainment, and disparities in wages (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Ladson-Billings,
2009).
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study were that participants came from one school district in Los
Angeles. However it is significant that the school district in this study is one of the largest in the
US. Another limitation is related to participant selection; there were established criteria for
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
20

participant selection that were challenging to keep and changes had to be made in order to get
enough African American students in one class. Another limitation was the self-reporting aspect
of the instruments. A final limitation is concerned with the study design’s limited generalizability
because it is similar to a case study. At the same time it offers the strength afforded by a
vicarious experience ordinarily not accessible and the experience is told through the lens of the
researcher (Merriam, 2009).
Definition of Terms
African Americans. United States slave descendants of West and Niger-Congo African
origin (Smith & Crozier, 1998).
African American Language. Systematic, rule-governed communication system used by
at least 80% of African Americans (Dillard, 1972). It is one form of Ebonics, which is also found
throughout the African diaspora in places like Caribbean, parts of Latin and South America, and
United States (Williams, 1975).
Bidialectalism. The practice whereby students retain their home or community dialect while
learning and using the Standard English dialect of both the school and larger society. The format
for this instruction is based upon foreign language–teaching pedagogy and incorporates
contrastive analysis (Perez, 2000).
Code-switching. The ability to intentionally choose the appropriate language, dialect, or
style of the same language depending on the needs (time, place, audience, communicative
purpose) of the setting (Wheeler, 2008).
Colorblindness. The belief that one’s color and ethnicity do not matter. This belief is an
attempt to neutralize the cultural differences between minorities and mainstream society,
promoting denial of racial differences by emphasizing sameness. Color- blindness is a sign of
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
21

being fair-minded and is a strategy designed to manage diversity by reducing racial prejudice
(Knowles, Lowery, Hogan, & Chow, 2009).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Educational standards adopted by some states
across the nation that describe what K–12 students should know and be able to do in each subject
in each grade to succeed in entry-level careers, college courses, and workforce programs
(California Department of Education, 2014).
Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching (CLR). Pedagogy that validates and
affirms the home (indigenous) culture and home language for the purposes of building and
bridging the student to success in the culture of academia and mainstream society (Hollie, 2012).
Culturally responsive teaching. A pedagogy that empowers students intellectually,
socially, emotionally, and politically by using cultural and historical referents to convey
knowledge, to impart skills, and to change attitudes (Ladson-Billings, 2009).
Dialect. Variations of language marked by certain ways of pronouncing words,
vocabulary choices, and variations of syntax (Dillard, 1972).
Discourse with a capital “D.” A community of practice that involves language and is
composed of ways of speaking/listening and often writing/reading that is combined with ways of
acting, thinking, believing, dressing, feeling, etc. (Gee, 2008).
Discourse with a little “d.” Language in use in an informal or colloquial context, such as
conversations, stories, arguments, etc. (Gee, 2008).
Ebonics. Language derived from West and Niger-Congo Africa and used primarily by
slave descendants in the Caribbean and various places within the United States (Smith, 1998).
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
22

English Learner (EL). Students (Formerly Known as Limited-English-Proficient or LEP)
English learner students are students for whom there is a report of a primary language other than
English on the state-approved Home Language Survey and who, on the basis of the state-
approved oral language (grades kindergarten through grade 12) assessment procedures and
literacy (grades three through 12 only), have been determined to lack the clearly defined English
language skills of listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing necessary to succeed
in the school's regular instructional programs (R30-LC) (LAUSD, 2014).
Literacy. Relationship between spoken and written language, conventions of print,
fluency, knowledge of letters, sounds, words, and comprehension (Brock, Boyd, & Moore, 2003;
Heath, 1984).
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). A nationally representative
assessment of academic performance of American students in the areas of mathematics, reading,
science, writing, the arts, civics, economics, geography, and U.S. history (NCES, 2014).
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Primary federal entity for collecting
and analyzing data related to education (NCES, 2014).
Pedagogy. A concept that draws attention to the processes through which knowledge is
produced (Ladson-Billings, 2009).
Second Language Acquisition. Process of acquiring a second language subconsciously by
exposure to models and practice within social groups, without formal teaching (Cummins, 1991).
It requires meaningful interaction in the target language in which the learner is focused on
meaning rather than form (Krashen, 2003).
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
23

Standardized/Academic English. The academic language that has been socially
constructed, imposed, and determined to be more prestigious and socially acceptable (Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011; McWhorter, 1998).

Standard English Learners (SELs). Students whose first language differs from
Standardized English. These students are generally classified as English Only because their
home language incorporates English vocabulary but also integrates phonology, grammar, and
sentence structure rules transitioned from indigenous languages other than English, including
African, Native American languages, Hawaiian, and Latin American Spanish languages
(LAUSD, 2014; LeMoine, 2003)

Third Space. Place where points of tension and conflict in various learning activities can
lead to a transformation in the activity and the participation and discourse practices therein.
These transformations can lead to productive literacy learning (Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez,
Tejeda, 1999).
Organization of the Study
This study researched schools that fit the criteria of an urban high school with a
significant number of African American students who are also speakers of Ebonics. Once
schools were selected, principals were contacted to seek out potential teacher participants who fit
the criteria. Once two teachers from two different schools were selected, they were observed and
interviewed. Students from the participating teachers’ classrooms were interviewed to triangulate
findings from the observations and interviews exploring knowledge about language variations
and teaching strategies. In addition, student feedback was gathered to gain insight into their
experiences in class.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
24

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
A rich body of literature exists about the role of language in relation to African American
student achievement. This study was built upon that literature and sought to focus on three areas:
the origins of the language large numbers of African Americans speak; the dynamics that occur
in the classroom experience of African American students, particularly those who are speakers of
African American English; and strategies that enable these students to acquire SE necessary for
proficiency in SE, a category established under No Child Left Behind to assess students’
academic progress.
The Origins of African American Language
The intent for this section is to present two theories of the origins of African American
languages, referred to in this study as Ebonics. Understanding the origins of Ebonics may
facilitate an appreciation for the complexity surrounding it, particularly among educators.
Language plays an important role in students’ learning and ongoing cognitive development; a
child becomes familiar with—and ultimately masters—his or her environment with the tool of
speech (Lantoff & Appel, 1994;Vygotsky, 1978).
The literature related to Ebonics was, and still is, controversial because of its linguistic
history and the relationship of language use and race relations in the US (Labov, 2010; Ogbu
1999; Rickford, 1998, 2010). Questions related to the language African Americans speak today
are answered within a larger discussion of African Americans’ entrance into this country, marked
by enslavement, discrimination, oppression, and forced integration into the dominant culture
(Freire, 1970; Ogbu, 1998; Rickford, 1998, 2003). Historical references to slavery and the
subsequent treatment of African Americans is a difficult legacy to acknowledge; such
discussions can make educators uncomfortable about addressing how history has influenced
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
25

societal views—and more specifically, for this study, teacher perceptions of African American
students in the classroom (Rickford, 2000).
Although the discussion may be painful, clarification of the language African Americans
speak is important to the classification of African American students’ language variety. Based on
educational institutions’ practice of classifying African American students as English Only, one
can assume that these institutions consider African Americans native English speakers, not
learners of SE as their second language. This perception is congruent with the thinking of many
well-respected scholars who would agree that African Americans speak a dialect of English, not
a distinct language (Dillard, 1972; Rickford, 1998, 2003; Smitherman, 1977). Another group of
highly regarded scholars disagree with that conclusion; they would argue that the language most
African Americans speak is not a dialect of English, but rather a language based on the
grammatical structure of Niger-Congo languages combined with vocabulary from English.
Accepting the latter of these two theories could classify African Americans as second language
learners, making a case for African Americans to qualify for benefits afforded to other English
Language Learner (EL) populations.
Sociopolitical, ideological, and pragmatic beliefs determine how to characterize what
large numbers of African Americans speak. The interplay of these factors helps determine
whether to consider the language African Americans speak a second language separate from
English (Ebonics) (Smith 1998; Smith & Crozier, 1998; Williams, 1997) or a dialect of English
(Black English) (Dillard, 1972; Smitherman, 1977). It is important to note that both theories
conclude that the language African Americans speak is a different—but not a deficit—form of
SE. This shared view has major implications for educational policies and school practices that
often adopt a deficit view of the language many African American students speak.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
26

Pidgin/Creole Theory
The first theory about the origins of African American language presented in this
literature review is the Pidgin/Creole Theory, which attributes numerous appellations to the
language African Americans speak, including Ebonics, Black English, African American
Vernacular English, African American English, and Spoken Soul. According to the
Pidgin/Creole theory posited by Dillard (1972, 2008), Rickford (1998, 2003), and others
(Mallinson & Wolfram, 2002; McWhorter, 1998; Smith, 1998; Smitherman, 1977; Craig &
Washington, 2002), Black English is a Pidgin English spoken by the masses of slaves during the
slave era and now spoken in the continental United States. Once subsequent generations of those
slaves used Pidgin English as their language of choice for daily routines and activities, it became
a Creole language (Dillard, 1972, 2008). Dillard (2008) has made the case that at the time of
African Americans’ arrival in America; this dialect closely resembled the English spoken by
European Americans. He pointed to the surviving texts of slave speech to corroborate his claim.
Moreover, Dillard (1972) substantiated his claim that Black English is a dialect of English by
basing his findings on the reconstruction of primary sources from that time period; such primary
resources have indicated that Pidgin English developed in a manner that paralleled the growth of
a French dialect in places like New Orleans, where French was the language slaves encountered
upon arrival there from Africa. He used this Pidgin French example to corroborate and
substantiate his findings, explaining how the extensive language mixing during the Colonial
period formed the ideal conditions for Pidgin English, which was used as a lingua franca to
facilitate trade and commerce. Lingua franca is a contact vernacular or a language of trade
(Morgan, 2002; Smith, 1998). Dillard (1972) has explained how Black people in Louisiana spoke
Pidgin French to fulfill a similar function of trade language during maritime expansion. He
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
27

further traced how the expansion of Pidgin English and Pidgin French evolved from a lingua
franca into Creole.
Following the logic of Dillard (1972, 2008), one could agree with the Pidgin/Creole
theory in asserting that African Americans speak a form of English, unaccepted in mainstream
America, or a dialect of English that has evolved into a dialect or vernacular of English. Some
pioneering researchers of African American languages have disagreed with the decision to call
the language African Americans speak Black English because, according to them, such findings
draw upon faulty definitions and are not supported by empirical evidence (Smith, 1998;
Williams, 1997). Linguists define language based on the phonetic, phonological, morphological,
syntactical, and semantic systems of a language—not its vocabulary (Baugh, 2001; Labov, 2010;
Rickford, 1999; Smith, 1998; Williams, 1997). For example, if English were classified according
to vocabulary, it would be a Romance language because the majority of its vocabulary is taken
from Latin and French words; but, on the contrary, English is classified as a West Germanic
language because its structure is based on the structure of the West Germanic languages (Smith,
1998). Williams (1997) and many other scholars (Green, 2002; Labov, 2010; LeMoine, 2001;
Perry & Delpit, 1998; Smith, 1998; Williams, 1997) have explained that African Americans
speak a language that was formed as a result of borrowing words from the English vocabulary
and graphing them onto the grammatical structure of West African and Niger-Congo languages
during the slave trade and early American history. Because languages are defined by their
grammatical structure and not vocabulary, these scholars have concluded that what African
Americans speak is not derivative of English and have created the term Ebonics to honor that
belief (Smith, 1998; Williams, 1997).
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
28

African Retention Theory
Led by Smith (1998) and Williams (1997), this second school of thought is primarily
known as the African retention theory, which asserts that the origins of African American
language are strongly rooted in Africa and are not a dialect of English. According to the
pioneering work of Williams (1997) and Smith (1998), the African retention theory posits
Ebonics as the African American’s linguistic memory and retention of Africa applied to English
words (Smith, 1998). Smith and Crozier (1998) have stated that, whereas some African
Americans may speak a standardized form of English, the language a large percentage of African
Americans speak—often called Black English—is not derivative of English at all; on the
contrary, they concluded that this language is actually Ebonics, a term coined by Williams.
Smith (1998) has explained how Ebonics describes an African Language system—the linguistic
continuation of Africa in Black America. Further, Smith (1998) has asserted that Ebonics
originates in Congolese and West African languages and does not conform to the grammatical
structures of the West Germanic language from which English derives its structure. Therefore,
what African Americans speak is not a derivative or dialect of English. Some examples of
African retentions are the absence of double consonants, absence of possessive and pluralization
markers, and multiple negatives (Williams, 1997)—to be highlighted later in this chapter.
For the aforementioned scholars, the word Ebonics demonstrates pride in the origin of the
language that African Americans speak and has distinctive features and differences from
European American English. When a linguistic analysis of the grammatical structures of “Black
English” is compared to the language Europeans and European Americans speak, empirical
evidence bears out distinct differences (Jahn, 1961; Smith, 1998; Williams 1997). The alignment
with the West African and Niger-Congo linguistic structure and thought process indicates the
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
29

survival of African culture in America and makes up the substance and unique characteristics of
Ebonics (Smith & Crozier, 1998). These schools of thought are two of the more prominent
theories on the origins of African American language; in either case, the argument underscores
that the language African Americans speak is a rule-governed language that differs from SE.
Features of Ebonics
Many features of Ebonics are distinct from SE in terms of the variation in tense,
consonant cluster use, intonation, voice, multiple negation, and various paralinguistic features.
This review will limit the discussion to verbal markers (be and been), and syntactic and
morphosyntactic differences in the syntax (negation) (Hudley& Mallinson, 2011; Green, 2002).
Ebonics has features that distinguish it as a language and make it different from English. It is
well documented in scholarly research by linguists, social scientists, and educators that Ebonics
is rule governed, has a distinguishable lexicon and syntactic structure, includes unique
paralinguistic features, and has been sustained for generations despite commingling with other
cultures and languages over time (Dillard, 1972; Green, 2002; Labov, 2010; Rickford, 1998,
2010; Rickford & Rickford, 2002; Smith, 1998; Smitherman, 1977; Williams, 1997). Ebonics is
not to be confused with slang. Slang is vocabulary and does not have grammar of its own nor a
syntactical structure; it is dependent on a host language; and, it is trendy (Dillard, 1977; Rickford
& Rickford, 2002). Slang is created as a substitute for standard terms for added raciness, humor,
irreverence, or other effect. The features that set Ebonics apart from slang are beyond the
particular vocabulary variety; Ebonics is more notably distinguished by the rules that govern
how words are formed, used, and modified to make meaningful expression and to form complex
syntax (Green, 2002; Rickford, 1999; Rickford & Rickford 2002; Smith, 1998; Smitherman,

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
30

1977; Williams, 1997). These distinctions underscore the assertions of Smith and Williams that
Ebonics is a rule-governed, systematic language identifiably different from SE.
The habitual be. A well-established syntactic feature of Ebonics is the habitual be,
which is used to indicate habitual occurrences (Hudley& Mallinson 2011; Green, 2002). To
indicate someone is a chronically sick person and always in the hospital, an Ebonics speaker
would say “My brother be sick” instead of “My brother is always sick.” This wording does not
indicate a present tense scenario in which the brother missed school today because he had a cold.
Green (2002) has elaborated on this feature, which is to be distinguished from the
auxiliary/copula be because of its properties indicating habitual meaning, position in the sentence
structure, and interpretation.
The stressed been. Another distinguishable characteristic of Ebonics is the stressed been.
According to Hudley and Mallinson (2011), this particular marker is unique to African American
varieties of English. The use of the stressed been has a strong pronunciation and is paired with a
past tense verb to indicate that an event happened a long time prior to the present time. A speaker
of Ebonics might say, “I been having a ‘A’,” to indicate she or he has had an ‘A’ in the class for
a long time. It could also imply that the listening friend should already know her friend has an A
in the class (Green, 2002).
Multiple negations. Negation is a distinguishing syntactical feature of Ebonics language,
whereby the word order in a sentence may be the same as SE, but in Ebonics varying
combinations of no, don’t, and nothing are allowed to express negative constructs (Green, 2002).
For example, “I ain’t gon’ never do nothing for you no more” would express with intensity and
emphasis that the speaker is not going to do anything for the person ever again. In SE, only a
single negative is permissible in a single sentence (Green, 2002; Hudley& Mallinson, 2011).
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
31

Why the Distinction Matters
Despite the numerous appellations, extensive debate, and exhaustive study of the
language African Americans speak, African American literacy in SE remains low, as indicated
by achievement scores in ELA (Godley & Escher, 2012; Rickford & Rickford, 2000).
Educational institutions in the United States such as the National Center for Educational
Statistics (NCES) and the Department of Education (DOE) track and publish achievement
statistics of African American students and have acknowledged the persistence of low data of
African American students. The distinction between the two schools of thought—African
Retention and Pidgin English/Creole English—is significant because of the policy that
determines language classification for African Americans. Africans Americans are classified as
English Only; yet do not perform comparably to other English Only students on standardized
tests in English language arts (ELA). Instead, African Americans perform similarly to ELs on
most ELA standardized tests (NCES, 2002). An examination of this practice might be useful as
part of the effort to impact achievement.
In spite of disagreement on what to call the language most African Americans speak—
and whether it is of Pidgin/Creole origin or African Retention—all the scholars referenced in the
literature have maintained that African Americans speak a language that is different, yet not a
deficient variation of SE. They have all promoted the importance of understanding the language
variation in order to provide the learning experiences African American students need to achieve
literacy (Dillard, 1977; Rickford, 2003; Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Smith 1998; Smith &
Crozier, 1998; Smitherman, 1977; Williams, 1997).
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
32

The Role Perceptions Play in Achieving SE Proficiency
The intent of this section is to illuminate the issues surrounding teachers’ perceptions of
African Americans first, and then examine teachers’ perceptions of Ebonics. It is necessary to
analyze teachers’ perceptions that are influencing African American students’ development of
proficiency in SE. The teacher-student relationship is critical to the learning experience in order
to promote proficiency in SE (Hollie 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2009; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007);
hence, examining how teachers view their students and what they expect of their students in the
learning process is critical to this study. A review of the literature examines perceptions that start
outside the classroom to frame the discussion about how those views influence classroom
dynamics between teachers and students.
Perceptions about African Americans
Perceptions held by those in the education field about African American students
possibly stem from public perceptions of African Americans in general. In his work on
stereotype threat, Steele and Aronson’s work (1995) explained how broad dissemination of
negative stereotypes about groups could impact learning. The relevance of the stereotype threat
theory for this section is the well-documented fact that stereotypes exist, and teachers and
students are aware of these beliefs (Rickford, 2003; Wolfram, 2001). Not everyone fosters
negative stereotypes about African Americans; some believe that one’s color and ethnicity do not
matter. This belief is called color blindness and it is an attempt to neutralize the cultural
differences between minorities and mainstream society (Knowles, Lowery, Hogan, & Chow,
2009). Those who promote color blindness may be attempting to neutralize the impact of racism,
but Ladson-Billings (2009) explained how color blindness is actually harmful because it does not
recognize African American students’ strengths and value. Likewise, Ladson-Billings (2009)
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
33

asserted that mainstream society’s “invalidation of African American culture” (p. 24) is the
reason some teachers have low expectations and negative perceptions of African American
students. LeMoine (2007) agreed that teachers’ failure to acknowledge and value African
American students’ language as legitimate is, in part, the reason for low expectations and
negative student outcomes. Because many teachers may be uncomfortable acknowledging racism
and racial differences, Ladson-Billings (2009) has suggested that they may not even be aware of
the deprivation culture they foster in their classrooms. Because teachers have low expectations
and negative perceptions, they fail to develop challenging learning environments or question the
status quo. Additionally, many of these pedagogical patterns express an implicit desire for
African Americans students to be more like mainstream culture. This disposition is an
assimilationist approach that overlooks differences between the dominant culture and those who
are marginalized, and explains why some educators might find it challenging to teach African
American students. Johnson (2001) described the invisibility felt by some minorities when those
in power positions simply ignore them. The invisibility creates an out-group situated outside of
receiving rewards, outside of receiving encouragement, and outside of imagining opportunities
for success (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Johnson, 2001).
Perceptions about Ebonics Outside the Education Field
The relationship between perceptions about African Americans in general and
perceptions about the language African Americans speak is cyclical, whereby one seems to
reinforce the other in the minds of beholders. Morgan (2002), and Ronkin and Karn (1999) have
explained how many people outside of the African American community—and some from
within—do not view Ebonics as anything except an illegitimate form of English; and, therefore
conclude, by implication, that those who speak Ebonics must be inferior and ignorant.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
34

Smitherman (2000) has maintained that the historic racism in the US is the reason for negative
perceptions toward African Americans and Ebonics.
A discussion about public perceptions of Ebonics must acknowledge the contentious
debate during the 1997 Oakland Unified School District’s (OUSD) adoption of a resolution to
recognize Ebonics as the primary language of African American school children. The
significance of this resolution was to make a policy decision enabling the school district to
provide teachers with an understanding of Ebonics to instruct African American students in SE.
Using the students’ home language, Ebonics, to achieve literacy honors the students and
transitions them to SE (Baugh, 2001; Cummins, 1991; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Labov, 2001;
Meier, 2008; Morgan, 2002). This strategy was not new and had been proven successful in other
countries going as far back as the 1950s (Taylor, 1975), yet politicians, educators, and figures in
the media took this moment to characterize this strategy as absurd (Jackson, 1997; Rickford,
1999; Rickford & Rickford, 2002). Some of the staunchest opposition came from prominent
figures within the African American community, namely, Jesse Jackson, Bill Cosby, and Maya
Angelou, who thought it was absurd to consider teaching Ebonics, and that instruction should
focus on teaching the students SE (Johnson Jackson, 1997; Pearson, Conner, & Jackson, 2012;
Rickford, 1997; Williams, 1997). The intent of the OUSD was to use Ebonics as a bridge to
literacy, but according to Rickford (2000) the message was not heard over the noise. The status
of these prominent community leaders gave weight to the controversy that greatly impacted
perceptions of the language— Ebonics—and diverted attention from the intent of the resolution,
which was to help African American student achievement by building on their first language.
Other organizations outside of education impacted by perceptions of language variations
and the speakers of those languages include professionals such as the American Psychological
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
35

Association (APA). The APA (2002) recognized misconceptions about language varieties among
its members and set up a task force to establish guidelines for its members to examine their own
unconscious prejudices when working with clients whose culture and linguistic backgrounds are
different from their own.
Another professional group affected by perceptions of Ebonics and speakers of the
language are speech pathologists. Norton (2008) replicated a 1969 study conducted by Tucker
and Lambert in which speech pathologists were asked to judge the quality of oral stories spoken
by students of different English language variations. Her study confirmed earlier findings in
which speech pathologists listening to the identical stories spoken in SE and in Ebonics said the
stories spoken in SE were of higher quality than those spoken with patterns of Ebonics language.
These public perceptions are not restricted to outside the classroom. They have the potential to
flow into teachers’ work inside the classroom with students.
Perceptions about Ebonics Within the Educational Field
Misperceptions about language are prevalent among the average public figure even
within the African American community; indeed, even educators hold deficit views of Ebonics
and its speakers (Hudley& Mallinson, 2011; Wheeler, 2009). Mallinson, Hudley, Strickling, and
Figa (2011) found that teachers participating in workshops to become informed about language
varieties had a difficult time seeing how Ebonics could in any way be an asset to the student.
Scholars have noted the prevalence of these perceptions even though research substantiates
language variations as a normal occurrence of linguistics (Hudley, Koch, Gross, & Kolts, 2001;
Rodriguez, Cargile, & Rich, 2004; Tucker & Lambert, 1972). Research by Hudley and Mallinson
(2011) and many other scholars (Green, 2002; Pearson et al., 2013; Smitherman, 2000) has
confirmed the malpractice of educators making judgments about speakers of Ebonics. According
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
36

to their research, people often draw conclusions about intelligence, education, and even personal
characteristics based exclusively on how the speaker talks. Pearson et al. (2013) have also noted
the widespread stigma associated with speakers of Ebonics from a large number of people who
are not predisposed to see a child’s language variety as an advantage. According to Hudley and
Mallinson (2011), teachers must be willing to appreciate the complexity and character of the
varieties of languages and their unique ability to convey cultural and historical identity.
The practice of prejudging based on language is known as language profiling and is
similar to other forms of profiling whereby subjects are judged based on characteristics such as
race, skin color, and—in this case—language use. Baugh (2001) has referred to the practice of
characterizing speakers based on language differences, or linguistic stereotyping, as indexicality,
arguing that such an inclination is nothing more than linguistic profiling for promoting inequality
and oppression. Linguistic profiling is often accompanied by negative stereotypes and deficit
views of the language and its speakers. Educators who have deficit views tend to constantly
correct and interrupt Ebonics speakers while they are speaking and run the risk of disengaging
children from the learning process (Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hollie, 2001; LeMoine, 2001;
Pearson et al., 2013; Perry & Delpit, 1998). Meier (1998) has failed to see how teachers who do
not value students’ traditions and languages can successfully help those students see their own
potential. These scholars believe that correcting and trying to replace the learner’s first language
is detrimental to language development and should not be practiced because it operates from a
deficit view instead of an additive view that honors culture and language.
One belief is that educating teachers about Ebonics and helping them recognize and
appreciate the value of embracing students’ home languages will facilitate literacy. Pearson et al.
(2013) have proposed that training teachers in the variety of linguistic structures can affect
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
37

language perceptions and contribute to nurturing environments that foster optimal achievement.
Educators must embrace a different versus deficit view of language varieties because their views
often permeate their practice (Hudley& Mallinson, 2010; Freire, 1970; Green, 2002; Pearson et
al., 2012). Language is an inseparable part of culture and an integral component of the
educational process. Hill and Fink (2013) have contended that students are more likely to
transcend language barriers when they are able to participate in a nonthreatening way. Teachers’
perceptions and expectations of their students can greatly affect students’ academic performance
(Hudley & Mallinson, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2009). Including students’ language and culture in
the classroom is one way for teachers to act upon an additive view of African American students
and the language they speak—and to achieve ultimate success in learning SE.
The Additive Features of Ebonics
An examination of the perception of Ebonics and those who speak it is not complete
without the inclusion of the additive nature of Ebonics. Morgan (2002) has noted others’ narrow
acceptance of Ebonics as a rule-governed language; instead, Ebonics is more popularly viewed
as a substandard variety of English riddled with mistakes. Speakers of Ebonics bring to school a
rich resource of linguistic literacy from home that is either not valued or ignored altogether.
Morgan’s more recent findings confirm those of other scholars (Green, 2002; Hollie, 2001;
Rickford, 2003; Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Smith, 1998; Smitherman, 1994), who have
expressed a belief that speakers of Ebonics come to school with a valuable language that has a
distinct lexicon, a rule-governed grammar, and offers a treasure chest of culturally valuable tools
that can be an asset to achieving literacy. Rickford (2000) has made a powerful comparison
between eradicating Ebonics (and thereby relegating language use to only SE) to playing piano
using only the white keys. For the majority of African Americans, Ebonics represents the warmth
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
38

and love of family, camaraderie with other African Americans, and the creative voice of their
ancestry—present, and future (Rickford & Rickford, 2002). For the aforementioned reasons,
scholars such as LeMoine and Hollie (2007), Rickford (2000), and Smitherman (1977) have
advocated allowing Ebonics speakers to use their home language in addition to learning SE.
Being fluent in SE and Ebonics offers speakers the power and flexibility of two
languages. The advantages extend beyond the socioemotional features Rickford (2007)
mentioned, such as the familial and cultural connections Ebonics provides for its speakers. In her
presentation of the additive features of Ebonics, Smitherman (1977) outlined some of the more
concrete features that make Ebonics an additive language system; its rich contribution to
American vocabulary is just one example. The trailblazing work of Black linguist Lorenzo
Turner (1949) uncovered 6,000 words, including mostly personal names and many general terms
in the English language that are of direct African origin and have become part of the American
English lexicon; examples include yams—from the Wolof word nyam—as well as tote, gorilla,
elephant, gumbo, okra, jazz, oasis, sorcery, tater, turnip, cola in coca-cola, goober, and banjo
(Smitherman, 1977). These words are African survivals from the West African language and are
now integral parts of SE.
Other West African words or phrases survived the Middle Passage of slavery and are
more common to Ebonics than to SE (Smitherman, 1977). Smitherman (1977) has described
other examples in which the words may not always be the same, but their meanings are
consistent with the denotation of the words in the African language from which they derive. For
example, bad mouth is used in the same manner as dajugu, which literally means “bad mouth”
from the Mandingo language and refers to speaking of someone negatively. Another example
provided by Smitherman (1977) is skin, as in give me some skin, or give me five. Give me five
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
39

and slapping palms is commonly used in the African American community and has become part
of mainstream society. Its origins are from the Mandingo custom of shaking hands in response to
the phrase i golo don m bolo, literally, “put your skin in my hand,” to affirm a truth or something
someone has said. A final example is the phrase okay, to mean things are “all right,” or to mean
“after that” when connecting thoughts in a story. Okay is kin to the word form kay, meaning
“yes,” in many West African languages, including Mandingo, o-ke; Wolof, waw kay/wawke; and
Fula, ‘eeyi kay (Smitherman, 1977). The examples of African-originated words inserted into the
American lexicon, and phrases used in Ebonics that represent African survivals, present a short
list of additive features of Ebonics.
Other additive features reside more in the structure of Ebonics and fall under syntax—
and some people may prefer Ebonics as an alternative to SE in certain situations. LeMoine and
Hollie (2007) described such fluid use of both languages in the scholarly work of Smitherman,
who gracefully moves in and out of both languages from her scholarly pen to a discourse style
that is all but SE and very much Smitherman’s home language. According to LeMoine and
Hollie (2007), Smitherman’s gift is not confined to demonstrating bilingualism in both Ebonics
and SE; she has a remarkable talent for clarifying complex linguistic concepts and features of
Ebonics with scholarly linguistic knowledge.
Beyond additive structural features, there are also syntactical features in Ebonics that are
advantageous. Generally, Green (2002) stated, words are arranged in sentences similarly in
Ebonics and SE, but Ebonics allows different combinations. In Ebonics, the auxiliary and object
can both be negative, such as, “I didn’t see nothing;” in SE two negatives make a positive; hence,
this sentence is only correct if the object is negative, “I didn’t see anything”; the rule of two
negatives creating a positive assertion does not apply in Ebonics. Multiple negation takes on
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
40

different meanings, and allows speakers to emphatically express their deeper sentiments about a
topic (Green, 2002; Smitherman, 1977). “Can’t nobody never see no movies in this house!”
literally translated, means the speaker cannot watch movies in this house, and he or she is
extremely frustrated about the matter. More negatives imply increased intensity, and the
flexibility to underscore emotion using additive features in syntax should be viewed as an
advantage, not a deficit.
A review of the literature informs us of the impact of negative views toward speakers of
Ebonics and the ill regard for the language itself. Research has underscored the significant role
such perceptions have on African American students achieving SE proficiency (Cummins, 2001;
Green, 2002; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Meier, 2008). When viewed in a positive light, teachers’
knowledge about Ebonics is one way to support African Americans’ language variations and
work toward SE proficiency for African Americans.
Instructional Strategies That Promote Proficiency
Teachers’ perceptions about African American students and Ebonics are foundational to
promoting proficiency in SE for African American students. To actually achieve proficiency,
however, teachers must conduct instruction that extends into and beyond researched-based
theories and practice strategies. The following section of the literature review examines actual
researched-based strategies that promote SE proficiency for African Americans.
Researched-Based Approaches and Strategies
To promote SE for African American students, one district recognized the need for
targeted instruction for African American students. The district implemented this program to
increase language development. Originally, it was designed to provide appropriate instruction for
African American students, but in 1998, the program was expanded to include targeted
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
41

instruction for all SELs (Mexican Americans, Native Americans, and Hawaiian Americans), and
the goal was to increase achievement and overall school success. In its current state, the program
supports various members of the SEL population, serving 56 elementary, middle, and senior high
schools, and providing professional development for teachers, and curriculum materials for
classroom. As researchers and practitioners, LeMoine and Hollie (2007) have made clear the
possibilities for African American students’ success once cultural and linguistic barriers are
eliminated from the classroom culture.
Barriers to language development must be replaced with researched-based pedagogy.
LeMoine and Hollie (2007) have promoted six key instructional approaches to assist African
American students in acquiring proficiency: (a) Building teachers’ knowledge and appreciation
for Nonstandardized English and those who speak it; (b) Incorporating linguistic knowledge
about nonstandard variations into the curricula; (c) Using methodology that supports second
language acquisition of academic language and literacy; (d) Employing a balanced approach that
connects language experiences to literacy acquisition; (e) Designing instruction that builds on
SELs’ existing learning styles and strengths; and (f) Including the history and culture of SELs in
the instructional curriculum. From these six key instructional approaches the district developed
strategies that can be practiced regularly inside the classroom. These strategies were developed
and make up the Language Development Program (LDP) strategies: The LDP program advocates
six strategies: (a) Making cultural connections; (b) Contrastive analysis; (c) Cooperative and
communal learning environments; (d) Instructional conversations that involve analysis,
reflection, and critical thinking; (e) Academic language development; and (f) The use of
advanced graphic organizers.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
42

Making cultural connections. The first strategy connects instruction to students’ lives to
impact student engagement and increase learning in a positive way (Ladson-Billings, 2009).
Making connections provides students a meaningful and applicable experience with instruction.
Contrastive analysis. Another strategy is to incorporate the students’ home language
into the classroom and conduct contrastive analysis with the targeted language. Contrastive
analysis is a second-language-learning technique that draws attention to the differences in the
two languages (the home language and the target language). Educators must be informed of what
scholars have established through research about unsuccessful achievement outcomes in cases
where the aim is to eradicate the students’ home language. Similar to code-switching, contrastive
analysis emphasizes the art of knowing when to employ an informal or formal register and
understanding the meaning is the same, but that the word choice and syntax may be varied. In
contrastive analysis students learn the rules for using both language so they are able to make
informed choices about which language to use in specific settings.
Cooperative and communal learning environments. Another strategy that increases
engagement and language acquisition is have students working in cooperative learning groups
around a problem based activity. The students practice the academic language of the lesson while
actively engaged to solve a problem (Vygotsky, 1977). Working in small groups allows students
to work more efficiently, and retention of the content increases.
Instructional conversations. Instructional Discourse that involves analysis, reflection,
and critical thinking. Instructional conversations engage students at a higher order thinking level
where students co-construct knowledge and understanding.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
43

Academic language development. Language development that allows specialized
language and vocabulary and other language features to build from the students home language
increases comprehension and prepares students to communicate effectively in various ways.
Advanced graphic organizers and use of visual elements. An encompassing strategic
approach to helping students achieve proficiency is to interlace the use of visuals, realia,
manipulatives, graphic organizers, and multimedia into instruction to explain concepts (LeMoine
& Hollie, 2007) and accommodate the language and culture of African American students.
The aforementioned strategies are based on a conceptual framework that acknowledges
that true learning and teaching occur in an environment that honors students culturally and
linguistically. Pearson et al. (2012) have suggested that educators design models that demand
high expectations, appreciate linguistic diversity, and develop various kinds of knowledge about
linguistic awareness. Wheeler (2009) and LeMoine and Hollie (2007) have had success helping
teachers use linguistically informed approaches such as contrastive analysis—and, in general,
avoiding subtractive bilingualism approaches that view students’ language from a deficit
framework. Hollie’s (2010) work with a certain district preparing teachers to use culturally
responsive pedagogy found that students enrolled in the Language Affirmation Program (LAP)
showed successful trends in their writing and outperformed a control group on language
assessment measures. Evidenced-based approaches that use culturally responsive pedagogy are
necessary to helping African American students achieve academic success.
Attempts to correct and erase. One strategy that can be implemented in the classroom
is to deemphasize concerns about the grammatical aspects of Nonstandard English and stress
comprehension and classroom discourse (LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Smitherman, 1977). Wheeler
(2009) has pointed to the danger of overcorrecting and emphasizing grammar instead of content,
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
44

explaining that students often decide to remain silent during classroom discourse in order to
avoid constantly being corrected. Research has shown the practice of correcting students’ use of
home language in the classroom setting to have adverse affects on acknowledging existing, and
further developing, language skills (Cummins, 2001; Hollie, 2001; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007;
Smitherman, 1977). Perry and Delpit (1998) found that, in some cases, teachers’ lack of
knowledge about the specific characteristics of Ebonics might cause them to confuse language
variations with what they consider to be errors. For example, Delpit (2006) found that teachers
corrected students’ Ebonics-influenced sounds and grammar usage while ignoring that the
student fully comprehended the content. In Han’s research, he (2010, 2012) was able to
demonstrate that bilingual students were better adjusted and had fewer negative behaviors than
students who were not allowed to maintain their home language. He urged policymakers to adopt
a view of bilingualism as a strength upon which to build school success; not doing so could
cause the student to perform poorly in school. Further, scholars have warned that attempting to
erase African American students’ home language is not a practical approach for promoting SE
proficiency because it removes the connection to cultural relevance and is a direct attack on the
child’s family and community (Asante, 1990; Han, 2010, 2012; Rickford, 2003; Smitherman,
1977; Wheeler 2009). It is important to view students’ use of their home language as a bridge to
SE proficiency.
Code-switching. The use of code-switching accommodates the language of African
American students. As Wheeler (2009) has strongly advocated, code-switching adds SE to
students’ “linguistic repertoires.” Using the analogy of choosing clothing to fit informal and
formal settings, one of Wheeler’s student-teachers was able to help her students see the
correlation between changing clothing to accommodating various social situations, and code-
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
45

switching language to accommodate various language settings. Wheeler (2009) explained code-
switching as a way of choosing a pattern of language appropriate for various contexts.
Inequitable Policy Toward Language Minorities
African American students deserve targeted instruction to meet their language needs.
Although African American students perform parallel to ELA students on ELA tests, targeted
instruction is only provided for EL students (Okoye-Johnson, 2011). Okoye-Johnson (2011) has
observed that policy makers at the district, state, and national levels have studied and initiated
practices designed to meet the needs of ELs in American classrooms—but this same attention
has not been afforded to SELs. Her position is that it would be prudent to include all strategies
designed to eliminate the achievement gap for all groups of students. Jackson (1997) has stated
that equity for all races and ethnicities requires public officials to undertake a self-examination
into policies and programs that apply preferential treatment to the needs of one group over
another, especially where immigrant status and citizenship are concerned. Because Brown v.
Board of Education established that separate but equal was not constitutional over 50 years ago,
it may seem unnecessary to make statements about equal treatment for all students who are
struggling to become proficient in English, but Perry and Delpit (1998) identified legislation that
prevents federal and state funds from being used for educational programs that would benefit
speakers of Ebonics in acquiring proficiency in SE. Appreciation for various language varieties
should drive policies that are meant to foster equitable treatment of speakers of language
varieties.
Conclusion
Because student achievement is a global concern for all stakeholders in education,
research is not lacking scholarly data collected to report, evaluate, and make attempts to justify
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
46

why some groups perform better than others. Researchers present data that possibly elucidate
underlying concerns by making correlations and causal connections for the performance gaps in
achievement between students of different ethnicities, races, gender, and SES levels (Darling-
Hammond, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 2007). Darling-Hammond’s (2007) research has
demonstrated how students of different SES levels, ethnicities, and races have different
experiences in the classroom for a variety of reasons, including teacher quality, course variety,
per pupil funding, and how school and other technological resources are used. Ladson-Billings
(2006) underscored the challenges African American students face when their classrooms are not
culturally relevant and responsive to their cultural background, and present a hostile learning
environment. Hudley and Mallinson (2010) addressed the experiences of African American
students who spoke Nonstandardized English as opposed to their peers who spoke SE.
The Nonstandardized English that the majority of African Americans speak to various
degrees is central to this literature review and to this study. Mallinson, Hudley, Rutter Strickling,
and Figa (2011) have promoted awareness and knowledge that linguistic and cultural diversity
intertwine to promote student achievement—for all students and African American students
specifically. African American students are one of the most impacted of all student groups
because they are affected by issues of language discrimination (Alim & Smitherman, 2012;
Lambert & Tucker, 1973; Smitherman 1977), racial discrimination (Ladson-Billings, 2009), and
SES (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 2006). Improving learning conditions for
African American students will be examined through the conceptual framework of this study
developed by the philosophy of Freire (1970, 1993) and the research of Gay (2010), Ladson-
Billings (2006) Smitherman (1977) LeMoine and Hollie (2007), and Smith (1977). This
framework imagines an environment in which teaching and learning take place with a mind-set
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
47

that acknowledges and honors students’ cultural and linguistic assets. Freire’s (1970) philosophy
about education cautions teachers against “banking” concepts of education. Banking views
students as mere receptacles to be filled by the teacher. The teacher evaluates his or her teaching
based on how much information they can fill in a student’s head. The problem with this view is it
assumes that students know nothing. Freire’s view relates to culturally and linguistically
responsive teaching that promotes acknowledging students’ home cultures and languages as
assets (Gay, 2010; Ladson Billings, 2006;; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Smith, 1977; Smitherman,
1977). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching respects and values students’ familial
backgrounds, literacies, and prior experiences.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
48

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The methodology chapter for this study provides the design by which the characteristics
of Ebonics will be observed; the teaching strategies for instructing African American Ebonics
speakers will be examined; and teachers’ perceptions will be explored. The details of the design
include an overview of the problem of practice, the sampling, the site selection, data collection
procedures, coding of the data, and related ethical conditions.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to learn what strategies teachers used to develop
proficiency in SE for African American SELs. Secondly, this study explored how teachers’
perceptions of Ebonics impacted the teaching and learning relationship for African American
students who spoke a form of Ebonics. A study exploring the strategies and perceptions related
to achieving English proficiency for African American speakers of Ebonics could help educators
understand the role that African American language plays in developing literacy. Conversely, the
study could identify strategies and perceptions that are not effective in promoting the role of
language in academic discourses and in accessing the curriculum. There are structured, research-
based support systems implemented to assist ELs in achieving proficiency in SE (US Department
of Education, 2007), but similar structures are not widely used to assist African American SELs
in achieving proficiency in SE (Okoye-Johnson, 2011). It has been established in the literature
that African American students are categorized as English Only because they use an English
vocabulary in their speech. Scholars such as Smith and Crozier (1998) have rejected the
conclusion that African American students speak English. According to Smith and Crozier
(1998), the grammatical structure of Black dialects of the African diaspora are far different from
that of the Germanic language upon which English is based; therefore, it is not a dialect of
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
49

English. They have contended that EL status, with its accompanying supports, should be
permitted to meet the language acquisition needs of African American students. Because the data
reveal the success of targeted instruction toward English proficiency for ELs (NCES, 2012), it is
inequitable not to include other struggling language minorities such as SELs, more specifically,
African American students (Okoye-Johnson, 1998). The English Only status of African
American students prevents them from receiving targeted instruction for their language needs
and thus limits their access to learning opportunities.
Research Questions
1. What strategies are teachers in urban secondary classrooms using to assist African
American students in acquiring SE in a school that has implemented a program that
includes professional development and teacher support for a targeted program that
incorporates research-based, culturally relevant teaching?
2. What strategies are teachers in urban secondary classrooms using to assist African
American students in acquiring SE in a school that has not implemented a program
that includes professional development and teacher support for a targeted program
that incorporates researched-based, culturally relevant teaching?

3. How do teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of Ebonics influence the teaching and
learning relationship between teachers and African American students whose first
language is a form of Ebonics?

Conceptual Framework
The terms, concepts, definitions, models, and emerging theories for this study were
guided by the literature on culturally and linguistically responsive (CLR) pedagogy and Freire’s
educational philosophy (Freire, 1970; Gay, 2010; Hollie, 2012; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007;
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
50

Ladson-Billings, 2009; Merriam 2009; Smitherman, 1977). The design elements and the
conceptual framework determined the research questions, the data collection, the chosen
technique to perform analysis of the data, and the findings (Merriam, 2009). The conceptual
framework guiding this study holds that teaching and learning take place within a belief system
that acknowledges and honors students’ cultural and linguistic assets (Freire, 1970; Gay, 2010;
Hollie, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Smitherman, 1977). Students are
not blank slates merely waiting to receive “banked” information. Students enter classrooms with
a wealth of literacies, yet some of these funds of knowledge are not recognized as legitimate
(Freire, 1970; Gutierrez, 2008). The conceptual framework recognizes the strengths of the
African American students’ language and culture as assets upon which teachers can build as a
means for enabling students to acquire SE, which is the language of the classroom that gives
students access to the curriculum and learning.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
51

Delimitations and Limitations
Selecting classrooms became a challenge in trying to determine comparable classes
between the two schools in the study. A direct comparison was not possible as the two courses
were not the same. One course was an AP language class (11th grade) and the other was a high
school exit exam (HSEE) prep class (12th grade). Because a test has not been fully implemented
by the department of education, or otherwise, to identify SELs similar to the one identifying EL
status, there is an inherent flaw in the use of the term Standard English learner as it applies to
identification and proficiency. For this study, the researcher used the accepted identification of
SELs used by the district where the study was conducted. These limitations impact the
generalizability of the study to the broader audience of educators as it relates to African
American achievement. The final limitation is the self-reporting aspect of the instruments.
Although a case study design limits generalizability, it offers the strength afforded by a vicarious
experience ordinarily not accessible, and the experience is told through the lens of the researcher
(Merriam, 2009).
Qualitative Approach
The best way to explore the characteristics, teacher perceptions, and teaching strategies
surrounding Ebonics was through a qualitative approach. According to Merriam (2009), a
distinguishing characteristic of qualitative research—compared to quantitative research—is that
the former has as its primary focus the process, understanding, and meaning behind a
phenomenon. For this study, a qualitative approach was selected because it would help the
researcher understand and discover the meaning behind the classroom experiences of speakers of
Ebonics with close attention to details in the teaching and learning experience. Understanding
what could be influencing the achievement gap would best be learned using qualitative
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
52

methodology. The qualitative method is the preferred scientific method for gathering data when
the interest is on how participants make sense of what has occurred and how their actions are
informed by their perspectives of the phenomenon (Maxwell, 2013).
The goal of applied research is to inform a given practice of the optimal conditions for
which a phenomenon occurs (Merriam, 2009). For the purposes of this study, the design was to
compare strategies teachers used to help African American students become proficient in English
in a school supported by a structured language acquisition program for SELS to a school not
supported by a structured language acquisition program for SELs. The study was designed to
explore teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of Ebonics as potentially influential factors in
creating conditions that can help African American students achieve through the influence of
research- and evidence-based strategies for promoting SE, which is the language of the
classroom.
Participant Selection
Observations, interviews, and focus groups were conducted with participating teachers
and students to answer the research questions. Purposeful sampling was used to gain insight from
the teachers and students who had the most experience related to the research questions
(Maxwell, 2007). One teacher in each of the two urban secondary schools was selected. The
study also selected a total of 17 students from the two schools in order to answer the research
questions. The schools were in the Hansberry Unified School District (pseudonym), a large
urban school district with elementary, middle, and senior high schools including charter, magnet,
and continuation schools. This district was chosen because it has implemented a research-based
language development program targeted for SELs in some of its schools. The other reason this
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
53

district was chosen was that it had a high population of African American students, and both of
these characteristics were necessary for the study’s design.
Participating Schools
To gain insight into the teaching and learning relationship between teachers and African
American students whose first language is Ebonics, the unit of analysis in this study was the
classroom. The process of selecting the classrooms began with choosing two urban secondary
schools with a population of 30% African American English Only students (See Table 1). The
secondary criteria for school selection was for 25% or more of the African American English
Only population to have scored basic or below on the state’s standards test (ST) for two
consecutive years, or that had not passed that state’s high school exit exam (HSEE) in the 10th
grade. Researchers in the field of African American languages have indicated that 85–90% of
African Americans speak some form of Ebonics to some degree at various times or in various
settings (Hudley, & Mallinson, 2011; Smitherman, 2000). The intention was to observe and
interview students who met at least two of these descriptors. The study selected a high school
that had the highest concentration of students meeting the criteria of African American
populations of students who are not proficient in SE. A higher population of African American
students was a way to increase the chance of gaining knowledge about Ebonics usage. To learn
about teachers’ perceptions of Ebonics and what strategies they used to assist African American
students in becoming proficient in SE, classrooms with the highest concentrations of African
American students were selected. The district’s website was used to research schools’
demographics for ethnicity and testing results.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
54

Table 1
Ethnic Demographics by School in 2013-14

Baldwin
High % Hughes %
Total 1,180

1,336

African American 615 52.1 697 52.2
Latino American 548 46.4 607 45.4
Native American 4 0.3 7 0.5
Pacific Islander American 1 0.1 7 0.5
Caucasian 7 0.6 9 0.7
Other 5 0.4 8 0.6

Once a list was compiled of schools that met the aforementioned criteria, one school was
selected that had the highest population of African American students and also had an existing
language development program (LDP). The LDP program was a research-based, culturally
relevant language program targeted to assist SELs in becoming proficient in SE. There are only
two high schools in this school district that have an LDP. One of the two schools had recently
gone through restructuring and was not selected to avoid confounding external variables. The
second school was selected because it had the highest population of African American students
amongst schools that did not have an LDP (See Table 2).
Table 2
Criteria for School Selection
Indicator Parameter
School

One school had implemented a language development program for two or
more years that included professional development and teacher support for
a targeted program that incorporated researched-based, culturally relevant
teaching strategies to help Standard English learners acquire SE.

One school had not implemented a language development program that
included professional development and teacher support for a targeted
program using researched-based, culturally relevant teaching strategies to
help Standard English learners acquire SE.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
55

African
American
Population
30% or more
25% are not proficient in ELA; basic, below basic, or far below basic for
two consecutive years on the state’s standardized test or using an
equivalent standardized test such as the HSEE

The school with the LDP was James Baldwin High School (pseudonym), a large urban
high school serving grades nine through 12. They had operated the LDP for at least two years—
one of the research criteria required for eligibility. To capture quality data, the participating
school had to be accustomed to using the strategies of LDP, which also had to be well embedded
in the school curriculum. The school operated on a block schedule whereby classes met every
other day. Baldwin High had small learning communities and a magnet school on its campus.
The total enrollment was 1,180 in the 2013–2014 school year, during which African Americans
and Latino Americans comprised 98.5 %, and a small percentage of Native American, Pacific
Islander American, Caucasian, and other (CDE, 2015) made up the balance.
The school without an LDP was James Mercer Langston Hughes High School
(pseudonym), a large urban high school serving grades nine through 12. Hughes High also had
small learning communities and a magnet school on its campus. The total enrollment was 1,336
in the 2013–2014 school year, of which African Americans and Latino Americans comprised
97.6%, and a small percentage of Native American, Pacific Islander American, Caucasian, and
other (CDE, 2015) made up the balance.
Participating Classrooms
After identifying the schools, the specific teachers and their classrooms had to be
selected. The principals were contacted via email and phone to establish communication and
begin to build rapport (Merriam, 2009). The assistant principals were designated as the contact
person for selecting the classrooms. Several conversations occurred with the assistant principals
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
56

to decide on the classrooms. The participating classroom criterion for determining English
proficiency and thus selecting a classroom for the unit of analysis was challenging to meet
because there were not two years of test data for the latest state standardized test. The reason
being was that the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were being implemented;
therefore new tests were being applied to align with CCSS. The schools did not have two current
years of ST results. The researcher decided to use the HSEE to measure proficiency in SE. Other
options to determine proficiency, such as periodic assessments and teacher-created tests, were
rejected, as they would not be equal between the two schools. Another challenge that arose in
selecting classrooms had to do with demographics. There were not enough eligible African
American students in one class who had not passed the HSEE. In order to select a classroom, the
number of students who were not proficient in SE had to be lowered from the original eight in
the proposed study to at least four African American SELs. Along with selecting a classroom
that met the criteria, the teacher of that classroom had to meet certain criteria.
Teacher Participants
In addition to the student criteria for selecting a classroom, there were criteria for
selecting the teacher. Originally, the teacher was supposed to be a 10th- or 11th-grade English
teacher with a minimum of three years experience; but the challenges with finding a classroom
influenced the teacher criteria. In the end, the grade requirement was changed from 10th or 11th
to any grade level as long as the student criteria matched. The teacher at Baldwin High was an
11th-grade English teacher with 36 years of experience. The teacher from Hughes High was a
12th-grade teacher with nine years of experience (see Table 3 and Table 4). Nonprobability
sampling was used because it has as its goal gaining understanding from those who can provide
the richest information, and purposeful sampling assumes the participants are the most typical
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
57

examples of the particular item being studied (Merriam, 2009). Finally, an AP language class
was selected at Baldwin High and an English Language Development Class was selected at
Hughes High.
Table 3
Teacher Profile
School/Teacher Name Years
of teaching
Gender Ethnicity
Baldwin High
Ms. Baldwin
36 F Caucasian
Hughes High
Ms. Hughes
9 F African American

Table 4

Criteria for Teacher Selection
Indicator Parameter
Teacher English teacher in a 10th-12th-grade class, minimum three years teaching
experience, minimum of four African American students who match the
criteria

Data Collection

Before contacting schools and beginning data collection, IRB approval was obtained
from USC and the selected school district. This particular school district was preferred because
the researcher knew it had an LDP program. While waiting for district approval, the instruments
were piloted to test for reliability and validity (Merriam, 2009). The student focus group
questions were piloted using nine African American high school students from the researcher’s
church with permission of the pastor and parents. The teacher interview was piloted using three
teachers from the researcher’s home school. The researcher observed two classrooms of the
researcher’s home school to pilot the observation protocol. The district approved the research
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
58

with some minor recommended changes to the instruments. Based on the feedback from the
pilots and the district recommendations, revisions were made to all three instruments to refine
their use and better suit them to answer the research questions. It should be noted that some of
the district’s recommended changes to the student focus group protocol seemed to adversely
affect the focus group interviews. This issue will be elaborated upon in the observation section of
Chapter 4.
The researcher decided to conduct observations first, interview teachers second, and
finally conduct the student focus groups. It seemed logical to conduct interviews with the
teachers first because it could help establish the relationship and build rapport (Merriam, 2009).
The potential that the teacher interview could cause the teacher to behave in a socially desirable
way during the observation (because the teacher would know what the researcher was looking
for from the research questions) outweighed other considerations. Likewise, conducting the
teacher interview could cause observer bias, causing the researcher to focus on behaviors that
only corroborated information shared in the interview (Maxwell, 2013). This insight was
provided and discussed in a dissertation class with other thematic group members and the
dissertation chair, and the decision was made to change the order of the data collection to first
conduct observations, then the teacher interviews, and finally the student focus groups.
Letters were emailed to each school principal to begin the process of collecting data.
After the initial letter was sent to the principal, the researcher visited the school to follow up on
the emails and phone calls. The principal granted permission to conduct the research in the
school, and gave contact information for an assistant principal who remained the main person of
contact throughout the study (Merriam, 2009). The process of selecting a classroom to observe
was slow because of the challenge of finding enough African American students in one class
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
59

who had not passed the HSEE. The process at Hughes High School was even slower because of
the same challenge, compounded by communication problems and incomplete test reports. The
incomplete test reports were part of a larger issue within the district. The school was
experiencing problems connecting with their district’s database. Although the database was an
external system it impacted the school’s ability to produce testing data. The researcher obtained
help from other administrative personnel to complete the task. The testing coordinator/counselor
and another assistant principal helped. Once these problems were resolved, teachers and
classrooms were selected. Each participant in this study was given a $5 gift card. The
observations, interviews, and focus groups were all recorded and transcribed for data analysis.
Collecting Observation Data
With the problems resolved and the classrooms and teachers selected, the teachers were
sent letters and proof of consent forms for parents and students via email. The observations were
scheduled and conducted. An observation protocol had been developed to capture data that could
help analyze the teaching and learning relationship between the teacher and African American
students, and observe strategies used for Ebonics speakers (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004). Each
observation was 50 minutes long, and there were two observations for each teacher (Merriam,
2009). The observations were conducted during instructional time on two different days to
capture a variety of data (Merriam, 2009).
The Teacher Interview Data Collection
The researcher continued to maintain a positive relationship with the teachers using
emails and texting to progress to the teacher interview phase of data collecting (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). The instrument designed for the interviews was similar to the
instrument used in a dissertation exploring the impact linguistic knowledge had on forming
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
60

teachers’ attitudes toward Ebonics (LeMoine, 2003). LeMoine (2003) is a noted researcher on
the topic of Ebonics, an expert in the field, and the primary developer of an LDP. The interview
with each teacher was 50 minutes long and was conducted after school in each teacher’s
classroom (Merriam, 2009). The interview protocol was designed to gain an understanding of
teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of Ebonics, and to explore the strategies they used to build
on students’ Ebonics language toward acquiring proficiency in SE. The Survey on the Impact of
Linguistics Knowledge on Teacher’s Attitudes of African American Languages (LeMoine, 2003)
supplied the majority of the questions in the interview to gain knowledge of each teacher’s
background, her knowledge about language variations, and her perceptions of Ebonics and
African American students who speak Ebonics. Other parts of the interview instrument were
developed using the culturally responsive language in the observational research of other
researchers in the field (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004). Questions 1–36 varied only slightly from
LeMoine’s (2003) survey with the few exceptions of wording and using of Ebonics exclusively
versus African American languages. Questions 37–41 were developed using the research in a
multicultural, multilingual classrooms (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004). The interviews were
conducted after each teacher was observed twice.
The teacher interviews were semistructured and in person; they were conducted in the
classroom after school. The length of each interview was 50 minutes. With the teachers’ consent,
the interviews were recorded to ensure that the researcher did not miss any of the teachers’
responses due to distractions while listening to the interviewees’ responses to questions. The
interview yielded rich data about teacher knowledge and perceptions that were used to analyze
the findings. Unknown at the time, the interviews corroborated information that was shared in
the student focus group later.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
61

Focus Group Data Collection
After the observations and teacher interviews were conducted, the focus groups were
scheduled. The CLR theoretical framework and the research of Datnow and Yonezawa (2004)
had a significant role in guiding the design of the questions and the protocol for the focus group.
The focus group at Baldwin High was scheduled on a day that turned out to be an athletic game
day, thus some of the students were unable to attend. The number of students participating was
five instead of all 12 African American students in the class. The focus group was also
conducted after school. At one point during the focus group, the researcher had to define Ebonics
and provide examples. In obtaining approval to conduct research in the selected district, the
governing parties recommended removing the definition of Ebonics as well as examples. The
district personnel thought the information defining Ebonics would be too academic for students
and parents. The researcher disagreed—especially considering the manner of delivering the
information was going to be written and oral—but complied in order to move forward. During
the focus group, the students kept sharing examples of slang and profanity. The researcher
attempted to guide the conversation toward Ebonics, but was not successful. The researcher
decided it was in the best interest of the study to break protocol in order to collect better data.
The explanation helped but did not alleviate the problem altogether. This finding is discussed in
greater detail in the findings chapter.
Scheduling the focus group at Hughes was encumbered by several factors outside of the
researcher’s control. The focus group at Hughes was held long after the first focus group, which
was at Baldwin. The gap in time allowed for the researcher to consider any necessary changes to
the protocol or the instrument (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The focus group at Hughes High
was also conducted after school and was 50 minutes long. All four of the African American
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
62

students in the class were able to attend. As in the case with Baldwin, a definition and examples
had to be provided in order steer the interview away from forms of slang and profanity being
confused with Ebonics.
Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability of any study is critical if it is to be considered credible
research. Merriam (2009) suggested triangulating sources and data to attain a “holistic
interpretation of the phenomenon being investigated” (p. 136). Achieving triangulation with the
methods and sources strengthened the validity of this study. Using research-based language to
design the instruments insures validity and reliability. Because the study looked at one teacher at
each school, its findings are not generalizable to many situations, yet they confirm research
findings in general on the topic. Because the findings in this study confirmed what was known
from the research, this study added to the body of knowledge, and its reliably validated the body
of knowledge on the subject.
Human Subjects
When working with human subjects, researchers must factor in ethical considerations
(Patton, 2002). The university Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed research protocols to
assure that proper and necessary ethical considerations were adhered to and that the rights of
human subjects were protected to avoid psychological harm to participants. In addition, the Los
Angeles Unified School District conducted a separate screening of the research proposal and
instruments prior to the data collection phase to ensure that no district-level policies were
violated.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
63

Summary
The interviews, observations, and student artifacts were triangulated to gather data for
analysis that looked at the role perceptions and knowledge of Ebonics played in achieving
proficiency for African American students. The teaching strategies observed played a significant
role in this study because teaching that honors the home language of the speakers is known to be
more effective than instruction that does not (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Rickford, 1998). Teachers
of SELs should adopt the principles taken from the theoretical framework of Freire (1970) and
the CLR pedagogies of other respected scholars (Gay, 2010; Hollie, 2012; Ladson-Billings,
2009; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Smitherman, 1977) that are based on proven research that
demonstrates the academic success of this approach.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
64

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to compare strategies teachers used in two different
schools to develop English proficiency for African American students. One teacher was in a
school that had a formal language development program supporting Standard English learners
(SELs). The other was in a school that did not have a formal language development program for
SELs. Secondly, the study was intended to explore how teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of
Ebonics could be impacting opportunities to learn for African American students who speak a
form of Ebonics. A presentation of the data in this study compared strategies used to assist
African American speakers of Ebonics in achieving proficiency in SE in the classroom of one
teacher in each of the two schools selected for the study.
One classroom was in the school identified as having an LDP program designed to assist
students who speak languages that differ from SE in achieving proficiency in SE. The teacher in
the LDP School had been trained in the theoretical framework and structure known to be
successful in promoting SE proficiency for African American students, while also supporting
students in retaining their home language. The second classroom was in a school that did not
have a formal language development program implemented specifically to support SELs.
Further, this study examined whether teachers in an LDP School expressed and
demonstrated knowledge and perceptions about Ebonics that differed from the knowledge and
perceptions demonstrated by teachers in non-LDP School. Specifically, the study examined
whether there were differences in the way the two teachers admitted they used Ebonics in the
classroom and interacted with speakers of Ebonics to ensure students’ access to academic
discourse and the core curriculum as they became proficient in SE.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
65

This study focused on whether the classrooms observed had an environment that set high
expectations, admitted and respected linguistic and cultural diversity, and was facilitated by
teachers with linguistic awareness (LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Pearson, Conner, & Jackson, 2012;
Wheeler, 2009). Evidenced-based approaches that foster this kind of environment are
advantageous for all students. Findings from the study are presented in this chapter. These
findings may contribute to the existing body of knowledge about structures in educational
systems known to be effective for African American SELs. The following research questions
guided the study:
1. What strategies are teachers in urban secondary classrooms using to assist African
American students in acquiring SE in a school that has implemented a program
that includes professional development and teacher support for a targeted program
that incorporates researched-based, culturally responsive teaching pedagogy?
2. What strategies are teachers in urban secondary classrooms using to assist African
American students in acquiring SE in a school that has not implemented a
program that includes professional development and teacher support for a targeted
program that incorporates researched-based, culturally relevant teaching
pedagogy?
3. How do teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of Ebonics influence the teaching
and learning relationship between teachers and African American students whose
first language is a form of Ebonics?
Data Analysis
Following data collection, the data were prepared for coding, interpreted, and explained
according to the steps outlined in Creswell (2012). The observations and interviews were
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
66

recorded in addition to notes being taken. The recordings were transcribed and then manually
coded and interpreted to identify common themes of the findings. The LDP and CLR teaching
framework advocates six strategies, and these strategies were used as guides to manually code
the data. Triangulating the sources of information (i.e., classrooms, teachers, and students) as
well as the types of data (i.e., observations, teacher interviews, and student interviews) served to
corroborate evidence and distinguish between themes that were constant and those that were
anomalies. Triangulation of data elucidated perceptions the teachers had of Ebonics and African
American students who speak Ebonics (Merriam, 2009). These themes were consistent with the
concepts in the literature review, and—with little exception—the data confirmed what scholars
have concluded about Ebonics and the teaching-learning relationship with African American
students. The transcribed data were imported into a spreadsheet format by line items to create a
matrix. Each question or response was on a separate line—an individual row of the spreadsheet.
The themes were placed as column headers. The six strategies were placed in columns first.
Other themes from the research, such as correcting and judging, were also placed in their own
columns. Each line item was categorized into a theme and marked with an “X” under that theme.
When there was not a theme that the data fit into then it was analyzed against the research in
general to create an emerging theme. If data were categorized into more than one theme, the
researcher made a decision about which category it best fit (Merriam, 2009). The data were
analyzed, sorted, categorized, and then reorganized to better analyze until the process seemed
complete and all data were categorized into a theme.
Findings from the LDP School
One teacher was selected from each of the two schools in the same large school district.
One teacher was in a school that was identified as an LDP School, and the other teacher was
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
67

selected from a school that did not have an LDP program. The LDP program trained teachers and
incorporated research-based, culturally relevant teaching strategies into lesson designs to help
SELs achieve English proficiency while retaining their first language. According to the district’s
English Learner Mastery Plan, “The category and term SEL includes students that speak a
nonstandard language variety as their primary language” (LAUSD, 2012). African Americans
who were not proficient in SE were considered SELs.
Background of the Teacher in the LDP School
The teacher interview revealed that Ms. Baldwin (pseudonym) had been teaching for 36
years and had a bachelor’s degree in ecosystems/geography with a minor in English and
comparative literature. She also had a master’s degree in writing; she had a clear credential and
was National Board certified. She was knowledgeable about LDP strategies and the theoretical
framework that undergirds the structure of the language program. She spoke three languages,
including her native English, French learned in school, and Italian acquired in Italy. She has had
dozens of classes in bilingual education and second language acquisition. She had also taken
approximately six courses for language development among children and had had formal
language courses (i.e., linguistics and sociolinguistics). Her self-reported level of linguistic
knowledge was a 4 out of 5, reflecting somewhat knowledgeable compared to a 5, which
indicates very knowledgeable. She estimated she had had more than nine to12 hours in training in
courses related to Black/African American culture, as well as training in language development
for African American SELs. She considered herself a speaker of Ebonics on occasion and
reported that she often understood when others were speaking Ebonics. Ms. Baldwin defined
Ebonics as a language with structure and developed cultural meanings used in “high-level”
literature and conversations. She recognized that her students spoke Ebonics, and that there were
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
68

variations of Ebonics depending on the country and background of the speaker. She
acknowledged the existence of stereotypical views of Ebonics and stated it was sometimes
viewed as a deficit language. She explained, “The kids are often taught Ebonics is inappropriate
in any kind of school situation,” and for that reason, “We lose a lot of beautiful language because
of that judgment.” Ms. Baldwin had shared research about Ebonics with her students so they
could study it and know the background of the language. The interviews and observations
showed that Ms. Baldwin had high expectations for her students. She believed her students could
learn and excel in the AP language class even though some of them had not passed the state’s
standardized test for English Language proficiency. At several points during the interview and
the observations, Ms. Baldwin drew attention to her students’ high learning capacity by
complimenting their work or their participation in class with statements like, “He’s a genius.
He’s never had an advanced course, and did you hear his responses?” She offered writing
samples even though the research design did not include examination of student work samples.
The comments she made and her insistence on showing samples were evidence of the pride she
had in her students’ abilities. Ms. Baldwin’s core beliefs about her students were evident in her
classroom practices and her comments about them.
Strategies in an LDP School
1. What strategies are teachers in urban secondary classrooms using to assist
African American students in acquiring SE in a school that has implemented a program that
includes professional development and teacher support for a targeted program that incorporates
researched-based, culturally responsive teaching pedagogy?

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
69

The classroom selected for the LDP School was an 11th-grade AP language course. The
teacher in an LDP school is expected to use strategies to engage students in substantive discourse
and participation as they use language to construct knowledge and develop cognitively,
emotionally, and socially. The LDP program addresses linguistic variations within the student
body of the district and assumes that students’ home language is an asset that can enhance
students’ opportunities to learn and acquire proficiency in SE as a second language. The LDP
program advocates six strategies: (a) making cultural connections; (b) contrastive analysis; (c)
cooperative and communal learning environments; (d) instructional conversations that involve
analysis, reflection, and critical thinking; (e) academic language development; and (f) use of
advanced graphic organizers (LAUSD, 2015).
Ms. Baldwin, the teacher in the LDP School, stated and demonstrated through her
teaching that she saw both the student’s language and culture as an asset to the learning
environment, not as a deficit. Observations of Ms. Baldwin’s classroom, an interview with her,
and a focus group interview with students in her class allowed for a triangulation of findings
related to the research question about strategies used by one teacher in the LDP School. The
observations and interviews showed that Ms. Baldwin used all of the six strategies. The
triangulation of data from the observations and student focus group exposed areas where Ms.
Baldwin could have been more affirming when responding to the students’ use of Ebonics. When
students’ responses in their first language during discourse were germane to the discussion,
acknowledgment of the contribution could be made explicit with positive affirmations.
Making cultural connections. Ms. Baldwin provided opportunities for her students to
make critical connections between the text and real-world situations. She activated background
knowledge and showed value in their experiences. During one of the observations, she
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
70

acknowledged a student’s raised hand. When she acknowledged her, she called her “The Orator.”
It was discovered during the teacher interview that the student had been involved in a rally away
from school where she gave a speech in support of teachers on behalf of the students. By
referring to her as “The Orator,” the teacher was capitalizing on the situation on several levels:
she was acknowledging the student’s skills as a speaker, valuing the student’s prior knowledge
and experiences, affirming the student as a person, and making meaningful connections with
real-world experiences (Gay, 2010; Hollie, 2012; Ladson Billings, 2006; LeMoine & Hollie,
2007; Smith, 1977; Smitherman, 1977).
Another example of making meaningful connections occurred when Ms. Baldwin asked
the students to relate the circumstances in the text to a personal experience. Referring to the text,
Ms. Baldwin asked, “What was the consequence?” Then Ms. Baldwin asked, “So how many of
you have been punished for something that you said? . . . [Many students nodded, vocalized
affirmative responses] So you're all proud, you're going ‘yes, indeed.’ How many of you are
proud of something that you said that you got punished for?” This is one example of how Ms.
Baldwin frequently made connections between the text and the students’ experiences to get them
to participate.
Contrastive analysis. As a strategy, contrastive analysis allows the student to
systematically study languages with the goal of understanding the differences and similarities.
Researchers have asserted that this approach gives greater access to the target language without
devaluing a student’s first language (Hollie, 2001; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Wheeler, 2009).
The interviews and the observations made clear that Ms. Baldwin used contrastive analysis in
various forms—written and verbal. As a practice, she made comments on students’ writing that
referred to grammatical and syntactical rules in SE (to point out grammatical variations) and
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
71

offered alternative sentence structures for writing assignments requiring SE. She avoided words
that could be interpreted as correcting or devaluing the use of Ebonics in their writing and chose
academic terms such as S-V for subject-verb agreement. Her practice of using terms such as S-V
suggested that she provided explicit instruction about rules that governed differences between the
students’ home language and SE that enabled them to understand the meanings of her marks. On
some assignments, she said, she did not even write grammar-related comments if the assignment
was for creative writing, for instance, or if the students were “analyzing linguistics.” Ms.
Baldwin’s feedback on student writing heightened students’ awareness of the concept of
contrastive analysis by referring them to rules that differ between the two languages.
Ms. Baldwin also used a verbal form of contrastive analysis that was evident as a strategy
during the observation and was referenced during the interviews with the teacher and the
students. Verbal contrastive analysis occurred during class discussions. When students used a
structure common to Ebonics, instead of “correcting” the student, the teacher would respond to
the student by picking up the idea expressed by the student and incorporating it into a statement
in which she used alternative sentences in SE. The teacher had also posted around the room
sentence stems written in SE; so when students wanted to express something in SE instead of
Ebonics, they could use the sentence stems to guide them. The teacher and students used the term
code switching to explain how they used Ebonics and SE interchangeably, although the two
terms are not exactly the same. Contrastive analysis is a process by which students become
aware of language differences, and code switching is the act of choosing between languages
depending on the situation. Some scholars have expressed a view that the term code switching
implies a superior-inferior relationship between two languages (Hollie, 2011). In this class,
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
72

however, students’ use of the two languages indicated that the languages were viewed with
mutual respect.
Ms. Baldwin had shared articles about language variations with her students, which
demonstrate students engaged in using languages that differ from SE. She taped some of her
White UCLA students who spoke a variation of SE in order for her African American students to
hear White students using a combination of SE and their own language variety. Although Ms.
Baldwin’s students’ responses to the tape varied, in general they showed great interest in hearing
the differences.
The above-mentioned “experiment” (as the students called it) became a topic in the
student focus group when one of the students made a comment about hearing some White
students’ attempt to use Ebonics and how it “sounded funny.” The student then commented, “I
thought she could’a been Black.” (It was not clear from the student’s account if the White
student had been using slang, White variations of SE, or actually using Ebonics). Regardless of
the actual language the White students were using, the teacher was attempting to demonstrate to
the students that using a home language and SE is a common practice among all ethnic groups.
From the students’ comments, it appeared the UCLA students were blending some features
considered Ebonics into their speech. If that were the case, students also had an opportunity to
see that other ethnic and racial groups use forms of Ebonics to suit their purposes as well.
During the interview, Ms. Baldwin shared how sometimes classroom discussions get
intense, and the students will ask to use their home language. Ms. Baldwin explained:
The discussion gets extremely deep, personal, and also tremendously polarized where . . .
we have real, deep differences of opinion, and it's a hot issue. They can ask permission,
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
73

“Can we speak our minds?” [In that particular moment they are conveying] “I don't know
if I can say what I mean as deeply if I can't use the words that I want to use.”
The teacher’s statement that the students might ask for permission to use their home language
could indicate that the students’ choice of when to use Ebonics or SE is not left entirely to their
own discretion. However, the researcher observed the students flowing between both languages
without stopping to ask except on an occasion when profanity was involved. The teacher’s
statement also demonstrated what research states regarding the value or significance of students’
home language. The research literature has posited that when students want to express deeply felt
emotions or strongly held opinions, they turn to the home language, which remains with them as
a major tool for making meaning of life’s experiences (Cummins, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978).
Sometimes, it is not a question of Ebonics versus SE; the language with which the student is
most familiar could be a blend of Ebonics, slang, and profanity.
Despite the teacher’s statement that the students sometimes ask permission to use their
home language, classroom observations provided evidence that the students felt comfortable
choosing when to use either their home language or SE. It was observed that the students moved
between the languages, fluidly choosing when to use Ebonics, SE, sentence stems they had been
taught, and slang. Perhaps the “asking for permission,” which was observed, was more of a
disclaimer and a way to respect the classroom setting. During the focus group, one student
shared the following when asked how she felt her everyday language was similar to or different
from the academic language used in the classroom: “I think there should be a difference. Like,
we shouldn't, like, curse, and we shouldn't talk to the teacher like we talk to our friends. Yeah,
that shows respect.” This student’s response indicated a deep level of understanding of the
appropriateness of when to use which language, thus showing respect for the teacher and the
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
74

learning environment. It was not entirely clear, however, if the student was referring to Ebonics
or slang when she said, “And we shouldn’t talk to the teacher like we talk to our friends,”
Full-inclusion language use. A pattern that frequently occurred during the observation
in Ms. Baldwin’s classroom and also emerged during the student focus group was seeming
confusion over Ebonics and SE. The students, and in one case, the teacher, offered examples of
slang when asked about Ebonics. Ebonics is rule governed and has syntactical structures that are
patterned after the Western African and Niger-Congolese languages. Ebonics is not slang
(Pullum, 1999; Rickford, 2000). On further analysis of this occurrence, it became apparent that
sometimes the language of African Americans is so richly intermingled with words, structure,
and trending phrases that it is almost impossible to separate Ebonics from the slang words
without damaging the essence of what is being expressed (Rickford, 2009; Smitherman 1977).
Ms. Baldwin allowed the students to bring whatever language they were familiar and
comfortable with into the discussion as long as they deemed that it facilitated the discussion. The
researcher is using the term full inclusion language use to indicate a cross between the students’
first language and informal languages (e.g., slang, text) and SE.
A situation demonstrating full language inclusion occurred during the observation when a
student shared an example related to the discussion topic of freedom of expression. The student
was sharing her example from a text message, and at a certain point while sharing, she paused
and made a facial expression communicating her hesitance to continue because the next part
contained words that might have been viewed as inappropriate for the setting. Ms. Baldwin said,
“You don’t have to edit . . . say what you said,” and then, “Don’t give me eyebrows.” Ms.
Baldwin turned to the whole class and addressed a rhetorical question to all the students,
“You’ve heard blunt words in this class before?” The students nodded and mumbled agreements.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
75

She verbalized their collective responses when she replied, “Yeah, we have,” and then continued.
Even though this was not a pure example of Ebonics, it was an example of students being
allowed to use whatever language they were comfortable with using during classroom discourse
to make their points. She then turned back to the student that was sharing and reassured her,
“Don’t worry.” The student finished sharing her example.
In this case, Ms. Baldwin reassured students that during classroom discussions they could
use whatever language they felt they needed to use as long as it was relevant to the topic and
conveyed what they were gaining from the learning experience. Ms. Baldwin respected her
students and trusted their judgment. As the student continued, the example included explicit
words, and the student continued to read, but “bleeped out” the expletives. The student found a
way to make her point, keep it relevant to the discussion, and respect the learning environment.
She had been given permission to use the language she felt appropriate, yet she chose words that,
in her opinion, were respectful for the setting. The students seemed know when to use the
language that would communicate their point and be appropriate for the setting. Being fluent in
both Ebonics and SE facilitated precise and situation-specific language use. Being allowed to
freely move between languages provided ample opportunities for students to practice situation-
appropriate use of language. Not correcting or limiting the students’ language use allowed the
students to use higher order thinking skills to generate ideas during meaningful discussions
(Cummins, 2001; Godley & Escher, 2012; Gutierrez, 2008).
More occurrences of this phenomenon were noted during the observation as students
moved freely between both Ebonics and SE (and sometimes slang); the decision of when to
change languages appeared purposeful, depending on the type of discussion the students were
having. For example, a student was citing textual evidence and used academic language
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
76

supported by what seemed to be a sentence stem that probably at one time had been taught.
(Sentence stems using academic language are posted around the classroom.) The student had
been asked to relate the poet’s quotation to the text they were discussing. The student began her
sentence, “Well, I think . . . ” The student stopped at this point and restarted her sentence. This
time she sat up straighter, changed her tone, and then began again, “The quote, by Emily
Dickenson, from 1865 relates to the text because . . . ” It appeared that the student had started
and then realized she had an opportunity to use an academic English register and citation
sentence stems that she had in her repertoire. The repositioning of her body to a more upright
posture matched her tone and new language use; it was part of her presentation. She moved into
presentation mode. Using the date was also part of citing the poet’s quotation. The class met her
new presentation of information with friendly laughter. The teacher commented in a whisper so
as not to derail the sentence, “Nice citation.” Events in this teacher’s classroom provided
evidence that students know when to use one language over another when language variations
are understood, they have had explicit instruction, and they have been provided tools to assist
their usage.
During the teacher interview, the researcher explored the teacher’s perspective on the
practice of Ebonics being spoken in and out of the classroom. Ms. Baldwin felt students should
be allowed to speak Ebonics inside the classroom; on this question, she indicated a 4 out of 5 on
the Likert-type scale with 5 being strongly agree. Yet, when asked if students should be allowed
to speak Ebonics anytime in any setting, she indicated a 1, strongly disagreeing. On a superficial
level, her responses seemed to be in opposition to each other. She believed students should be
allowed to speak either language in the classroom, yet not speak Ebonics any time in any setting.
In fact, classroom evidence indicated that her purpose was to help students make good judgments
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
77

about when and when not to use Ebonics. This belief was consistent with existing views from the
literature that have posited that instruction should support the simultaneous development of both
languages for academic success (Cummins, 2001; Han, 2010). During the classroom observation,
Ms. Baldwin allowed students to flow back and forth between the classroom language and their
home language at their own discretion, thereby creating a “third space” environment in which the
teacher and the students shared their languages and literacies with one another to coconstruct
knowledge (Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995).
Cooperative and communal learning. Another strategy used in the LDP School
incorporated collaborative small groups in meaningful and supportive learning environments.
During one of the observations, the students were asked to get into small groups of two to four
students and work on the assignment. “So everyone now please shift your desks into a 2, a 3 or a
4.”
Ms. Baldwin took on the role of facilitator as she moved from one group to the next
checking to see if the students had questions about the assignment. “With your groups of 2 or 4,
you're going to make a claim around the assets, as well as the problems with enforcing,
monitoring and tolerating freedom of expression,” she explained. She moved around the room
kneeling down at each group’s desk level when talking to them. She used inquiry style
questioning to guide the students’ thinking; she did not provide direct answers if she was asked a
question. Instead she used clarifying questions to aid their thinking process without telling the
students what to think. The learning model Ms. Baldwin used is known for promoting language
acquisition through active problem-based learning (Freire, 1970; Vygotsky, 1978); it is an
additive view that takes into consideration the students’ literacies and prior knowledge to build
and coconstruct knowledge. Students are expected to interact cooperatively with each other and
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
78

brainstorm, question, debate, and problem solve to complete the assignment. She announced,
“The people who come up with the most, the most thoughtful, will get some bonuses. You guys
get to vote on what that is. All right?” This practice allowed the students to justify responses and
evaluate what is a “thoughtful” response. As a community, the students were responsible for the
quality of the learning.
Instructional conversations. Instructional conversations are discussion-based lessons
that rely on students building on each other’s knowledge. Gutierrez (2008) has called this “third
space discourse.” During the observation, when the students were working in groups, one group
was confused about exactly what it was supposed to be finding in the text.
Student 1: “What benefits?”
Student 1: “Oh, I see what you saying.” [Her response is a delayed reaction to
understanding what her table partner had just explained.]
Student 2: “I think she said we're supposed to explain the positives and negatives and
the American impact in the story.”
Student 1: “Do we suppose to . . . ”
Student 2: “I don't know whether she wants us to do that.”
Student 2: “Ms. Baldwin?”
Ms. Baldwin: “Excuse me. Is there a problem?
Students: “Yes.”
Ms. Baldwin: [Assessing the situation quickly, she ascertains the crux of their confusion
and asks], “How is this an issue of freedom of expression?”
Student 1: “Because you shouldn't be allowed to say— you shouldn't have the
freedom to be able to, like, talk to people, like, that are rude or, how do you say?”
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
79

Student 2: “Directly to that person because there are people that, you know, like,
consider it fine to talk to people as a group. Like comedians, they're pretty much disrespecting
everybody because that's what people think is funny.”
Student 3: “And they find it funny. But if you say it directly to a specific person . . . ”
In the discourse above, the students were building on each other’s knowledge to complete
the assignment. The teacher did not answer their question directly by telling them what to write
or think; she asked them a question to make them think deeper. These procedures showed a
pattern of discussion-based lessons, in which students’ ability to learn from each other is valued.
Academic language development. Academic language is developed through teaching
specialized language from the texts and the classroom; it can include vocabulary, grammar,
sentence structures, patterns, and features of the target language. During the observation, the
researcher saw content-specific word walls posted and white boards filled with words that could
be used for constructing sentences. The lists on the white boards provided various ways to
construct sentences: “Townsen: argues, believes, promotes, supports . . . ” The heading of one
list of verbs on a white board read, “Audition some verbs.” The list had 30 verbs, including
words such as, “contests, challenges, connects, shifts, judges, attempts, compares . . . ” On the
opposite side of the room was another wall with posters that were specific to the content of the
argument, and the list included definitions. The heading on the poster read, “Liar, Liar, Pants on
Fire,” and the words with definitions were listed underneath the heading, “Dubious, fabricated,
hypocrisy, slander, and spurious.”
During the focus group, the students spoke about Ms. Baldwin’s assistance in their
vocabulary development. One student did not seem to think everyone used the words, and was
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
80

somewhat dismissive of the vocabulary development strategy that appeared impressive to
someone observing.
“She give us vocabulary words. [Note the s-v agreement variation here.] We never write
them down. Some of us use it. Like, she'll help us to put it in a sentence to make it look
way more . . . [referring to the posters]. We still don't use it, but they're there, and it's
different vocabulary words on the back of the words that you'll never notice. I don't use
them. But dey dere. Just look at them. That's a big word. There's a lot of words she uses.
Vocabulary, punctuation, how to start something off, a lot of examples.”
The use of Ebonics was evident throughout the focus group discussion. One student responded
that Ms. Baldwin was a “walking dictionary,” and “She knew a lot.”
As for academic development specifically in their writing, the students shared how Ms.
Baldwin tells them to write how they feel and then revise it. One student explained,
“When we do our writings and drafts, and if we write something a certain way or if we
say something a certain way when we're going over the topic and giving examples . . .
she tells us to speak on how we feel about whatever the topic is.”
Another student completed the example being shared,
“And [if] we say something a way that wouldn't really fit into our essays, she'll re-word it
for us and be like, ‘This is what you mean,’ and tell us the correct way to say it. So I feel
like that's helpful.”
In this scenario, the students believe Ms. Baldwin’s strategy of vocabulary development is
helpful for their acquisition of SE. In this illustration, it is clear that the teacher is working with
students to coconstruct knowledge. Students and the teacher are operating on a Vygotskian
principle that asserts language is learned in the midst of activity (Vygotsky, 1978).
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
81

Advanced graphic organizers. The researcher did not observe the students using
graphic organizers; however, during one observation, the students were preparing information to
go on chart paper. “But you want it to be pretty balanced. I'll put chart paper up. Some of you
will be ready for it today. And there are markers.” Ms. Baldwin was having the students prepare
to transfer and organize their group work onto chart paper.
Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching. In the observations and interviews, a
another strategy emerged that was not one of the six strategies promoted by the LDP; however, it
was undoubtedly in the spirit of the LDP and part of the theoretical framework of which the LDP
is grounded. Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching (CLR) is grounded in the work of
Hollie (2012) and that of other scholars who promote pedagogy that is inclusive of diverse
cultures and respects the student’s experiences as well as their linguistic differences (Gay, 2010;
Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Ladson-Billings, 2009; LeMoine, 2001)
During the observation, when Ms. Baldwin focused on content and specific skill
development (literary analysis), the focus was not on grammar or speaking SE; she was more
interested in students being engaged in a high level of cognitive discussion by identifying textual
evidence to convey their ideas. The teacher described this priority in her interview, and the
students echoed it in the student focus group. The students expressed the need to sometimes use
their home language to really get their point across. They felt the flexibility to use their home
language shows Ms. Baldwin’s respect for their home language and advances their ability to
engage in high levels of cognitive engagement regarding the text. One student shared, “She want
us to express ourselves in the best way we can, in any form, and she understands, and she doesn't
take it the wrong way.” (Note the student’s s-v agreement consistent with Ebonics.) One of the
students felt that being allowed to have discussions without an emphasis on how to talk a certain
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
82

way made them feel like they were not being judged. Another student added, “It’s just us
expressing ourselves in different ways.” Not feeling judged made the students want to participate
more in class discussions, “You don't feel judged. You like, ‘Okay. I wanna talk more.’ . . . she's
not pushing us away or anything or making us feel dumb or anything like that." One student
contrasted this feeling with the effect of feeling judged by another teacher. The student expressed
reluctance to participate in classes where the teachers made her feel judged. She remembered one
teacher in particular who was known for pulling students aside if they spoke a certain way and
admonished them about language use that was not Standardized or perceived as “proper.” The
student noted that the teacher was African American and even believed she was familiar with
Ebonics, “They [teachers] know what it [our speech] means.” The student felt judged because the
teacher was not accepting of Ebonics as a legitimate language; consequently, she felt
uncomfortable to share in discussions in this teacher’s classroom. One student, in referring to her
experience in a school that was predominately Armenian, characterized a teacher’s response to
her home language thusly:
“It could be like the environment. Because I went to a school that was like mostly
Armenian . . . they talk a different way. So when I spoke to them it was like different or
funny. And then it depends on the teachers . . . some of my teachers, they really didn't
like it. He said, ‘No, that's not how you say it.’ I'm like, ‘I'm good’” [indicating the
student has resolved to discontinue speaking at that time].
Then she shared another scenario:
“But if it's like another teacher, and you be like, ‘What's up?’ They, like, ‘Excuse me?’
Like, this one teacher, she'll pull you out the class if you come to her like that, and be
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
83

like, ‘No, it's hi and how is your day?’ And we be like, ‘Okay. My bad. Hi, how was your
day?’”
That the language being rejected was clearly slang—and not Ebonics—did not allay the personal
rejection the student felt because of her language. In other words, the student was not making a
distinction between slang and Ebonics, she merely felt rejected because of her use of her own
language.
In contrast, when speaking of Ms. Baldwin, the student stated, “It's kind of more like
she's our friend and teacher at the same time, but she's gonna give us discipline, but she gonna be
cool so we can actually be more comfortable and talk to her.” (Note the student’s use of “be” in
the remark.) In the LDP School focus group the students repeatedly expressed negative feelings
about teachers who made them feel they were being judged because of their language. The
students held negative views about the teachers who they believed were judging them. Later in
this chapter, the researcher will share findings from the non-LDP School when the students did
not feel like they were being judged for using their home language. The interview with the
students also exposed confusion about the language; they kept offering examples of slang instead
of Ebonics. The example above, in which the student shared her opinion about being judged for
saying, “What’s up?”, is more of an informal greeting than an example of Ebonics. This was but
one of many examples in which students confused slang or informal register with Ebonics. They
often didn’t seem to know the difference.
The students had numerous examples of feeling they were being judged because of their
language variations. The students’ comments are reflected in the research that has specified the
role of communication in helping create an environment of care, trust, and confidence in the
teacher’s ability to teach. Hollie (2012) has defined this type of environment as having the three
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
84

Rs: rapport, relationship, and respect. The absence of these elements can compromise the
learning environment. The case in which the student described herself shutting down and not
participating in the learning because she felt judged offered an example of damaging the teacher-
student relationship by disrespecting students’ attempts to express themselves in their home
language. However, it is also important to make distinctions between informal slang and
Ebonics. Situations like this also call into question the manner in which teachers address
students’ slang versus the manner in which they approach students’ use of Ebonics.
Another student expressed the anguish felt from being rejected when a teacher told her
that speaking a certain way was rude. She reflected during the focus group, “But you just trying
to get your point across and you don't know the right words to say it, but you wanna say it.” This
feeling stands in contrast to the comment about Ms. Baldwin. “[Ms. Baldwin will] make you feel
comfortable and [you] wanna talk more and wanna raise your hand and answer her questions and
stuff, and you feel more free . . . freedom of expression and stuff like that.” (The term “freedom
of expression” had recently been used in a class lesson, and now the student was aptly applying it
to this situation.) More poignant were students’ feelings that sometimes the same emotion could
not be shared unless they spoke in their home language. Ms. Baldwin did not correct the
students’ use of Ebonics during discussions, although she did provide written feedback on
writing assignments, as mentioned earlier. One student described how Ms. Baldwin listened to a
statement a student expressed in her or his home language and then offered a modeled sentence
that paralleled the idea the student shared in academic language or SE, depending on the
circumstances. Ms. Baldwin mentioned this modeling in her interview. She modeled by restating
the comment. The students were aware of this practice as expressed in the focus group and were
not offended in the same way they expressed feeling offended when a teacher pulled them aside
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
85

to correct their use of Ebonics. It appears their relationship with Ms. Baldwin shaped their views
of her modeling or, as they referred to it, “correcting” them.
Disengaged learners. Even though one will get the impression from the findings that the
entire class was engaged in high order thinking and participation, it must be noted that during the
classroom observation, all students were not actively engaged. There was a small group of
students that did not share, talk, or use their language in the whole-class discussions. However,
they were on task during the small group discussions. Overwhelmingly, the same group of
participants led the majority of the discussion. It seemed that the more vocal students were the
African American students with few exceptions; yet, there were still African Americans in the
class that did not participate in the whole-class discussion.
Knowledge and Perceptions of Ebonics: Teacher of the LDP School
3. How do teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of Ebonics influence the teaching and
learning relationship between teachers and African American students whose first language is a
form of Ebonics?
The third research question asked how teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of Ebonics
influenced the teaching and learning relationship between teachers and African American
students whose first language was a form of Ebonics. To learn more about the participating
teachers’ knowledge and perceptions, the researcher triangulated observations, interviews, and
focus groups. Ms. Baldwin was knowledgeable about the LDP program and when asked about
her familiarity with Ebonics she responded with a 3 out of 5, indicating “some familiarity.” She
considered herself a speaker of Ebonics on occasion, and felt that she often understood someone
speaking Ebonics. Some of the interview questions were designed to explore perceptions of
Ebonics, and attempted to filter out confusion about Ebonics, slang, and SE. Ms. Baldwin
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
86

answered a “5” indicating she “strongly agreed” with the statement about Ebonics having
regular grammatical rules like other languages, and selected a 1 out of 5 indicating she “strongly
disagreed” with Ebonics being a form of slang used by African Americans. Although Ms.
Baldwin did not see Ebonics as a form of slang, she confused slang with Ebonics in the two
sample sentences provided. Ms. Baldwin answered two of the eight questions in a manner that
revealed gaps of knowledge about features consistent with Ebonics versus those categorized as
slang. She was presented with two sentences that use slang. One sentence stated, “That car is
straight up dope,” and the other one stated, “We were just chillin’ in the hood.” Both sentences
were examples of slang, and Ms. Baldwin identified both as Ebonics. Rickford (2002) and
Pullum (1999) have made clear distinctions between Ebonics and slang. Whereas Ebonics is rule
governed and has a distinguishable syntactical pattern; slang does not. Slang does not have
grammar of its own; it is vocabulary and not syntactical at all; it is dependent on a host language;
and, it changes often and quickly. Confusion about Ebonics and slang is consistent with the
literature that has cited examples of how the general population and the media often confuse
slang with Ebonics (Dillard, 1977; Rickford & Rickford, 2002). Ms. Baldwin’s confusion about
the difference between slang and Ebonics was reflected in her teaching and in her students’
understanding of the difference, as evident in the focus group.
There was also noticeable confusion between Ebonics, slang, and profanity in the student
focus group; even after definitions and examples were provided for clarity, the students were not
clear on the difference. When the students were asked if they thought they spoke two languages,
one student responded thusly,
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
87

“Oh, yes, it's like different. If I'm in class, I'm going to speak properly. But if I'm with my
friends . . . we use certain words. Like we'll understand, and then we won't use the whole
word. Like, "I gotta," or like the word "craze" for "crazy," or "you going craze."
These were examples of slang, not Ebonics. The student’s response indicated confusion between
Ebonics and slang or between informal and formal register. To an extent, the teacher contributed
to their confusion. She was not clear on the difference between Ebonics and slang.
When asked whether she knew that up to 85% of African Americans spoke Ebonics, Ms.
Baldwin noted she does not personally know any national statistics on the percentage of African
Americans that spoke Ebonics; in fact, she felt the question was “dangerous,” although she did
not elaborate as to why she felt it was a dangerous question. However, she did acknowledge that
Ebonics is widely spoken.
To another question inquiring whether Ms. Baldwin believed African Americans have
distinct speech patterns, she perceived it to be a flawed question. She responded by saying,
“Everyone has a distinctive speech pattern . . . but if they’re [you are] talking about recognition
and [whether] I can identify an African American by a distinctive speech pattern, I strongly
disagree.” Her response demonstrated that she recognized all people as having distinct speech
patterns, not just African Americans. The researcher inferred from this response that Ms.
Baldwin felt there was a problem in associating a speech pattern with a particular race. She
acknowledged that what is known as Ebonics has specific speech patterns, which are shaped by
culture and social context. In so doing, she was acknowledging that common features of Ebonics
result from the predictable rules from a common source (i.e., West Africa and Niger Congo). It is
not the case of a group of people making up language as they go or who cannot simply get
English “right.”
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
88

Ms. Baldwin did not appear to hold a deficit view of Ebonics, as indicated when she was
asked whether she thought speaking Ebonics indicated a person was uneducated, or whether
speaking Ebonics resulted from imperfectly learned English. She rejected the notion that
speaking Ebonics was a barrier to thinking critically. When asked if students needed to speak SE
to think logically, she strongly disagreed.
When asked if Ebonics resulted from carelessness when speaking, she indicated a 2 out
of 5, meaning she somewhat disagreed. She justified her response, “Because I think sometimes
some of us recognize the occasion, and that would be in many different ways the speaking
situation.” She clarified her usage of the word “occasion,” by substituting the word “occasion”
with “register,” which could be her way of explaining how speaking in an informal register may
sound like careless talk. Her responses in this section were consistent with the literature that has
promoted Ebonics as a different, and not deficit, language.
Other questions in the interview were designed to explore the teachers’ perceptions about
whether Ebonics was appropriate in various settings in and out of the classroom, such as during
discourse, during instruction, and outside of the classroom. Ms. Baldwin “strongly disagreed”
that students should be allowed to speak Ebonics at any time.
Ms. Baldwin felt there were challenges that affected African American students’
performance related to higher-level literacies. Mostly because of students lacking confidence,
she felt that a huge amount of intimidation impacted performance. However, “If they [the
students] have teachers who can be trustworthy, and teach and not judge, I think that there
shouldn’t be a problem,” she added. She continued on this subject and shared that she believed
the students hold a perception that “proper speech,” means you are a “sellout,” or that one is
“speaking white,” and that these perceptions can be barriers.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
89

The timing of the research coincided with the results of the HSEE exam coming out. All
four of Ms. Baldwin’s juniors who had not previously passed the proficiency test received
notification that they had indeed passed this time. One student received a near-perfect score, two
others received “advanced” rating, and one received “proficient.” In some schools, students who
had not passed the HSEE would not be allowed to take an AP course. In many schools, juniors
and seniors who have not passed the HSEE are relegated to remedial classes to focus on skills
that will help them be successful in passing the HSEE.
Findings from the Non-LDP School
In this study, two teachers were selected from two schools in the same district. One
teacher was in a school identified as an LDP School and the other was selected from a school
that did not have the LDP program. At the time of this study, the LDP program was established
in only two high schools in the district. The LDP program trained teachers in researched-based,
culturally responsive teaching strategies to assist SELs in SE proficiency; what teachers use in
schools without an LDP is not known. This study sought to compare the strategies used in both
schools.
Background of the Teacher of the Non-LDP School
The teacher interview, Ms. Hughes (pseudonym), had been teaching for nine years and
held a bachelor of arts degree in English and a minor in linguistics. She held a clear credential
and was knowledgeable about language variations from classes she had taken outside of the
school district. She was not knowledgeable about the LDP program, nor had she been trained in
LDP strategies. Because of exposure to linguistics courses, there was evidence that she was
familiar with the theoretical framework that undergirded the structure of LDP. English was her
native language, and she had learned Spanish in school. She had had three classes related to
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
90

bilingual education from a local state university and from the educational classes offered through
the school district in which she worked. She emphasized that the training through the district had
mostly targeted Spanish speakers. “At least every semester and during the semester…every
summer, we receive offers for bilingual training . . . their ELD is always [related to] Spanish.”
She mentioned that even though students come from other areas, such as The Islands and
Nigeria, speaking French and English, the students were put in classes that taught English for
Spanish speakers. She had also taken one course in language development in children from a
local state university and one formal language course from the same university (i.e., linguistics
and sociolinguistics). Her self-reported level of linguistic knowledge was a 3 out of 5, where 3
reflects knowledgeable and 5 is very knowledgeable. Ms. Hughes had had a Black English class
at a local state university and credited much of her knowledge about Ebonics to that course. She
had had no Ebonics training through her school district. The term, Standard English learner
(SEL) was recognized by the district in the English Master Plan, but Ms. Hughes was not
familiar with the term SEL. She defined Ebonics as, “A way to shift some of the funds allocated
for foreign language that were targeted for Spanish-speaking students and assist non-standard
English speaking students of color, specifically, ‘Black non-standard speaking students.’” She
saw the term Ebonics as a “new title given to a way that kids have spoken forever, but to try to
create it as a category of foreign language in order to get some of the foreign language finances.”
Strategies in a Non-LDP School
2. What strategies are teachers in urban secondary classrooms using to assist African
American students in acquiring SE in a school that HAS NOT implemented a program that
includes professional development and teacher support for a targeted program that incorporates
researched-based, culturally responsive teaching strategies.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
91

The strategies employed in the non-LDP School were influenced by the way instruction
was structured, and the difference may be attributable to the class type: HSEE preparatory versus
AP language. Whereas Ms. Baldwin’s class was an AP language class, Ms. Hughes’s class was a
HSEE preparatory class. Both classes had students who had not passed the HSEE. Instruction in
Ms. Hughes’s class was structured strikingly differently from the classroom at the LDP School.
The structure of Ms. Hughes’s class was organized by time allotments for silent reading,
responses to the silent reading on a worksheet called the Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) form;
reviewing homework; and whole class discussions. The data collected from Ms. Hughes’s class
had to be analyzed using a different set of themes because she did not use the same strategies as
Ms. Baldwin. The six strategies apparent in the LDP School were not evident in the non-LDP
School. This was not surprising, as the LDP School had been trained to use those strategies. If
the strategies had been found in the non-LDP School, it would have been surprising. The
strategies observed in Ms. Hughes’s class, for the most part, were not considered effective,
according to the research (Gay, 2010; Godley & Escher, 2012; Gutierrez, 2008; Hollie, 2001;
Ladson-Billings, 2009; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007)
Silent reading. The silent reading and completing the SSR form took approximately 10
minutes. Krashen (1993) has asserted that free choice reading and SSR for 15 minutes daily has
the equivalent impact on achievement as 45 minutes of direct instruction. The SSR form is one
way to check for understanding and make the students accountable for what they are reading.
Classroom discourse. The classroom discourse relied on the students having previously
completed worksheets that were in the same style of the HSEE. The sheets had excerpts from
passages and five multiple-choice questions. Ms. Hughes required the students to use textual
evidence to justify their answers on the worksheets. They could not simply fill in the bubble;
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
92

they were required to write an excerpt from the passage where they derived their answer. The
homework was reviewed in whole-class format with a teacher-led discussion; this portion was
approximately 10 minutes. The teacher asked questions and the students shared the textual
evidence they used to justify their responses. The class was small, with five students—four of
whom were African American. During the class discussion, few students were engaged and one
student who happened to be African American responded to most of the questions. The other
students were disengaged. At one point, the teacher admonished the other students, “I love it
being the me and Adriana hour too, but I need some other voices to pipe up, as well.” The plea
for increased participation went unmet as the same student continued to respond, and with few
exceptions, the other students did not increase their participation. Neither school had a formal
procedure to increase equity in participation, nor was there a way to increase engagement from
students who were not participating (e.g., CLR Student Engagement Protocols, Kagan strategies,
equity sticks). One student was doing something with her cell phone in her lap. Ms. Hughes
addressed the cell phone use: “Your lap is not that interesting,” letting the student know that her
off-task behavior had been identified. The student sneaked to take a picture of something.
Ms. Hughes reviewed the homework with the students in a discussion format based on an
excerpt of Old Man and the Sea and used plot elements (e.g., exposition, rising action, climax,
and resolution) to review the homework and discuss the story. The students did not demonstrate
knowledge of the plot elements by their academic names, but with coaching they did show some
familiarity with their function. For example, one student did not know the academic term for
resolution, yet she knew it by its function and called it, “the outcome” of the story.
Correcting-contrastive analysis challenges. The observations and interviews with the
teacher and students made apparent that Ms. Hughes corrected the students’ use of their first
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
93

language, which sometimes took on the form of contrastive analysis. In the focus group, Ms.
Hughes’s students jokingly explained how in class, “You have to talk proper . . . Because some
teachers like, oh, I’m taking points.” The students cited situations where they must speak in SE.
“I’m not fixin’ to or I’m not finnah’ to. I can’t say it like that, because in this class you ‘have to’
or I’m ‘going to,’ you know, the proper way.” It is noteworthy that the students indicated being
corrected by Ms. Hughes, and when they recalled these instances they spoke fondly and shared
these cases with sentiments of respect for their teacher. They seemed to view the teacher’s
correcting as a demonstration of care and respect. This observation was made during a class
session when a student was getting help from Ms. Hughes on a personal matter where she was
trying to understand shipping instructions. In several sentences, the student had used the verb say
and correctly conjugated it according to the grammatical structure in Ebonics, “It say” and
“That’s what it say.” However, near the end of the conversation, the student said, “It say Little
Rock . . . ” the teacher corrected her in a quick undertone, “Says,” and the student began her
sentence again; this time she substituted the Ebonics structure with the SE version of subject-
verb agreement, “It says.” The research cautions against interrupting and correcting students
when using their home language because it does not produce the teacher’s desired result to
decrease use (Wheeler, 2009).
Ms. Hughes did not hold the opinion that Ebonics should be eradicated, as indicated in
her response during the interview. When asked what strategy she engaged when students used
their own language during classroom discourse or on a writing assignment, she said it depended
on the severity of the “mistake.” She explained,
As long as it’s not anything egregious, as long as the mistake is not horrible. You know,
if it’s a subject-verb agreement thing. Especially in HSEE prep, I may change it around
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
94

and say, “You need to do this. He do what? He what?” So I might have them restate it
and have them think about what they actually said and just do a restatement . . . they can
write it down the way that it was stated and then correct it in their Reader’s Writer’s
Journal for extra credit.
It was unclear whether the teacher had provided information about grammatical rules governing
the SE use she was promoting. As for writing, Ms. Hughes explained how she responded
differently to her students’ writing depending on the severity of the mistake. If it was a “simple”
subject-verb agreement situation, she made a notation in the margin, “SVA,” and the student was
expected to “fix” it later. Her strategy changed if there were numerous instances of the same
issue. She made time to give mini-lessons on the issue. In some cases, the student may need to
go back and retype the essay. Retyping the essays was another strategy she relied on; the
students received assistance from the software because of the programs’ ability to underline
grammatical mistakes. Although this form of instruction is similar to contrastive analysis, the
approach goes more toward correcting the students’ use of their language versus analyzing the
two languages with the goal of understanding the languages.
On another occasion (this time during a class discussion), a student was struggling with
identifying the internal and external conflicts in discussing the story. “I want to explain to you
that I don’t know what that stuff be meaning.” The teacher responded, “Okay, that's enough be’s
cut it out” referring to the student’s use of the habitual verbal marker be often used in Ebonics to
convey a recurring action or event (Green, 2002). In this instance, there was not a focus on the
content of what the student knew. The focus was on the grammar without consideration for what
the student knew. The teacher continued, “Shut it down. I don't want to have an argument. I
know we have an audience [referring to the researcher in the room], and that's a beautiful thing,
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
95

but stop it; it’s too much.” The student did not understand the “correction” being offered at this
time and asked her classmate in a whispered tone, “I said the “B—“ word?” Apparently the
student thought the comment, “That’s enough be’s” was a reference to profanity and was not
able to make the connection the teacher intended. According to research, correcting students can
have an adverse effect on student engagement whereby students are reluctant to participate
because they do not want to be ridiculed. Ms. Hughes’s students didn’t express that they felt
devalued, but they also did not participate in the discussion (Godley & Escher, 2012; Labov,
1995; Smitherman, 1977). The researcher was led to believe that even though the students were
not offended by being corrected, it seemed to negatively impact their participation. The outcome
of overcorrecting was the same (not participating in the discussion) even though the feelings
associated with being corrected were not the same.
Performance incentives. Ms. Hughes used incentives in the form of tickets to award
students for completing homework. The tickets could be used for various rewards such as
bathroom passes and homework passes. In a particular observation, the tickets were issued for
completing the homework. A student was upset because she misunderstood the assignment and
completed the wrong page. She felt that she should have been given the ticket anyway for her
effort. Because she did not complete the correct work, she was limited in her participation during
the class discussion. The teacher was encouraging performance focus instead of mastery focus by
using incentives for homework. Although effort is necessary for mastery to eventually occur, the
student did not get the relationship between completing her homework and mastering the subject
(Pintrich & Zusho, 2002).

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
96

Knowledge and Perceptions of Ebonics: Teacher of the Non-LDP School
3. How do teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of Ebonics influence the teaching and
learning relationship between teachers and African American students whose first language is a
form of Ebonics?
When asked specifically about her familiarity with Ebonics, Ms. Hughes reported a 4 out
of 5, with 4 being somewhat familiar. She said she was familiar with Ebonics due to her working
environment and classes she has taken. She believed she always understood someone speaking
Ebonics, but did not consider herself a speaker of Ebonics.
Some of the interview questions designed to explore perceptions of Ebonics also sought
to filter out confusion of Ebonics, slang, and SE. Ms. Hughes appeared to show knowledge about
features consistent with Ebonics versus those categorized as slang. Her responses indicated that
she knew the difference. In the student focus group at Hughes, there was also noticeable
confusion relating Ebonics to slang and profanity. The students shared examples and responses
during the focus group that persistently intermingled slang, profanity, and Ebonics, which
indicated a misunderstanding of Ebonics as a language variation amongst the students. The
connection between slang and Ebonics is so persistent that even though Ms. Hughes was
knowledgeable about Ebonics and linguistics, had taken a course in Black English, and
responded that she “Absolutely, strongly agreed,” that Ebonics had regular, grammatical rules
like other languages, she left room for doubt about Ebonics being a form of slang. When she was
asked to respond to the statement, “Ebonics is a form of slang used by African Americans,” she
answered a 2 representing she somewhat disagreed, instead of 1 for strongly disagreed. Her
uncertainty is consistent with the literature that has pointed out the misconceptions of Ebonics
and slang (Rickford, 2002).
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
97

When the students were asked if they thought they spoke two languages, one student
responded, “Yes . . . because when I'm at school, I cuss . . . when I go home, I'm still hard, but I
just don't cuss . . . When I'm at school . . . I could turn professional quick.” Like their teacher, the
students were confused about Ebonics and slang. The above comment also illustrates how the
students seemed to equate formal and informal register with Ebonics. Overall, when it came to
Ebonics, slang, and profanity, there was a lack of understanding in general among the teachers
and students of both schools.
According to Ms. Hughes’s self-reporting in her interview, she seemed to have a
perception that Ebonics is a different language and not a deficit one, except some areas where
she indicated that she did not accept the use of Ebonics in her classroom because of her concern
for the students using the language accepted by society. This was notable because she had never
received training through the district in the language program. Strongly disagreeing with the
following three questions means the teacher held a different—and not deficit—view of Ebonics.
Ms. Hughes strongly disagreed in her responses, indicating that her perception about Ebonics
was that the language is different and not deficit. For example, when asked if Ebonics was due to
lack of education; if Ebonics is a result of careless speech; and if Ebonics developed from
simplified English, she indicated the strongest score for disagreeing, selecting a 1 out of 5.
Through triangulation of the data, and analysis of the observations and student focus groups, it
was evident Ms. Hughes did not see Ebonics as a tool or asset for learning. She seemed to view it
as a circumstance to be overcome in order to be successful.
There were some responses where Ms. Hughes did not “strongly disagree,” thus
indicating inconsistency with the different versus not deficit view of Ebonics. When asked if
Ebonics was imperfectly learned English, she somewhat disagreed, indicating a 2; she added,
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
98

“I’d say two because some, yet, but not all. The majority, no.” Additionally, when asked if
students speaking Ebonics were likely to have difficulty with critical thinking, she indicated
somewhat disagree, a 2 out of 5; and she somewhat disagreed when asked if students needed to
speak SE in order to think logically. This inconsistency went unresolved for the researcher, yet
upon reflection it seemed that Ms. Hughes did not hold a purely respectful view of Ebonics. She
seemed to appreciate its history and she accepted the history as true. She did not seem to equally
regard it as SE. She did not believe it was good for the students to use Ebonics in learning
environments, a view in direct opposition to what researchers have posited (Cummins, 2001;
Han, 2010, 2012; Hollie, 2001; Godley & Escher, 2012)
Other questions were designed to explore the teachers’ perceptions about whether
Ebonics was appropriate in various settings in and out of the classroom such as during discourse,
during instruction, and outside of the classroom. Ms. Hughes “somewhat disagreed” that students
should be allowed to speak Ebonics at any time and during classroom discourse, indicating a 2
out of 5. She saw the use of Ebonics as a significant challenge to students’ progress because
students were evaluated by readers and speakers of SE. She explained:
In our society, it doesn’t matter if you have great ideas if you don’t present them the right
way, or the standard way, or the most recognized way. Your ideas are dismissed. They’re
marginalized. It’s a challenge for our students because they look at it as talking white.
No. I want you to communicate in the way that people think you’re communicating
effectively and want to listen to what you’re saying. There’s a time and a place for
everything. . . . I code switch with the best of them. But I know that I can’t do that in
class because you guys are listening to everything that I’m saying. So I want to speak in a
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
99

way that is more standardized to the way California will accept their ideas and accept
them and employ them and validate what they’re saying.
Again, there was a dichotomy in Ms. Hughes’s responses because, in some cases, she validated
Ebonics as a language, but she also invalidated its appropriateness in the classroom. She was
concerned about students speaking it in classroom settings because she believed that if students
were allowed to speak Ebonics in the classroom setting, they would not be able to write in the SE
register. “Unfortunately, our students tend to write the same way they speak.” She added, “When
you see someone writing in Ebonics and basically writing the same way that they speak, you
automatically get the perception that that person doesn’t know anything.” Ms. Hughes’s response
revealed a lack of understanding of the merit of building on students’ first language as a means
to scaffold them into acquiring a second language. She did not see the value of dialogue in a
third space model into which students can bring their language and the teacher brings her
language (academic English), and in that space—through modeling—students can acquire a
second language as teachers are also learning the features of students’ language to use for future
explicit instruction (Freire, 1970; Gay, 2010; Gutierrez, 2008; Hollie, 2001; Ladson-Billings,
2009; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007).
The final results of the HSEE for Ms. Hughes’s students were that two passed and two
failed. No students were advanced or proficient.
Summary
The observations, interviews, and focus groups explored the strategies, knowledge, and
perceptions two teachers held about Ebonics; one teacher was from an LDP School and the other
from a non-LDP School. It appeared that the teacher from the LDP School valued and respected
her students and believed their experiences were valuable. Consistent with the literature, she
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
100

created opportunities for them to share their experiences and engage in meaningful discourse
with her and each other. She practiced the model of a culturally relevant and linguistically
responsive educator honoring what her students brought into the classroom as something to build
upon and not eradicate. A pedagogy that uses cultural and historical references to empower
students not only intellectually, but also socially, emotionally, and politically is one that
researchers believe will ultimately yield the most culturally competent conscious citizen (Freire,
1970; Gay, 2010; Gutierrez, 2008; Hollie, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009; LeMoine & Hollie,
2007).
Ms. Baldwin did many things that researchers would agree are sound practices for
academic success for the diverse classroom of today; yet there were some areas that researchers
would agree require redirecting. The interview exposed gaps in knowledge about the relationship
between Ebonics and slang when Ms. Baldwin responded to two questions that were examples of
slang, which she said were examples of Ebonics. This misunderstanding about Ebonics was
echoed in the students’ interaction with the researcher during the focus group. The students were
not able to differentiate between Ebonics, slang, and profanity (Rickford, 2010; Rickford &
Rickford, 2002). Another characteristic of Ms. Baldwin’s class was low student participation.
The same students participated most of the time, leaving the majority of the students out of the
whole-class discourse. In this situation, not participating means less meaningful classroom
conversation, less development of academic language, and less cooperative collaboration. The
students who did not participate in the whole-class discussions were actively involved during the
small group discussions. Ms. Baldwin’s use of whole class and small group instruction was an
effective blend of strategies.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
101

To become proficient in both languages, the students needed to practice using both in the
academic setting (Cummins, 2001; Han, 2010, 2012). Although it was not one of the data
collection items, a standardized test was one of the criteria for selecting students. The researcher
would be remiss if it was not documented that all four of Ms. Baldwin’s target students
successfully passed the HSEE, with some achieving proficient and advanced marks. Distinctions
between Ms. Baldwin’s and Ms. Hughes’s knowledge of Ebonics were nuanced, and the greater
distinction was found in their pedagogy and perceptions of the value of Ebonics.
The other participating teacher, Ms. Hughes, showed great potential for a culturally
relevant and responsive educator. What she knew about Ebonics provided a background upon
which to build. She had had no formal training in the LDP program offered by the district, nor in
its framework from which to use research-based strategies, yet she was knowledgeable about
Ebonics and showed sincere commitment to teach SELs. It was surprising, however, that her
regard for the language was limited to understanding Ebonics from a historical perspective. Her
perspective on Ebonics derived from a negative view that it was being introduced into schools as
a way to get funding for speakers of Ebonics. Her instructional methods were well intended, as
observed in the study; however, triangulation of the data showed that Ms. Hughes followed the
banking model of education (Freire, 1970) when it comes to her interactions with the students.
The lesson that was observed was teacher centered and provided few opportunities for the
students to discuss the literary elements beyond the teacher asking them to identify the elements
and to answer questions stemming from the worksheet. It is highly possible that the structure of
the class was influencing this situation, as the class was designated as remedial instruction for
seniors who were yet to pass the HSEE. This arrangement spoke to the school’s view of how
students learn. It is a form of tracking that places an emphasis on remediation instead of
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
102

enrichment to increase students’ cognitive, social, and emotional growth. This arrangement
disregards research indicating that in heterogeneous settings where academic discourse takes
place, students learn from one another The instructional patterns in the non-LDP School treated
the students as receptacles to be filled by the teacher (Freire, 1970). The students’ actions were
limited to being filled, storing, and receiving information.
Ms. Hughes’s students were not free to use their first language in order to have discourse
and were corrected when doing so, as was revealed through triangulation of the data. The
restriction on students using their first language was shared during the focus group, and was
observed when the teacher responded to the student using “say” instead of “says.” Correcting
students’ use of Ebonics is not proven to be effective and it transfers the focus from content to
grammar (Cummins, 2001; Godley & Escher, 2012; Han, 2012). Engagement in meaningful,
student-centered discourse in either Ebonics or SE has been proven to have positive effects on
achievement and literacy (Godley & Escher, 2012; Hollie, 2001). When students are left out of
meaningful instructional discourse, opportunities are missed to make the conflicts and themes in
the literature relevant to the students’ lives and experiences. This type of passive learning was
observed in their learning experience. Ms. Hughes had a negative view of her students’ home
language and did not acknowledge its value or its place in the classroom to create that third space
that could act as bridge to the students’ proficiency in SE (Gutierrez, 2008).
Similar to the students in Ms. Baldwin’s class, Ms. Hughes’s students showed confusion
regarding the relationship between Ebonics, slang, and profanity. During the focus group, the
researcher had to stop and explain Ebonics and provide examples of Ebonics before continuing.
Both teachers’ responses to the questions regarding their perceptions about Ebonics
would make them appear to have a healthy view of Ebonics; however a triangulation of the data
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
103

revealed that Ms. Baldwin had a mostly healthy position on Ebonics; however, despite her
mostly positive view, her confused distinctions between Ebonics and slang not only showed gaps
in her knowledge of Ebonics, but also revealed a slightly deficit view of Ebonics that allowed her
students to equate cursing and slang with Ebonics. Ms. Hughes did not have a mostly positive
view of Ebonics, as revealed in her interview and her instruction. Ms. Baldwin acknowledged the
stereotypes surrounding Ebonics, stating, “It sometimes is looked at as a deficit model . . . the
kids that I see are often taught that it is inappropriate in any kind of school situation, and I think
we lose a lot of beautiful language because of that judgment.”
Ms. Hughes did not respect and value the students’ language even though during her
interview she answered most of the questions about Ebonics in a manner reflecting that she did.
For example, when asked if students should be allowed to speak Ebonics in the classroom, she
disagreed. In a later section of the interview she explained her concern that they were being
judged and evaluated by readers who would not care that Ebonics is rule governed. People the
students encounter will not get past the fact that the students are not speaking SE. She also said
she thought that language programs such as the LDP are designed to give African American
students an appreciation of their language, but also to draw funds from other language programs.
This is a complex issue, and Ms. Hughes’s comments are representative of that controversy
about providing resources to support SEL students (Jackson, 1997; Rickford & Rickford, 2009).
Clearly, Ms. Hughes wanted her students to learn SE, pass standardized tests, and be
successful when they graduate and have to navigate in the “real world.” What is also clear,
unfortunately, is that she did not believe that the goal of students becoming bilingual was the
solution to their proficiency in SE. The researcher would be remiss if it were not documented
that of the four students in Ms. Hughes’s class who had not passed the HSEE prior to this study,
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
104

two did pass by the end of the study. Again, the HSEE results were not part of the data collected
in the design of this study; however, it was one of the criteria used to select participants.
The students in Ms. Baldwin’s class had strong objections and feelings about their
language not being accepted. The students felt valued in her class, as was reflected in their
interviews. Ms. Baldwin had high opinions about their capacity to learn and express higher order
thinking and critical thinking skills in the instructional discourses. Her confidence in their
abilities had taken root and was observable in their behavior and in their discourse. They showed
fluid movement between languages and shared a rich learning experience with each other. The
students in Ms. Hughes’s class had a negative perception about their language, using deficit
language to describe it in contrast to their characterization of SE as “proper” and “correct.” Even
though both classes had low participation, Ms. Hughes’s class only had one student sharing each
time. The researcher did not know if the students in Ms. Hughes’s class would participate more if
they felt differently about their home language, and if the teacher did not openly correct by
interrupting their speech, but the research has suggested that such is the case (Cummins, 2001;
Han, 2012). It is important to note, however, that Ms. Hughes exhibited care and concern when
correcting students so they were not offended when corrected. The problem is whether her
strategy was preventing students from drawing upon their most valuable asset—their home
language—to facilitate learning and acquisition of a second language (Gee, 2008; Vygotsky,
1978).

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
105

Summary of Findings in Relation to Research Questions
Research Question 1
The first research question asked what strategies were being used in the LDP School to
help African American students become proficient in SE. The following findings provided
insight into the strategies used in the LDP School and their impact on learning:
The teacher in the LDP School used the six strategies recommended by the LDP in
addition to other strategies that are in line with the research of culturally and linguistically
responsive pedagogy. The strategies she used were making cultural connections, contrastive
analysis, cooperative learning environments, instructional conversations, academic language
development, and advanced graphic organizers.
The students benefited from these strategies, as evident in their rich discussions and
analysis about the text. The students coconstructed knowledge and built on each other’s
experiences and background knowledge. The students used their life experiences and knowledge
to assign meaning to the text and make the themes in the text applicable to their lives. They cited
evidence from the text, justified their responses, and interpreted quotes and passages. They used
a combination of academic language, SE, and their home language to perform these tasks. This
finding is consistent with the literature (Gay, 2010; Hollie 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009;
LeMoine & Hollie, 2007)
Research Question 2

The second research question asked what strategies were being used in the non-LDP
School to help African American students become proficient in SE. The teacher in the non-LDP
School did not follow the recommended strategies of the LDP School; the teacher was not even
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
106

aware of the program’s existence. She had limited knowledge of the research- and evidence-
based principles on which the program is based.
The difference in the type of class observed at this school from the one observed in the
LDP school accounted only minimally for the difference in the instructional strategies used by
the two teachers. Although this class observed in the non-LDP School was specifically created
for students who had not passed the HSEE, some of the students in the AP Language class
observed in the LDP School also had not passed the HSEE. Therefore, at least some of the
students in both classes needed instruction specifically intended to promote SE proficiency. The
students in the LDP School were experiencing research- and evidence-based opportunities to
learn. The teacher in the non-LDP School used mainly silent reading, whole-class discussion,
direct teaching, correcting students’ home language, and performance incentives as strategies for
instruction. This panel of strategies is inconsistent with those identified in the LDP principles.
Research Question 3
The third research question explored how a teacher’s knowledge and perceptions of
Ebonics influenced the teaching and learning relationship between teachers and African
American students whose first language is a form of Ebonics.
LDP School
• As a result of engaging in contrastive analysis, the students in Ms. Baldwin’s class
had a healthy perception about their home language and SE (LeMoine & Hollie,
2007). Ironically, their awareness about their language made them conscious of when
they were being devalued because of their language.
• Ms. Baldwin’s students felt free to use their languages when participating in class
discussions and did not fear being judged for using their own language in class. If
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
107

students were participating in academic discourses, they had more opportunities to
practice SE and academic vocabulary, and the teacher had more opportunities to
guide them through contrastive analysis. The students were allowed to practice full
inclusion language use, which incorporated Ebonics, SE, slang, and profanity on
some occasions. The students were given latitude to decide when to use which
language.
• AP classes are traditionally reserved for students perceived to be high achieving,
gifted, and talented. Not passing the HSEE by 11th grade usually carries a stigma.
The presence of students who had not passed the HSEE in the AP class demonstrated
a value on the part of the LDP school that proficiency in SE was not required for the
critical thinking and analytical skills associated with rigorous courses (Han, 2012;
Hollie, 2011; Nasir & Hand, 2006). Higher order thinking skills and nonstandardized
English use can coexist. Evidence in this study confirms earlier research that high
expectations and positive perceptions of their students lead to students’ high
expectations for themselves. It creates strong student identities. Students in Ms.
Baldwin’s class were seen arguing, debating, and showing high capacity for
constructing knowledge and analyzing literature. She had constructed a paradigm of
what it means to be a student and they have adopted this paradigm.
Non-LDP School
• Ms. Hughes believed that her practice of modeling SE, along with correcting
students’ speaking and writing, were effective strategies for assisting students in
acquiring SE. She also emphasized the need for students to practice speaking SE
in class. Research has not supported the effectiveness of correcting student
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
108

speaking but certain models of correcting students writing are recommended.
Even though the students in the non-LDP school stated that they believed the
teacher’s corrections were helpful and that being corrected was an effective way
to help them acquire SE, research has not supported that view (Godley & Escher,
2012; Hill, 2013). Neither do the classroom observations support that the
teacher’s strategies in this classroom led to student participation in classroom
discourses or use of language to mediate their own learning. Her strategies had the
opposite effect. Students were not participating, and they were not using language
to problem solve or articulate their ideas. Students characterized the teacher’s
corrections as a caring gesture; however the difference is significant between
caring that keeps students dependent on the teacher’s corrections and the kind of
caring that ensures they have the knowledge needed to make rule-based decisions
about their use of language to mediate their own learning and to participate in
classroom discourses that give access to the curriculum. Research does not
support the practice of interrupting students when they are speaking to correct
them because it is ineffective. It leads to shutting students down, refusing to speak
for fear of making a mistake. This effect was evidenced by the near silence of the
students during whole-class discussion in which only the teacher and one student
were participating.
• Ms. Hughes’s restriction on language use in the classroom, accompanied by
making on-the-spot corrections and focusing on SE as the only language allowed
in the classroom (instead of the content being learned) is known as an ineffective
learning model.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
109

• Findings showed that the strategies Ms. Hughes used did not promote ample
student practice using SE in the classroom. There was little time allotted for
speaking, and of that time, the students were not engaged (Cummins, 2001; Han,
2012). The students’ thinking was short circuited because they were not allowed
to talk in the language with which they were familiar to make meaning of what is
being learned.
The findings confirmed what the literature has said about culturally relevant and
linguistically responsive teaching. The relationship between the teacher and student influences
the learning environment. Positive and negative perceptions and expectations impact how
students engage. How the students perceive their teacher feels about them as students can have
an impact on the students’ feelings of self-worth (Cummins, 2001; Gay, 2010; Hollie, 2012;
Ladson-Billings, 2009; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Smitherman, 2000). This chapter reviewed the
findings, analysis, and interpretation of the data. The data provided evidence to answer the
study’s three research questions. Chapter 5 will discuss the findings and its implications for
future research.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
110

CHAPTER FIVE:
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
This study demonstrated the integrity in the LDP’s six strategies and the lack thereof in
the non-LDP strategies. The findings showed that the strategies used in the LDP school were
research-based, culturally responsive and proven to be effective in helping African American
SELs become proficient in SE. The strategies used in the non-LDP School were in direct
contradiction to what the literature has supported as effective strategies. Triangulation of the
teacher interviews, student focus groups, and observations made it possible to analyze the
findings and to juxtapose the teachers’ responses and students’ responses with the classroom
observations. This chapter will present a summary of the findings in relations to the research
questions, its implications for practice, recommendations for future research, conclusion, and
limitations.
Summary of Overall Key Findings
Research Question 1
• The classroom observed in the LDP school was structurally organized around the key
principles of the LDP and provided environments in which students had greater
access to heterogeneous classes that provided rigorous opportunities for students to
learn from one another through rich academic discourse.
• The teacher in the LDP School needs to strengthen her pedagogy to include students
who are reluctant to participate in academic discourse.
• Although there was evidence of the students in the LDP school using SE, less clear
was what strategies the teacher used for explicit instruction of rules governing SE.
• Using contrastive analysis to help students note the similarities and differences
between Ebonics and SE needs to be structured to include teaching grammatical rules
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
111

of both languages for students to be able to select the most appropriate language in a
conscious and informed manner.
• The teacher in the LDP school demonstrated the power of care and concern for her
students, even though evidence- and research-based strategies as found in LDP are a
more effective means of demonstrating care and concern in ways that enable students
to learn.
• Students are more apt to engage in higher order and critical thinking when they are
able to use their home language and SE as psychological tools.
• Students’ use of Ebonics was evident in the observations and in the student focus
group of the LDP school.
Research Question 2
• The classroom observed in the school that was not structurally organized around the
key principles of an LDP did not provide environments where students had greater
access to heterogeneous groups that provide rigorous opportunities for students to
learn from one another through rich academic discourse.
• The non-LDP teacher used strategies that were not consistent with research-based
strategies and did not allow students to use their first language to construct
knowledge. Rather than participate using their first language, the students struggled to
participate in SE where their competencies are not as developed.
• The teacher in the non-LDP School needs to strengthen her pedagogy to include
students who are reluctant to participate in academic discourse.
• The teacher in the non-LDP school demonstrated the power of care and concern for
her students, even though evidence- and research-based strategies as found in LDP
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
112

are more effective means of demonstrating care and concern in ways that enable
students to learn.
• Students’ use of Ebonics was evident in the observations and in the student focus
group of the non-LDP School.
Research Question 3
• Although the teachers in this study had knowledge of Ebonics, they still were unclear
about the distinctions between Ebonics and forms of contemporary slang language.
• Although both teachers had knowledge of Ebonics, and both teachers made positive
expressions of Ebonics as a language, the triangulation of the interviews, the
observations, and the student comments indicated different perceptions of its value. In
the LDP School, it was valued as a language variation. In the non-LDP School, it was
not treated as an asset but as a circumstance to overcome.
• In the LDP School, the teacher acknowledged the importance of allowing students to
use their home language in third space discourses to construct content knowledge and
to acquire Standardized Academic English.
• Perceptions of Ebonics and accompanying policies continue to be influenced by
broader societal perceptions of African Americans’ status in America.
Recommendations
• Because the LDP program is grounded in evidence and research regarding the
efficacy of pedagogy for language development, as well as culturally and
linguistically responsive pedagogy, it would be advised for educational leaders to
invest resources into programs and training rooted in the LDP principles.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
113

• Research has shown that specific instruction for ELs leads to levels of proficiency
that allow them to be reclassified, demonstrating that appropriate research- and
evidenced-based instruction is beneficial in achieving mainstream literacy (NCES
2002). SELs are entitled to similar opportunities beyond funding for a few schools
within the district. The structure of programs akin to LDP needs to be district wide
(Hollie, 2001).
• All schools come to acknowledge the existence of language variations and view
Ebonics as an asset and legitimate language.
• Understanding language variations is key to responding to the specific language
needs of all students struggling to gain access to the curriculum. Therefore, school
districts and schools need to act upon the importance of evidence-based strategies for
language development that are consistent with the emphasis on language in the
Common Core Standards to ensure that students are able to meet the standards.
Without an emphasis on language development on behalf of SELs, they are likely to
be punished by the Common Core Standards.
• Teachers could benefit from having preservice education on language variations; just
as they receive instruction in meeting the specific language needs to teach ELs, they
need training to teach SELs. If teachers were knowledgeable about language
variations, African Americans, as well as other SELs, would experience increased
opportunities to learn.
Implications for Practice
This study produced findings that may further reveal existing needs within the
educational community as they relate to African American student achievement. Based on the
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
114

findings of this study, and prior research about the impact of teachers’ knowledge and
perceptions about Ebonics, there are implications of practice for teacher preservice education and
district-wide programs.
First and foremost, this study confirmed what research has shown regarding the lack of
knowledge within schools about language variations (Hollie, 2001; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011;
Ladson-Billings, 2009; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Pearson et al., 2012). Teachers’ perceptions
and knowledge of language variations can directly impact the learning experience. Negative
perceptions have been shown to impact the teaching and learning relationship, which impacts
African American students’ academic performance (Green, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2009;
Rickford, 2002; Smitherman, 2007). There must be broader support for educating teachers on
language variations prior to their becoming credentialed. Teacher preservice training needs to
address the specific learning needs of African American students who speak Ebonics. Many
teachers do not understand the differences between Ebonics and slang. There is a creative
element to the language African Americans speak that is highly metaphoric and colorful that
intermingles with the rule-governed Ebonics. This factor is impacting the language of African
Americans and American speech as well (Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Smitherman, 2000).
Clarity on Ebonics and slang need to be clarified so teachers are better informed on the
differences (Pullum, 1999). Language is highly evolutionary; just as culture changes, so does
language. Teacher education needs to reflect changes in culture and language to meet the needs
of all students.
Along with training teachers on language variations, there must be broader
implementation of LDPs with proven success. The LDP in this study was research-based, with
culturally relevant teaching strategies that have decades of proven results. Currently, if a school
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
115

is not an LDP school, SELs are not identified and their language development needs are not
addressed. It is not clear why broader support is not evident in more schools in the district of this
study. Gains in student achievement would increase if a district of this size fully implemented
this LDP. A bold and progressive plan such as implementing an LDP district wide would serve
as a model for other districts in the nation.
African American students as members of a larger ethnic minority group are
misunderstood culturally and linguistically. Historically, they have been the subject to centuries
of racism, stereotypes, and prejudices (Hollie, 2012; Ogbu 1988). Educators need to be trained in
what it is to have culturally and linguistically responsive (CLR) pedagogy to counteract these
effects. CLR is much more than decorating classrooms with ethnic fabric and choosing
multiethnic literature; true CLR pedagogy aims to validate and affirm the students’ home culture
and language (Hollie, 2012). Teachers must be explicitly taught the theoretical pedagogy that
frames this type of responsive teaching.
Future Research
Analysis of the data and findings in this study generated more questions beyond the scope
of this study. The following are recommendations for future research.
More research needs to be conducted to study and evaluate the impact of language
programs such as LDP at the secondary level to determine its effectiveness and if it has an
impact on passage rates for high stakes tests and college success.
This study compared strategies between LDP and non-LDP schools, but questions remain
about outcomes. Research could be done to determine how LDP-eligible students in LDP schools
perform compared to LDP-eligible students in comparable non-LDP Schools.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
116

Research could build on this study and explore further strategies, but observe more
teachers in each of the schools to determine if all of the teachers use similar strategies in each
school and strengthen the generalizability of the findings.
Conclusion
One of the strongest voices in the struggle for educational equality is that of the student.
Through the voices of the students, this study affirmed what research has proven to be true about
the impact of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching. Teachers’ knowledge and
perceptions about African American students and the language they speak are critical for
teaching and learning relationship to be effective. The students’ counterstories of what they feel
about their language and the teaching and learning relationship are a clarion call for the work that
lies ahead. Knowledgeable and effective educators build on the existing knowledge and
experiences of their students, and use those literacies to scaffold and guide them to create a third
space in the classroom that will be a bridge to another literacy, one that is academic and
standardized (Gutierrez, 2008; Hollie, 2012). The knowledgeable and effective teacher
recognizes and respects her or his students’ cultures, languages, and identities because they are
valuable to the fabric of the American quilt. This research may contribute to the body of
knowledge that asserts the need for schools and districts to use research-based programs that
have proven success rates, and to realize the continuing damage done in limiting opportunities
for African American students. This research begs for justification of placing one group’s
language development needs over another’s. A recent resolution passed by the Los Angeles
Unified School district specifically focused on the needs of SELs addressed in this study. The
passing of the resolution marked a groundbreaking moment in that district’s history; more
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
117

significantly, it offered hope—hope that policies such as that will continue to be adopted and
then spread to other districts.
Limitations
Demographics played a role in being able to select classrooms that met the criteria.
Selecting classrooms became a challenge when trying to select comparable classes between the
two schools. A direct comparison was not possible since the two courses were not the same. One
course was an AP language class (11th grade) and the other was a HSEE prep class (12th grade).
Because a test does not exist to identify SELs like the one identifying EL status, there is an
inherent flaw in the use of the word as it applies to identification and proficiency. For this study,
the researcher used the accepted identification of the district in which the study was conducted.
These limitations impact the generalizability of the study to the broader audience of educators as
it relates to African American achievement.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
118

References

Alim, H. S., & Baugh, J. (Eds.). (2007). Talkin Black talk: Language, education, and social
change (pp. 15–29). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Alim, H. S., & Smitherman, G. (2012). Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, language, and
race in the US. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
American Psychological Association. (APA). (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education,
training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. The American
Psychologist, 58(5), 377. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-
report.pdf
Asante, M. K. (1990). African elements in African-American English. Africanisms in American
Culture, 19–33.
Baugh, J. (2001). Applying linguistic knowledge of African American English to help students
learn and teachers teach. Social and Historical Contexts of African American English,
319–330.
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2004). Grade-related changes in the production of African
American English. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 47(2), 450–463.
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2002). Oral language expectations for African American
preschoolers and kindergartners. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
11(1), 59–70.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Sage.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in bilingual
children. Language Processing in Bilingual Children, 70–89.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
119

Cummins, J. (2001). Empowering minority students: A framework for introduction. Harvard
Educational Review, 71(4), 649–675. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com
/docview/212261679?accountid=14749
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of
Washington.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334.
Datnow, A., & Yonezawa, S. (2004). Observing school restructuring in multilingual,
multicultural classrooms. Observational research in US classrooms: New approaches for
understanding cultural and linguistic diversity, 174–204.
Davila, B. (2012). Indexicality and “Standard” edited American English: Examining the link
between conceptions of standardness and perceived authorial identity. Written
Communication, 29(2), 180–207.
Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY:
The New Press.
Dillard, J. L. (1972). Black English: Its history and usage in the United States (Vol. 4). New
York, NY: Random House.
Dillard, J. L. (1977). Lexicon of Black English. New York: Continuum Books, 1977.
Dillard, J. L. (2008). A sketch of the history of Black English. Southern Quarterly, 45(2), 53.
Fisher, D., & Lapp, D. (2013). Learning to talk like the test: Guiding speakers of African
American vernacular English. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(8), 634–648.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
120

Flippo, R. F., Hetzel, C., Gribouski, D., & Armstrong, L. A. (1997). Creating a student literacy
corps in a diverse community. Phi Delta Kappan, 644–646.
Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or
opportunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 29–42. doi:http//dx.doi.org/10.
1353/hsj.2007.0022
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Gee, J. (2008). Discourses and literacies. In J. P. Gee (Ed.), Social linguistics and literacies:
Ideology in discourses (3rd ed., pp. 150–181). New York, NY: Routledge.
Godley, A., & Escher, A. (2012). Bidialectal African American adolescents' beliefs about spoken
language expectations in English classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
55(8), 704–713.
Green, L. J. (2002). African American English: A linguistic introduction. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.
Gutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the
classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard educational
review, 65(3), 445-472.
Han, W. J. (2010). Bilingualism and socioemotional well-being. Children and Youth Services
Review, 32(5), 720–731.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
121

Han, W. J. (2012). Bilingualism and academic achievement. Child development, 83(1), 300–321.
Harris, Y. R., & Schroeder, V. M. (2013). Language deficits or differences: What we know about
African American vernacular English in the 21st century. International Education
Studies, 6(4), 194–204. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview
/1447223054?accountid=14749
Hill, D., & Fink, L. (2013). Three mentor texts that support code-switching pedagogies. Voices
from the Middle, 20(4), 10.
Hollie, S. (2001). Acknowledging the language of African American students: Instructional
strategies. The English Journal, 90(4), 54–59.
Hollie, S. (2010). (2010, April 9). The mis-education of Black boys. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KyFWKnsnQQ
Hollie, S. (2012). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: Classroom
practices for student success. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education.
Hudley, A. H. C., & Mallinson, C. (2011). Understanding English language variation in US
schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Jackson, J. J. (1997). On Oakland's Ebonics: Some say gibberish, some say slang, some say dis
den dat, me say dem dumb, it be mother tongue. The Black Scholar, 27(1), 18–25.
Johnson, A. G. (2001). Power, privilege, and difference. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Hogan, C. M., & Chow, R. M. (2009). On the malleability of
ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 96(4), 857–869. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/a0013595
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The power of reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
122

Labov, W. (2010). Unendangered dialect, endangered people: The case of African American
vernacular English. Transforming Anthropology, 18(1), 15–27. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/652672543?accountid=14749
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in the U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Lambert, W. E., Tucker, G. R., & d'Anglejan, A. (1973). Cognitive and attitudinal consequences
of bilingual schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(2), 141.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
Piscataway, NJ: Greenwood Publishing Group.
LAUSD. (2014, December 1). Retrieved from http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/191
LeMoine, N. R. (2001). Language variation and literacy acquisition in African American
students. In J. L. Harris, A. G. Kamhi, & K. E. Pollack (Eds.), Literacy in African
American communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
LeMoine, N. R. (2003). The impact of linguistic knowledge of African American
language/Ebonics on teacher attitude toward African American language and the
students who speak AAL/Ebonics (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses (Order No. 3103935)
LeMoine, N., & Hollie, S. (2007). Developing academic English for Standard English learners.
In H. S. Alim & J. Baugh (Eds.), Talkin Black talk: Language, education, and social
change (pp. 43–55). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
123

Mallinson, C., Charity Hudley, A., Strickling, L. R., & Figa, M. (2011). A conceptual framework
for promoting linguistic and educational change. Language and Linguistics Compass,
5(7), 441–453.
Mallinson, C., & Wolfram, W. (2002). Dialect accommodation in a bi-ethnic mountain enclave
community: More evidence on the development of African American English. Language
in Society, 31(05), 743–775.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McWhorter, J. H. (1998). Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class.
Language, 74(4), 788–818.
Meier, T. (2008). Black communications and learning to read: Building on children's linguistic
and cultural strengths. New York, NY: Routledge.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Morgan, M. (2002). Language, discourse and power in African American culture (No. 20). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
National Center for Education for Statistics (NCES). (2012). Public school enrollment. Retrieved
from http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cga.asp
No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Norton, P. C. (2009). Speech-language therapist perceptions of dialect and risk for disorder in
African American English speaking children (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. (Order
No. AAI3353540)
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
124

Ogbu, J. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school
performance with some implications for education. Educational Quarterly, 29(2), 155–
188.
Ogbu, J. U. (1999). Beyond language: Ebonics, proper English, and identity in a Black-American
speech community. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 147–184.
Okoye-Johnson, O. (2011). Intangible Heritage of Standard English learners. SAGE Open.
Pearson, B. Z., Conner, T., & Jackson, J. E. (2013). Removing obstacles for African American
English-speaking children through greater understanding of language difference.
Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 31.
Perez, S. A. (2000). Using Ebonics or Black English as a bridge to teaching Standard English.
Contemporary Education, 71(4), 34–37. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com
/docview/233032478?accountid=14749
Perry, T., & Delpit, L. (Eds.). (1998). The real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the
education of African-American children. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of
cognitive and motivational factors. A volume in the educational psychology series. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pullum, G. (1999). African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with mistakes.
In R. S. Wheeler, The workings of language: From prescriptions to perspectives, 59–66.
Westport, CT: Praeger Press.
Rickford, J. R. (1999). The Ebonics controversy in my backyard: A sociolinguist's experiences
and reflections. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(2), 267–275.
Rickford, J. R. (2003). What is Ebonics? Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
125

Rickford, J. R. (2010). Geographical diversity, residential segregation, and the vitality for
African American vernacular English and its speakers. Transforming Anthropology,
18(1), 28–34.
Rickford, J. R., & Rickford, R. J. (2002). Spoken soul: The story of Black English. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Ronkin, M., & Karn, H. E. (1999). Mock Ebonics: Linguistic racism in parodies of Ebonics on
the Internet. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 360, 380.
Slang. (2014). American heritage dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.ahdictionary.
com/word/slang
Smith, E. (1998). What is Black English? What is Ebonics? The Real Ebonics Debate: Power,
Language, and the Education of African-American Children (pp. 49–58). Boston, MA:
Beacon.
Smith, E., & Crozier, K. (1998). Ebonics is not Black English. Western Journal of Black Studies,
22(2), 109–116.
Smitherman, G. (1977). Talkin and testifyin: The language of Black America (Vol. 51). Detroit,
MI: Wayne State University Press.
Smitherman, G. (2000). Black talk: Words and phrases from the hood to the amen corner. New
York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin that talk: Language, culture, and education in African America.
London, UK: Routledge.
Seligman, C. R., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). The effects of speech style and other
attributes on teachers' attitudes toward pupils. Language in Society, 1(1), 131–142.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
126

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797.
Turner, L. D. (1949). Africanisms in the Gullah dialect. Clerkenwell, UK: Reaktion Books.
US Department of Education. (2010, May 10). Title III accountability and district improvement
efforts: A closer look. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/
district-efforts.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wheeler, R. S. (2009). “Taylor Cat is Black”: Code-switch to add Standard English to students’
linguistic repertoires. In Affirming student right to their own language: Bridging
language policies and pedagogical practices, ed. by J. Cobb Scott, D. Straker, & L. Katz
(pp. 176–191). New York, NY: Routledge.
Williams, R. L. (1997). The Ebonics controversy. Journal of Black Psychology, 23(3), 208–214.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/208188534?accountid=14749
Wolfram, W. (2001). Reconsidering the sociolinguistic agenda for African American English:
The next generation of research and application. Sociocultural and historical contexts of
African American English, 27, 331.
Yellin, D. (1980). The Black English controversy: Implications from the Ann Arbor case.
Journal of Reading, 24(2), 150–154.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
127

Appendix A
Teacher Interview Comparison Chart

Questions
Non-‐LDP
School
LDP
School

Question
1
(Background)

Do
you
have
a
clear
credential
or
preliminary
credential?

Cleared
Cleared

Question
2
(Background)

Your
highest
level
of
education
is?

BA
MA
and
MS;
NB
Certified

Question
3
(Background)

What
is
your
gender?

F
F

Question
4

(Background)

What
is
your
ethnic
identity?

Black
White

Question
5

(Background)

What
is
your
age
range?

40-‐55
56+

Question
6

(Background)

How
many
years
of
teaching
experience
do
you
have?

9
36

Question
7
(Background)

Is
English
your
first
language?

Yes
Yes

Question
8

(Background)

Do
you
speak
any
other
languages?

Spanish
French,
Italian

Question
9

(Background)

If
you
speak
other
languages,
were
they
acquired
in

school
or
elsewhere?

School
French
in
school
and
in
Italy

Question
10

(Background)

Have
you
taken
any
courses
related
to
bilingual

education
or
Second
Language
Acquisition?

3
Dozena

Question
10b

(Background)

Where
were
the
courses?

CSUDH,
Learning
Zone
College
courses
and
District

Question
11

(Background)

Have
you
taken
any
courses
in
Language
Development

in
Children?

CSUDH,
1
Yes,
6

Question
12

(Background)

Have
you
taken
any
formal
language
courses,
such
as

Linguistics?
Socio-‐linguistics?

1
Yes,
4-‐6

Question
13
(Background)

On
a
scale
of
1
to
5,
5
being
the
highest,
what
is
your

level
of
knowledge
of
linguistics?
What
would
you

consider
it?
(1
low-‐5
high)

3
4

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
128

Question
14

(Background)

Have
you
participated
in
any
staff
development
or

training
related
to
speakers
of
African
American

languages?

CSUDH
Yes

Question
15

(Background)

if
you
answered
"yes"
to
any
of
the
above
questions,

what
was
the
total
duration
of
the
training
received
in

days?

9-‐12
9-‐12

Question
15b
(for
HS001
only)

(Background)

What
about
training
with
LAUSD?
Have
you
ever

received
any
Staff
Development
Training
related
to
-‐-‐
Have
you
ever
received
any
Staff
Development
Training

related
to
Ebonics?

No

Question
16

(Background)

Have
you
participated
in
staff
development
or
training

related
to
bilingual
education?

Yes
Yes

Question
17

(Background)

Have
you
taken
any
courses
or
seminars
related
to

Black
History
and/or
Black
Culture.

Yes
Yes

Question
18

(Background)

Have
you
participated
in
trainings
related
to
speakers
of

non-‐standard
languages
for
Standard
English
Language

Learners?

No
Yes

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
129

Question
19
(Knowledge)

What
is
your
own
definition
of
Ebonics?

When
I
first
heard
about

Ebonics
it
was
a
way
to

get
foreign
language

moneys
that
were
going

to
Spanish-‐speaking

students
and
do

something
to
help
non-‐
standard
speaking

students
of
color,
Black

non-‐standard
speaking

students.
There's
a
lot
of

money
poured
into

foreign
language
in
all

schools
across
all
districts

in
California.
And
to
me,

this
was
a
way
to
siphon

some
of
that
money
to

help
students
who
are

supposed
to
be
standard

speakers,
but
were
not.

And
so
that's
what
I

thought
of
it
when
I
first

heard
Ebonics;
that
it
was

just
a
new
title
given
to
a

way
that
kids
have
spoken

forever,
but
to
try
to

create
it
as
a
category
of

foreign
language
in
order

to
get
some
of
the
foreign

language
finances.

It's
a
language
with
structure
and

with
developed
cultural
meanings,

and
it's
used
in
high-‐level
literature

and
conversation,
and
that
our
kids

speak
it,
and
there
are
variations

depending
on
the
country
and

background.
And
it
has
stereotypes

about
it,
and
it
sometimes
is
looked

at
as
a
deficit
model.
And
I
think
the

kids
are
taught
-‐-‐
the
kids
that
I
see

are
often
taught
that
it
is

inappropriate
in
any
kind
of
school

situation,
and
I
think
we
lose
a
lot
of

beautiful
language
because
of
that

judgment.
And
for
kids
who
have
not

discovered
that
it
is
a
genuine

language
with
grammar
and

structure,
they
have
questions
about

it,
and
I
brought
this
in
to
show
them,

and
they
found
it
fascinating.
And
I

like
the
fact
that
they're
researching

what
they
already
know,
and
where

the
background
comes
from,
and
I

think
that's
it.

Question
20
(Background)

On
a
scale
of
1
to
5,
again,
5
being
the
highest,
to
what

extent
are
you
familiar
with
Ebonics?

4
3

Question
21

Are
you
a
speaker
of
Ebonics?
(Background)

No
Yes

Question
22

(Background)

To
what
degree
do
you
understand
someone
speaking

Ebonics?

Always
Often

Question
23
(a-‐h:
8
QUESTIONS)
(knowledge)
Shaded

responses
indicate
responses
that
are
inconsistent
with

knowledge
of
Ebonics

a.
"Where
did
you
put
my
shoes?"
NO
No
No

b.
"That
car
is
straight
up
dope."
NO
No
Yes

c.
"Don't
nobody
never
want
to
talk
to
her."
YES
Yes
Yes

d.
"We
were
just
chillin'
in
the
hood."
NO
No
Yes

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
130

e.
"My
mama
be
at
home
doin'
her
work."
YES
Yes
Yes

f.
"I
never
did
like
school
very
much."NO
No
No

g.
"She
walk
to
school
with
her
friend
sister
every
day."

YES

Yes
Yes

h.
"I
don't
have
to
do
anything
you
tell
me
to
do."
NO
No
No

Question
24
(Knowledge)

Ebonics
is
used
by
75
to
85
percent
of
all
African

Americans
at
some
time.

(1
strongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

4
3

Question
25
(Knowledge)

Ebonics
has
regular,
grammatical
rules
like
other

languages"

(1
strongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

5
5

Question
26
(Knowledge)

Ebonics
is
a
form
of
slang
used
by
African
Americans.

(1
strongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

2
1

Question
27
(perception
and
knowledge)

All
African
American
people
have
a
distinctive
speech

pattern?

(1
srongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

2
1

Question
28
(perception
and
knowledge)

Speaking
Ebonics
is
largely
due
to
lack
of
education.

(1
srongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

1
2

Question
29
(perception
and
knowledge)

Ebonics
is
most
likely
to
have
developed
from
simplified

English
or
baby
talk
from
master
to
slave.

(1
srongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

1
1

Question
30
(knowledge)

Ebonics
is
imperfectly
learned
English
using
incorrect

and
poor
grammar?

(1
strongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

2
1

Question
31
(perceptions
and
knowledge)

Students
who
speak
Ebonics
are
likely
to
have
difficulty

with
critical
thinking.

(1
strongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

2
1

Question
32
(knowledge)

Ebonics
basically
results
from
carelessness
when

speaking.

(1
strongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

1
2

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
131

Question
33
(knowledge
and
perception)

In
order
to
think
logically,
children
must
be
able
to
speak

standardized
English.

(1
strongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

2
1

Question
34
(perception
and
knowledge)

Children
should
be
allowed
to
speak
Ebonics
at
any

time.

(1
strongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

2
1

Question
35
(perception
and
knowledge)

Students
should
be
allowed
to
speak
Ebonics
during

classroom
discourse.

(1
strongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

2
4

Question
36
(perception)

Ebonics
should
be
eradicated.

(1
strongly
disagree-‐5
strongly
agree)

1
1

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
132

Question
37
(perception)

What
do
you
think
are
the
biggest
challenges
that
effect

African
American
students'
performance
related
to
their

language
differences?

Unfortunately
our

students
tend
to
write
the

same
way
they
speak,
and

so
if
-‐-‐
I'm
thinking
of
just

the
CAHSEE
right
now.

The
CAHSEE
is
read
by,

generally,
retired

teachers.
Retired

teachers,
generally,
are

old
school.
So
they're

applying
those
rules
of

grammar
that
they

learned.
And
when
you

see
someone
writing
in

Ebonics
and
basically

writing
the
same
way
that

they
speak,
you

automatically
get
the

perception
that
that

person
doesn't
know

anything.
They
could
be

making
the
greatest

argument
in
the
world,

but
if
it
is
written
in
the

same
way
a
student

speaks,
you're
going
to

miss
that
argument

because
you're
looking
for

subject/verb
agreement.

You're
looking
for
-‐-‐
you're

not
just
looking
for
pure

13ideas
of
it.

Unfortunately,
there
were

some
schools
-‐-‐
one
of

them
being
CLASS,
and
I

can't
remember
the
other

ones
-‐-‐
that
were
strictly

looking
at
the
ideas
of

students
and
grading
their

work
based
on
the
ideas

that
they
have.

The
effect.
I
think
that
higher-‐level

literacies
are
challenging
for
many

kids
in
high
school
right
now,
not
just

African
American
students.
And
I
also

think
there
are
some
crises
of

confidence,
in
terms
of
carrying
that

higher-‐level
reading,
higher-‐level

writing,
college-‐level
kind
of
things.

It's
always
presented
at
a
level,
on
a

level
not
on
-‐-‐
not
on
a
simple

learned
competency.
And
I
think
that

there's
a
huge
amount
of

intimidation
in
that
particular
piece

that
really
impacts
performance.
But
I

also
think
that
that
is
-‐-‐if
they
have

teachers
who
can
be
trustworthy
and

teach
and
not
judge,
I
think
that

there
shouldn't
be
a
problem.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
133

Question
39
(strategies)

What
do
you
typically
do
if
a
student
uses
his
or
her
own

language
in
the
classroom
during
discourse
or
on
a

writing
assignment?

During
discourse
-‐-‐
as
long

as
it's
not
anything
terribly

egregious,
as
long
as
the

mistake
is
not
horrible.

You
know,
if
it's
a

subject/verb
agreement

thing.
Especially
in

CAHSEE
prep,
I
may

change
it
around
and
say,

"You
need
to
do
this.
He

do
-‐-‐
what?
He
what?

"You
know,
so
I
might

have
them
restate
it
and

have
them
think
about

what
they
actually
said

and
just
do
a
restatement.

Again,
if
it's
something

that
I
think
they
really

need
to
actually
look
at,

they
can
write
it
down
for

extra
credit.
Write
it
down

the
way
that
it
was
stated

and
then
correct
it
in
their

Reader's
Writer's
Journal

for
extra
credit
at
the

bottom
of
the
page.
If
it's

something
in
writing,

again,
it
depends
on
how

bad
it
is.If
it's
a
simple

subject/verb
agreement,

I'll
just
write
SVA,
and

then
they
can
go
back
and

fix
it.
If
there
are
a
bunch

of
them,
I've
actually

given
little
mini-‐lessons
on

subject/verb
agreement,
if

everyone
across
the
board

had
problems
with

subject/verb
agreement
in

a
particular
essay.
Or
if

the
whole
essay
really
has

a
lot
of
problems.
Okay.

I'm
going
to
need
you
to

go
back
and
look
at
this

again
and
retype
this."

And
the
typing
here
helps,

because
it
will
have
green

lines
and
blue
lines.
So
if

they
have
grammar
issues

or
agreement
issues
and

things
like
that,
the

computer
is
actually
help

them,
as
well.

On
a
writing
assignment,
I
will
put

what
we're
calling
business
English
in

my
class.
Or
what
we're
calling
the

way
we
write
for
classes,
unless
we're

doing
creative
writing
or
we're
doing

something
where
we're
analyzing

linguistics.
I
would
write
the
grammar

in
front
of
it,
and
I
wouldn't
put
a

wrong
or
anything.
I
would
just
write

whether
it's
a
verb
agreement
or
a

way
of
saying
something.
I
write
it

directly
over
it,
and
the
kids
go,
"Oh,

that's
what
I
see."
No
value
words.

And
then
if
it's
out
loud,
I
generally

don't
have
to
do
too
much
of
it

anymore
because
kids
will
-‐-‐
kids
will

have
learned
what
we
do.
I
will
find
a

way
to
rephrase
part
of
what
that

student
said
but
not
to
correct,
never

correct.
But
I'll
try
to
get
a
sentence

that
has
that
same
pattern,
and
I
will

repeat
it
in
part
of
the
teaching
or

response
to
a
response
to
a
question.

And
then
I
may
make
eye
contact

with
the
student
frequently,
and
it

seems
to
be
effective
and
we
do
it

constantly.
And
kids
have
learned

how
to
model
that
instead
of

correcting
that
if
you're
going
to
do
a

similar
sentence,
to
do
a
pattern

because
often
unusual
preposition

issues
and
some
other
things.

Question
40
(Strategies)

Are
you
familiar
with
the
term
"Code
Switching"?

Yes
Yes

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
134

Question
40b
(Strategies)

What
does
it
mean
to
you
in
the
context
of
classroom

discourse
in
student
writing?

Just
knowing
time
and

place
for
everything.
You

know,
it's
the
same
thing
I

say
to
my
students
about

cursing.
I
curse,
but
there's

a
time
and
place
for

everything.
And
this
is

neither
the
time
nor
the

place.
This
is
where
you

put
the
best
foot
forward.

This
is
where
you're

practicing
your
skills
for

employment.
This
is
where

you're
practicing
that
face

that
you're
going
to
put

out
there
for
whomever
to

hire
you;
to
put
you
in

school;
to
give
you
a

scholarship;
whatever
it
is.

This
is
where
you
practice.

And
so
when
they
say,

"Oh,
no,
I
wouldn't
do

that."
But
you're
doing
it

now.
This
is
your
practice

time
and
you're
doing
it

now.
And
I
tell
them,

"When
I'm
home,
I'm
not

grammatically
correct
all

the
time,
more
than
my

husband
would
like
me
to

be
because
he's
like,
'Stop

correcting
me."
But
I'm

sure
things
slide
in.
And

again,
there's
a
comfort

when
you're
talking
on
the

phone
to
family.
When

you're
out
with
friends.

Things
like
that.
There's
a

comfort
level
that
you

slide
into.
And
that's
fine

for
outside
the
classroom,

but
when
we're
having

academic
discourse,
I
need

some
academic
language

behind
that.
So
that's
the

discussion
that
we
have

when
my
students
slide

into
their
Code
Switched

language.
And
there
are

some
words
that
I
just

have
to
go,
"I'm
sorry.
I

don't
even
know
what
that

means."
They'll
see
me

slowing
raising
my
hand.

They're
like,
"Ms.
Van,
I

just
got
lost.
What
word

didn't
you
understand?

Okay.
Tell
me
again,
what

it
means
when
-‐-‐
there
are

just
some"
-‐-‐
they
have
to

explain
"subbing"
to
me.
I

was
like,
"I
don't
know

what
'subbing'
is."
"It's
like

when
you
throw
a

subliminal,
Ms.
Hughes."

Yes.
I
am,
and
the
kids
are
extremely

aware
of
it,
and
I've
read
a
few

articles
on
Code
Switching.
And

someone
asked
me
to
Code
Switch

into
white
college
students,
and
I

actually
taped
some
from
UCLA.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
135

Question
41
(Strategies)

What
are
your
practices
for
providing
students

feedback
on
written
assignments?

I
have
a
litany
of
little

acronyms
like
that.
SPA.

Subject
pronoun.
Those

types
of
things.
And
again,

if
it's
something
that's

really
bad,
I'll
either
attach

a
mini-‐lesson
to
it,
or
I'll

give
the
whole
class,
a

mini-‐lesson,
depending
on

the
percentage
of
students

that
had
a
problem
the

same
thing.
So
there's

notes
at
the
bottom,
as

well.
They
get
a
rubric,
and

the
rubric
is
filled
out

stating
where
they
did

well.
Where
they
need
to

work
on.
Things
like
that.

And
then
if
it's
something

that
I
think
is
really
bad,

we
might
have
a
one-‐on-‐
one
conference,
if
they

really,
you
know,
I
think

they
worked
hard,
but
just

really
missed
the
mark.

And
there's
a
conference

to
be
had.
Yeah,
they
don't

like
conferences.

I
stress
what
they
do
well.
I

understand
line
sentence
patterns,

and
let's
say
syntactical
pieces
that
I

want
them
to
repeat
because
they're

beautifully
done.
We
are
generally

working
on
very
specific
things
in

essays,
so
I'm
very,
I'll
say,
not

negotiable
on
providing
apt
evidence

from
various
sources
and
I
will

remind
them
to
add
some.
If
they

have
difficulty
on
something
chronic,

like
finding
good
examples,
I'm
doing

one
on
one
and
work
in
small
groups,

and
today
we
worked
on
revisions

one-‐on-‐one.
And
I
think
one-‐on-‐one

is
where
you
find
out
what
the

singular
problems
are.
Things
that

almost
everyone
is
doing
or
needs

help
with
improving.
In
fact,
we

wrote
on
the
board.
We
do
modeling

of
sentences.
Here's
the
way
you
can

say
that.
This
is
the
move
you
can

make
in
a
sentence.
We
model.

Model.
Model.
They
also
have
a
lot
of

resources
in
their
notebooks
of

sentence
starters.
How
do
I
switch

from
what
I
did
to
the
next?
How
do
I

indicate
intensity
of
depth?
And
then

we
are
shoppers
of
verbs.
They
are

learning
literally
hundreds
of
verbs
so

that
-‐
and
they
learn
the
nuances.

What
is
more
intense?
What
is
a
little

softer
way
of
coming
at
it?
And
it's
a

language.
And
just
knowing
more

words
and
what
-‐-‐
how
far
up
the

adjectives
scale
they
are,
and
which

ones
are
smaller
in
degree.
I
think
it's

very
important
that
you
distinguish

when
you're
doing
good
writing
to
be

precise.
No.
That's
that
heavy.
That's

too
heavy.
I
want
something
a
little

softer.
That's
too
soft.
And
they
start

weighing.
And
we
have
intensity.
We

actually
take
5,
10
minutes
every

couple
of
weeks
and
we
look
at

intensity
levels.
Which
one's

stronger?
How
do
you
know?
And
I

know
because
of
the
example
that

that
person
used
so
they
needed
that

stronger
verb,
and
how
do
I
know

that
when
I
see
it
in
text
if
I'm
reading

more
carefully.
So
all
kind
of
things.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
136

Question
42
(a-‐e;
5
questions)
(Perceptions
and

Knowledge)

What
do
you
believe
is
the
goal
of
Language

Development
Programs?

a.
To
teach
them
Ebonics?
No
No

b.
Provide
instruction,
using
Ebonics
as
a
resource?
Yes
Yes

c.
Help
them
acquire
Standardized
English
in
addition
to

Ebonics?

Yes
Yes

d.
Help
them
acquire
standardized
English
in
place
of

Ebonics?

No
No

e.
Give
children
an
appreciation
of
their
home

language?

Yes
Yes

Question
43
(perceptions)

Is
there
anything
else
that
you
would
like
to
comment

about
regarding
Ebonics
that
was
not
covered
in
the

questionnaire?

Not
that
I
can
think
of
now

because
I
ramble
a
lot.

it's
almost
part
of
educational

culture…language
variation
as
a

deficit
language.
Beautiful
literature

is
written
in
Ebonics
and
great

philosophy
comes
through
it.

If...predominantly
white
teachers

who
do
not
have
experience
with

communities
where
Ebonics
is
part
of

the
culture...that's
where
bias,

racism,
deficit
depths
of
model

thinking
that
can
be
extraordinarily

destructive
to
kids.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
137

Appendix B
Matrix of Findings

Research question 1 with corresponding findings, recommendations, and implications
Research Questions and the
significance of this question
to the research
Where were
the data
found? Which
data collection
methods were
used to gain
this
information?
Findings Recommendations Implications
RQ1: What strategies are
teachers in urban secondary
classrooms using to assist
African American students in
acquiring Standardized English
in a school that has implemented
a program that includes
professional development and
teacher support for a targeted
program that incorporates
researched-based, culturally
relevant teaching?

Significance:
Instructional strategies are
important to assist students in
gaining access to the curriculum
if the language of the student is
not the same as the language in
the curriculum.

To identify instructional
strategies teachers not trained in
a language development
program may perceive as
appropriate for SEL instruction.
Teacher in LDP
School
Students in LDP
School

Teacher and
student
interviews and
classroom
observations.
Schools that are structurally organized around the key principles of the
LDP provide environments where students have greater access to
heterogeneous classes that provide rigorous opportunities for students
to learn from one another and the teacher through rich academic
discourses.

The teacher in the LDP school needs to strengthen her pedagogy to
include students who are reluctant to participate in academic
discourse.

Although there was evidence of the students in the LDP school using
SE, less clear was what strategy the teacher uses for explicit
instruction of rules governing SE.

The LDP teacher demonstrated the power of care and concern for her
students, even though evidence-and research-based strategies as found
in LDP are more effective means of demonstrating care and concern in
ways that enable students to learn.
Because the LDP program is
grounded in principles
regarding the efficacy of
pedagogy for language
development, as well as
culturally and linguistically
responsive pedagogy, it
would be advisable for
educational leaders to invest
resources into programs and
curriculum that are rooted in
the principles of LDP.
Negative perceptions have been shown to
impact the teaching and learning
relationship, which impacts African
American students’ academic
performance (Green, 2001; Ladson-
Billings, 2009; Smitherman, 2007;
Rickford, 2002). Perhaps the reason some
educational leaders and institutions prefer
to dismiss the significance of culture and
language in education is the same reason
society would prefer it be ignored.

Students in classrooms of schools that
allow them to construct exposure to
perform and demonstrate higher level of
cognitive engagement. And confidence in
their ability
Students in schools and in classrooms
That allow them to construct knowledge
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
138

Students are more apt to engage in higher order and critical thinking
when they are able to use their home language and SE as
psychological tools.
Understanding language
variations is key to
responding to the specific
language needs of all students
struggling to gain access to
the curriculum. Therefore,
school districts and schools
need to act upon the
importance of evidence-based
strategies for language
development that are
consistent with the emphasis
on language in the Common
Core Standards to ensure that
students are able to meet the
standards.
Without explicit attention to SELS and
other language variations and their
understanding of SE, an emphasis on
language development on behalf of SELs,
they are likely to be punished by the
Common Core Standards.
Students' use of Ebonics was evident in the observations and during
the focus group of the LDP school.
Using contrastive analysis to help students note the similarities and
differences between Ebonics and SE needs to be structured to include
teaching grammatical rules of both languages for students to be able to
select the most appropriate language in a conscious and informed
manner.
Research question 2 with corresponding findings, recommendations, and implications
RQ2: What strategies are
teachers in urban secondary
classrooms using to assist
African American students in
acquiring Standardized English
in a school that has not
implemented a program that
includes professional
development and teacher support
for a targeted program that
incorporates researched-based,
culturally relevant teaching?

Significance:
Instructional strategies are
important to assist students in
gaining access to the curriculum
if the language of the student is
not the same as the language in
the curriculum.

To identify instructional
Teachers in non-
LDP School
Students in non-
LDP School

Teacher and
student
interviews
Classroom
observations
This teacher’s uses strategies that are not consistent with research-
based strategy (such as) did not include to allow students to use their
first language, to construct knowledge rather than participate in their
first language their struggled to
Both teachers need to strengthen their pedagogy to include students
who are reluctant to participate in academic discourse.

Both teaches demonstrated the power of care and concern for their
students, even though evidence-and research-based strategies as found
in LDP are more effective means of demonstrating care and concern in
ways that enable students to learn.
As previously mentioned Students who are not exposed to LDP
strategies and who do not are not allowed
to use their first language do not
demonstrate strong participation in
academic discourses.
Students' use of Ebonics was evident in the observations and during
the focus group of the LDP school.
All schools come to
acknowledge the existence of
language variations and view
it as an asset and legitimate
language.
Language is an essential tool that students
bring to school for learning, when it is not
honored students have difficulty accessing
the curriculum.
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
139

strategies teachers not trained in
a language development
program may perceive as
appropriate for SEL instruction.
Research question 3 with corresponding findings, recommendations, and implications
RQ3: How does teachers’
knowledge and perceptions of
Ebonics influence the teaching
and learning relationship
between teachers and African
American students whose first
language is a form of Ebonics?

Significance:
The relationship between
teaching and learning is
influenced by the teachers’
perceptions of the students and
how they speak, as well as how
the student feels perceived. A
teacher’s knowledge about the
language will impact the
learning component.

It is therefore important to
understand the teachers’
knowledge and perceptions of
Ebonics and African American
students and the language they
speak.
Teachers and
students in both
schools

Teacher and
student
interviews
Classroom
observations
Although the teachers in this study had knowledge of Ebonics, they still
were unclear about the distinctions between Ebonics and forms of
contemporary slang language.

Although both teachers both had knowledge of Ebonics and both
teachers stated in the interview expressed positive expression of
Ebonics as a language, the observations and student comments, the
Baldwin actually valued students first language as a language variation
they had different perceptions about its value. In the non-LDP school it
was not treated as an asset but as a circumstance to overcome.
Teachers could benefit from
having pre-service education
on language variations; just as
they receive instruction in
meeting the specific language
needs to teach ELs, they need
training to teach SELs. If
teachers were knowledgeable
about language variations,
African Americans, as well as
other SELs, experience
Increased opportunities to
learn.
Research shows when
specific instruction is
provided for ELs these
students are reclassified,
demonstrating that
appropriate research, and
evidenced-based instruction is
beneficial in achieving
mainstream literacy (NCES
2002). SELs are entitled to
similar opportunities beyond
funding for a few schools
within the district. The
structure of programs akin to
LDPs need to be district wide
(Hollie, 2001).
In the LDP School students felt valued as
an intellect
In the NON LDP students felt cared for
but not valued,

Another implication: consistent with this
study language plays in essential role in
the learning process, that is the reason to
give great emphasis to it as CCSS is
implemented which also place emphasis
on language.

Triangulation confirmed this finding, (add
this to my dissertation). Well-meaning
teachers are caring, but they do no carry a
perception about their student and their
language that acknowledged their
intelligence and that can make a
contribution to knowledge. “We’ve got o
help them” as if they cannot help
themselves. Triangulation plays a very
important role in the analysis of these
data.
In the LDP school the teacher acknowledged the importance of
allowing students to use their home language in third space discourses
to construct content knowledge and to acquire Standardized Academic
English.
Perceptions of Ebonics and accompanying policies continue to be
influences by broader societal perceptions of African Americans'
status in America.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
140

Appendix C
Teacher Interview Instrument

Teacher Interview Instrument
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Perceptions about and Strategies for African American Speakers of Ebonics

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by April Parker, a doctoral student at
the University of Southern California. The results of this study will be contributed to her
dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are an English
teacher. We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to discover
teachers’ perceptions of and responses to language variations among African American students.
The interview includes questions that tap into your background, your training, and your
understanding of this issue. Please respond as honestly and as objectively as you can. Where
scales are used there are no right or wrong answers your opinion is what matters.
The interview will take approximately 45-60 minutes to complete. Your responses will be
recorded electronically. All responses to this interview are confidential; therefore, there are no
risks from your participation in this study. There will be no payment or other form of
remuneration for your participation in this study. When the results of the research are publicly
shared or discussed in conferences, no information included will reveal your identity.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
141

Guidelines:
Responses will be identified only by number and in no way will be associated with your name.
Interviews will be randomly assigned an identification number and stored in the computer by ID
number. Interviews may be used again in the future for further data analyses. Your participation
in this study is voluntary. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at any time
without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want
to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so. If you have any questions or concerns about the
research, please feel free to contact April Parker: Principal Investigator (323) 491-6972, LAUSD
333 S. Beaudry Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017 or, Faculty Sponsor Dr. Sylvia Rousseau (213)
921-1563, University o f Southern California, Rossier School o f Education 90089.
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University
Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Bovard Administration Building, Room 300,
Los Angeles, CA 90089- 4019, (213) 740-6709 or upirb@usc.edu

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
142

Interview on the Perceptions About and Strategies for African American Speakers of Ebonics

General Background Information: In this section we would like to know a little about you in
order to see what teachers and teacher interns believe about the issues we are examining.

1. Are you a:
□ Cleared credentialed teacher □ Preliminary credentialed teacher
2. Your highest level of education completed is:
□ BA or BS □ MA or MS □ PhD/EdD □ Other professional doctorate ___________
3. What is your gender □ Male □ Female
4. Please indicate your ethnic identity: ________________________________
□ Black (non-hispanic) □ White Hispanic
□ Asian Filipino □ Native American
□ Pacific Islander □ Other (specify)
5. What is your age range?
□ 18-25 □ 26-39 □ 40-55 □ 56+
6. How many years of teaching experience do you have? _________
Language Background: In this section I would like to know a little about your language
history and background.

7. Is English your first language? □ Yes □ No
8. Do you speak any other languages? □ Yes □ No
9. If you speak other languages were they acquired in school or elsewhere?
□ acquired in school □ other_________________________
10. Have you taken any courses related to bilingual education or 2
nd
language acquisition?
□ Yes □ No How many______
11. Have you taken any courses in “ Language Development In Children”?
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
143

□ Yes How many_______ □ No
12. Have you taken any formal language courses (e.g. sociolinguistics, linguistics)?
□ 1-3 □ 4-6 □ 7-10 □ 11+
13. On a scale of 1-5 (5 being the highest) what is your level of knowledge of linguistics?
Circle one number as your answer.

No knowledge Some knowledge Very knowledgeable
1 2 3 4 5
14. Have you participated in any staff development or training related to speakers of African
American Languages (AAL/Ebonics)? □ Yes □ No
15. If you answered yes to the above question, what was the total duration of the training you
received in days?
□ 1-2 □ 3-5 □ 6-8 □ 9-12
16. Have you participated in staff development or training related to bilingual education?
□ Yes □ No
17. Have you taken any courses/seminars related to Black History and/or Culture?
□ Yes □ No
18. Have you participated in trainings related to speakers of non-standard languages or
Standard English Language Learners? □ Yes □ No
Familiarity with or competence in AAL/Ebonics: In this section I would like to know
about your personal knowledge/competence in AAL/Ebonics.

19. What is your own definition of AAL/Ebonics?

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
144

20. On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being highest) to what extent are you familiar with African
American language/Ebonics? (Circle the number that best reflects your answer.)

Not familiar Some familiarity Very familiar
1 2 3 4 5
21. Are you a speaker of AAL/Ebonics? □ Yes □ No
22. To what degree do you understand someone speaking AAL/Ebonics?
□ Never □ Barely □ Sometimes □ Often □ Always
23. Which of the following sentences is AAL/Ebonics (check only those that apply)
____Where did you put my shoes?
____That car is straight up dope.
____Don’t nobody never wanna talk to her.
____We were just chilling in the hood.
____My momma be at home doing her work.
____I never did like school very much.
____She walk to school with her friend sister everyday.
____I don’t have to do anything you tell me to do.
Linguistic Knowledge: In this section I am trying to get a sense of your knowledge and
understanding of AAL/Ebonics (Circle your answer - select only one number).

24. AAL/Ebonics is used by 75-85% of all African Americans at some time.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
25. AAL/Ebonics has regular grammatical rules like other languages.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
145

26. AAL/Ebonics is a form of slang used by African Americans.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
27. All African American people have a distinctive speech pattern.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
28. Speaking AAL/Ebonics is largely due to lack of education.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
29. AAL/Ebonics is most likely to have developed from simplified English “baby talk” from
master to slave.

Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
30. AAL/Ebonics is imperfectly learned English, using incorrect and poor grammar.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
31. Students who speak AAL/Ebonics are likely to have difficulty with “critical thinking.”
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
32. AAL/Ebonics basically results from carelessness when speaking.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
33. In order to think logically children must be able to speak Standardized English.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
146

Perceptions: In this section I am trying to get a sense of your perceptions about
AAL/Ebonics. (Circle your answer - select only one number)

34. Children should be allowed to speak AAL/Ebonics at any time.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5
35. Children should be allowed to speak AAL/Ebonics during classroom discourse.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5
36. AAL/Ebonics should be eradicated.
Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5
37. What do you think are the biggest challenges that affect African American students’
performance related to their language differences?

Strategies: In this section I am trying to get a sense of what strategies you use to insure
access for African American student speakers of AAL/Ebonics. (Circle your answer -
select only one number)

38. Can you describe strategies that work well for you in ensuring that all students are given
the opportunity to engage in classroom discussion, particularly students with language
differences?
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
147

39. What do you typically do if a student uses his/her home language that differs from
Academic or Standardized English in the classroom discourse or on a writing
assignment?

40. Are you familiar with the term code switching and what does it mean to you in the
context of classroom discourses and student writing?

41. What is your practice for providing students with feedback on written assignments?

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
148

The goal of Language Development programs for African American students (Ebonics
Programs) is to do the following: (check all that apply)

____ teach them Ebonics
____ provide instruction using Ebonics as a resource
____ help them acquire Standardized English in addition to Ebonics
____ help them acquire Standardized English in place of Ebonics
____ give children an appreciation of their home language

Is
there
anything
that
you
would
like
to
comment
about
regarding
AAL/Ebonics
that
was
not
covered
in

this
questionnaire?

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
149

Appendix D
Classroom Observation Instrument

Part I: Can be done prior to the actual observation

School District: LAUSD

Grade observed: __________________________________
Date of Observation: ______________________________ Time of Observation: ____

General Information
Number of Students Present:_________
How many African American students are enrolled in the class that fit the criteria? ____
Lesson duration:_________

Part II: The actual observation (Use formatted columns below)

Part III: Can be done after the actual observation

Classroom environment (Y or N)
1. Behavioral expectations posted:

2. Academic expectations posted (rubrics/processes, etc.):

3. The pattern of the desks is ___________________________
4. Was there a tone of decency used in the discourse in the teaching and learning interaction
between teacher and student, and student to student?

5. Was there evidence of cultural and linguistic diversity of the students in the class?

6. Was there evidence that the teacher and students trusted one another?

Learning Discourse Opportunities (check those that apply)
1. Grouped Active Learning (project based)– Learners are working in pairs or small groups
to complete the assignment.

2. Read Aloud – teacher reading to students AND involving them in thinking/discussion
about the material being read.

3. Think Aloud – working with metacognition (teacher modeling his/her thinking process or
helping students think about how they think).

4. Structured Reflection – time set aside specifically for students to silently reflect on or talk
about experiences.

5. Group Discussion – teacher plays a less dominant role than in recitation. Learners ask
questions, answer each other’s questions, and respond to each other’s answers, explore,
express opinions, agree and disagree.

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
150

6. Writing – learner(s) writing – may include previously prepared worksheets that ask
students to reflect, organize (graphic organizers, etc.), project/hypothesize (does not
include copying, fill in the blank, skill and drill).

7. Active listening –

8. Active observing –

9. Recitation – format of teacher questioning, learner response, and teacher feedback.

10. On Task (Academically focused) – learner(s)/teacher(s) transitioning, managing, grading,
etc.

Teacher’s instructional Strategies (Y or N)
1. The teacher stated the purpose of the lesson.

2. The teacher made an effort to connect the lesson to previous learning.

3. Teacher uses the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and performance styles of
diverse students to make learning more appropriate and effective for them.

4. If a student did not understand, the teacher recognized this and found another way to
communicate with that student or made a plan to follow-up.

5. The teacher summarized what the students had learned at the end of the lesson.

6. What languages were used during instruction? Everyday Standardized English
7. What languages were used during non-instructional conversation?
Everyday Standardized English
8. Did the teacher ask questions?

a. If yes, were they aimed at:
i. Assessing student factual knowledge?

ii. Assessing student understanding?

iii. Engaging students in critical thinking?

7. Teacher provides participants samples of student work that he/she will be using to assess
student learning during the observed lesson and to plan for next instructional steps.

8. Found ways to build bridges of meaningfulness between home and school.

9. Was there evidence that the curriculum was guided by student interest?

10. Was there any pedagogical adjustments made to accommodate culturally or linguistically
diverse student groups.

11. Were the teacher-student interactions witnessed similar in quantity and quality across
linguistic and cultural groups?

12. Did the curriculum as planned and presented allow for the development of students’
native linguistically talents?

.
13. Were there opportunities for such development?

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
151

14. Did the teacher employ a pedagogy that motivated students to use language (either
everyday or Standardized) to generate their own understandings?

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
152

Time
5 minute
intervals
Teacher Said Student said Comments

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
153

Appendix E
Student Focus Group Instrument
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Perceptions and Strategies about African American Speakers of Ebonics

I am conducting research on academic achievement for African American students and my
research focuses on the classroom experience involving language use in the classroom. I would like to
learn about your experiences as an African American student who speaks some form of African American
language in a typical English class. I will show you some examples of African American English and ask
you questions related to your use of language and your experiences in the classroom.
I would like to learn about your classroom experience and what may be helpful to your becoming
proficient in Standardized English, which is the common language of the classroom.
I should tell you that your names will not be identified; and, your teachers nor anyone except me,
will not have access to any identifiable information. Instead of your names, I will be using code numbers
to identify your responses. The research is part of my doctoral work at USC for my dissertation and your
confidentiality is protected. Even if I use something that was said in this group to make a point, your
identity is not linked to the information. I will use what I learn from this forum to inform my findings
about what students believe to be teachers’ perceptions of speakers of Ebonics and strategies teachers use
to assist African American speakers of African American language (Ebonics) in becoming proficient in
Academic English.
To make our time meaningful I want to define some of the terms I am using. When I say
discourse, I am referring to class discussions and instructional time; the term everyday language is the
way you communicate with your family, and friends. Sometimes everyday language may be the same
way you communicate with your teachers. The term academic language refers to the language that is
PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
154

commonly used in the classroom. It can look like the English used in textbooks and sometimes spoken by
educators during classroom discussions, written work, and is sometimes viewed as “proper” English
because it is viewed by some people to be the “right” way to speak English. The term proficient in this
context is referring to an acceptable level of performance in English Language Arts on standardized tests
such as the CAHSEE, the CST, and the new Smarter Balance test that is used to assess Standardized
English. Do you have any questions about the process or the research?
Do you understand the intentions of this focus group? At any time you are uncomfortable you do
not have to respond to a question. If you desire to stop and not participate you are free to do so. Your
participation is not connected to any grade or credit with the school’s program.
Together we will establish norms for our discussion. (Researcher note: the students and
moderator/researcher will establish norms that maintain respect, wait time, opinions being important,
confidentiality, tape recording for documentary purposes.)
Before we begin, I would like to thank you for agreeing to participate in the focus group.

Area of research Questions

Perception: What do you feel is a positive teacher student relationship that enables you to
learn?
Student Perception: Do you feel you speak two languages; an everyday language and one for school?
If so, how do you feel your everyday language is similar or different from the
academic language used in the classroom?
Perception:
How
does
your
teacher
respond
to
you
when
you
use
your
everyday

language
in
the
classroom?
Do
you
feel
your
teacher
responds
more

positively,
more
negatively,
or
do
you
feel
it
is
neutral?

Student
Perception:
How
do
you
feel
the
teacher's
response
to
your
language
affects
your
overall

classroom
experience?

Strategy:
In
what
way
do
you
feel
your
teacher
is
helping
you
use
your
two
languages

if
at
all?

Strategy:
What
strategies
does
your
teacher
use
to
help
you
become
more
proficient

in
academic
language?
What
do
you
wish
your
teacher
would
do
more
of
to

help
you?

Student
Perception:
Does
it
seem
you
are
becoming
more
proficient
in
academic
language?
How

can
you
tell?
Why
do
you
think
you
feel
that
way?

PERCEPTIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROFICIENCY
155

Strategy:
Has
your
teacher
every
explicitly
discussed
language
variations
with
your

class
and
explained
about
using
your
everyday
language
and
its
role
in
the

classroom?

Strategy:
Does
your
teacher
attempt
to
correct
you
when
you
speak?

Is
there
anything
else
you
would
like
to
add
to
the
discussion,
or
do
you
have

any
questions?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study explored how perceptions of African American language, referred to in this study as Ebonics, impacted achievement for African American students who speak various forms of Ebonics. Ebonics is a language variety spoken in some form in some aspects by 90% of African Americans (Smitherman, 1999/2001), yet few schools acknowledge its role in African Americans’ access to opportunities to learn. Among schools that do acknowledge this group of students, the term Standard English learner (SEL) is most commonly applied. This study looked at strategies two teachers used, one in a secondary school with a researched-based language development program (LDP) and one in a secondary school without a formal language development program. The researcher explored teachers’ perceptions of African American students and Ebonics (Hollie, 2001, 2012

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination of the possible selves of African American males in grades 9-12 and the educational systems that contribute to their positive and negative perceptions

PDF

First and second grade teachers' knowledge and perceptions about African American language speakers

PDF

The influence of language and culture in the literacy development of speakers of African American English

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

PDF

African American males matter: closing the discipline gap and increasing engagement

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

The role of secondary mathematics teachers in fostering the Algebra 1 success of African American males

PDF

Young, Black, and female: the education of Black female students and effects on identity development

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of students with disabilities in an inclusion classroom

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

The audacity to teach: creating access to rigor for African American and Latino high school students

PDF

Influences of African American English that contribute to the exclusion of African American students from academic discourse

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

Understanding the teachers' perception of impeding bullying in the middle school classroom

PDF

Exploring the prevalence and mitigating variables of secondary traumatic stress in K-12 educators

PDF

""Strangers in Academia"": African-American and Latinx writers' perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies

PDF

Principal perception of the school counselor role

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

The plight of African American males in urban schools: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Parker, April Lazette (author)

Core Title Perceptions about and strategies for African American speakers of Ebonics

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/11/2015

Defense Date 07/01/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag African American,Ebonics,OAI-PMH Harvest,perceptions about language use

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Rousseau, Sylvia (committee chair), Green, Alan G. (committee member), Hollie, Sharroky (committee member)

Creator Email alparker@usc.edu,aparkerteacher@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-178456

Unique identifier UC11273492

Identifier etd-ParkerApri-3894.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-178456 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ParkerApri-3894.pdf

Dmrecord 178456

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Parker, April Lazette

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA