University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 1

FIRST AND SECOND GRADE TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS ABOUT
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS

by

Rita Suh

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

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Rita Suh
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my family, especially my mom, who supported me throughout the
doctoral program. Thank you for praying for me, crying with me, encouraging me, and making
sure I took care of myself. I couldn’t have done this, as well as all my other accomplishments
without you. You are the reason I am the woman I am today.
I would also like to thank Ray, who was extremely understanding, supportive, and patient
every second of the way. There is no other person with whom I would have wanted to share this
journey. I share my success with you because I couldn’t have juggled school, work, and personal
life without you.
I am beyond grateful for the support, encouragement, teaching, and guidance of Dr.
Sylvia Rousseau. I am so blessed to have worked with you, and I learned so much from you.
Your dedication and enthusiasm for each of your students is second to none. I am also grateful
for the support and valuable input provided by my other committee members, Dr. Eugenia Mora-
Flores and Dr. Noma Lemoine.
Last, but definitely not least, I want to acknowledge the amazing people who walked this
journey with me: April, Clarece, Dan, Deborah, Marianne, Topekia, and Yulonn. We have a
bond that cannot be broken, and I am so proud of how far we’ve come and how we’ve supported
one another along the way. I have no doubt that you are going to do amazing things, and I can’t
wait to see what the future holds for us.

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 3
Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 8
African Americans and U.S. Schools 10
Language and Learning 10
African American Language and Schools 12
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 16
Research Questions 17
Importance of the Study 17
Delimitations 18
Definition of Terms 20
Organization of the Study 22
Chapter Two: Literature Review 23
History of Ebonics and Schools 24
Language vs. Dialect 28
Sociocultural Theory 28
Language and Literacy Factors Contributing to Achievement Gap 30
Identity Development 31
Voluntary and Involuntary Immigrants 32
Language Development 35
Features of Ebonics 37
Impact of Teachers’ Misperceptions 42
Instructional Practices for Supporting Learning in SAE-Dominant
Classrooms 44
Written Corrective Feedback 48
Preparing for the Common Core State Standards 52
Summary 55
Chapter Three: Methodology 57
Sample and Population 58
Instrumentation 59
Data Collection 62
Data Analysis 62
Validity and Reliability 63
Limitations 63
Chapter Four: Results 65
Research Questions 65
Findings 68
Research Question 1 68
Knowledge About AAL 68
SAE Perceptions 70
Summary 71
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 4
Research Question 2 74
Classroom Culture 74
Teacher-Nurtured Discourse with African American
Students 77
Summary 81
Research Question 3 84
Instructional Practices 84
Writing Instruction 86
Teacher Feedback on Written Assignments 87
Summary 97
Summary 98
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings 101
Purpose of Study 102
Methodology 102
Discussion of Findings 103
Research Question 1 103
Research Question 2 105
Research Question 3 107
Limitations 109
Implications for Practice 109
Future Research 111
Conclusions 111
References 113
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 130
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 134
Appendix C: Writing Analysis Protocol 137

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Matrix of Protocols to Research Questions 66
Table 2: Description of Participants 66
Table 3: Courses/Trainings Participants Attended 67
Table 4: Participants’ Responses on a Scale of 1–5 to Interview Question 21 69
Table 5: Matrix of Teachers’ Feedback 88

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Teacher 1’s Student Writing Sample 90
Figure 2: Teacher 2’s Student Writing Sample 92
Figure 3: Teacher 3’s Student Writing Sample 94
Figure 4: Teacher 4’s Student Writing Sample 96

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 7
Abstract
The purpose of this case study was to explore first and second grade teachers’ knowledge and
perceptions of African American Language (AAL) and its speakers, as well as implementation of
instructional practices for supporting African American students whose first language is AAL, a
form of Ebonics, in acquiring proficiency in SAE and accessing the school curriculum. Using
sociocultural theory and language theories as the conceptual framework, the researcher examined
classrooms for discourses and practices that reflected an acknowledgement and respect for the
role of language and culture in African American students’ opportunities to learn.
This qualitative study used interviews, observations, and analysis of teachers’ feedback
on African American students’ writing from first and second grade teachers. Triangulating these
forms of data informs the researcher about teachers’ perspectives, knowledge, and interactions
with speakers of AAL. Data analysis revealed that teachers in this study did not have a firm
understanding of AAL and its cultural and linguistic features. Additionally, classroom discourses
did not allow opportunities for African American students to use AAL or for students, in general,
to use language to construct knowledge. Teachers’ instructional practices and their responses to
interview questions demonstrated limited knowledge of AAL and few instances of building on
African American students’ home language as a tool for learning.
The study identified important implications for educators and educational leaders. There
is a need for on-going professional development about AAL and instructional practices that
enable educators to meet the needs of AAL speakers. Educators who have an understanding and
knowledge of AAL and its cultural features are better equipped to instruct students in ways that
validate and support the culture and language of speakers of AAL for positive learning
outcomes.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background of the Problem
Children in the United States start school with a developed linguistic system that is either
a variation of English or a language other than English. One such language is Ebonics and its
multiple forms. Ebonics was originally coined by Robert Williams to denote the multitude of
languages spoken by Black people who are descendants of African lineage in the United States,
Caribbean, and West Africa (Williams, 1975). The term “forms of Ebonics” refers to the
varieties of the “linguistic continuation of Africa in Black America” (Smith, 1998, p. 49). Other
terms that describe specific forms of Ebonics are Caribbean Creole, Gullah, Jamaican Patois,
African American English, African American Vernacular English, Black English, and African
American Language.
Historically, people viewed African American children who spoke various forms of
Ebonics as having lower social status, less intelligence, and inferior language skills (Baratz &
Shuy, 1969; Green, 2002; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011;
Kretzschmar, 2008; Ogbu, 1999; Perry & Delpit, 1998; Sherwood, 1999). As late as the 1960s
and 1970s, language researchers and linguists were not aware that Ebonics was a language
system that had phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and lexical patterns (Foster,
1992; Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Pearson, Conner, & Jackson, 2013; Perry &
Delpit, 1998). Students who spoke various forms of Ebonics were often faulted for having
language errors and scores on assessments of reading and writing that were lower than those of
their peers (Foster, 1992; Green, 2002; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
Educators, researchers, and policymakers pay significant attention to the factors to factors
that cause the so-called achievement gap—a gap in America that remains as wide now as it has
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 9
ever been historically—between African American students and some other ethnic groups.
Researchers have pointed to schools’ responses to the language with which African American
students enter school as a contributing factor to the achievement gap (Boutte & Johnson, 2013;
Green, 2002; Hollie, 2001; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Recently, the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) (2012) data reported that African Americans had the highest
percentage of students below grade level in both reading and mathematics on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). By definition, students who scored proficient in
reading demonstrated competency in subject-matter knowledge, analytical skills, and application
of subject-matter knowledge to real-world situations (NCES, 2012). Students who scored basic
demonstrated partial mastery of such knowledge and skills (NCES, 2012).
Fifty percent of African American fourth graders scored below basic in reading
achievement on the NAEP (The Nation’s Report Card, 2014). The percentage of African
American students scoring below basic was significantly higher than the percentage of Whites
(21%), Asians (20%), and Hispanics, which also included English Language Learners (47%). In
2013, a higher percentage of White (46%) and Asian (51%) students scored at or above
proficient in fourth grade NAEP reading than did African Americans (18%) (The Nation’s
Report Card, 2014). In mathematics, 34% of African American fourth graders scored below
basic on the 2013 NAEP versus Hispanics (27%), Whites (9%), and Asians (9%) (The Nation’s
Report Card, 2013). Again, African American students had the lowest percentage (18%) of
students who scored at or above proficient in math in contrast to Hispanic (26%), White (54%),
and Asian (64%) students (The Nation’s Report Card, 2013). The data show that Whites, Asians,
and Hispanics outperform African American students in reading and mathematics as measured in
standardized testing.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 10
African Americans and U.S. Schools
The first two cases in which African Americans challenged the achievement gap through
legal action were in Martin Luther King Junior Elementary School Children v. Ann Arbor School
District Board and the Ebonics Resolution. The first major case to address the extent to which
the Ebonics speech patterns influenced academic achievement was the 1979 Martin Luther King
Junior Elementary School Children v. Ann Arbor School District Board case (Green, 2002;
Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Labov, 1982; Pearson et al., 2013). African American parents in Ann
Arbor District claimed that the district did not make resources available that take into account the
children’s language differences and that the assessment practices for special education were
unfair to African American students (Green, 2002; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Labov, 1982;
Pearson et al., 2013). As a result, the court decided that the students’ linguistic system should be
identified and that the schools needed to provide strategies to assist students in acquiring
Standardized/Academic English (SAE) (Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Labov, 1982).
A similar contestation based on language, known as The Ebonics Resolution, took place
in Oakland involving the Oakland School Board in 1996 where 53% of African American
children were placed in special education classes, had the lowest grade point average of any
racial or ethnic group, and were more likely than any other racial or ethnic group to be suspended
or retained. In the end, the school board recognized Ebonics as a primary language, required
educators to take it into account in language arts instruction, and to explicitly teach contrasts
between Ebonics and SAE (Green, 2002; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Pearson et al., 2013).
Language and Learning
Research has shown a relationship between language and learning (Hudley & Mallinson,
2011; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Vygotsky, 1987). The sociocultural perspective recognizes that
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 11
learning is related to social and cultural contexts and activities mediated through language
(Foster, 1992; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Scott & Palincsar, 2003;
Vygotsky, 1978a). This theory, which is strongly tied to Vygotsky’s learning theory,
acknowledges the vital role social interactions and culture play in a child’s development and in
which language in acquired (Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, & Turner, 1997; Harris & Schroeder,
2013; Nasir & Hand, 2006; Scott & Palincsar, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978b). As children develop,
they learn skills and acquire knowledge that is influenced by their culture and rooted in language
(Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Ogbu, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978a).
Hence, learning occurs through socialization, in which the individual and the social
processes have an interdependent relationship mediated by language (Gutierrez et al., 1997;
Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Nasir & Hand, 2006; Scott & Palincsar, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978a).
Students bring previously learned literacies, language, and culture into the classroom context
(Gutierrez et al., 1997; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Nasir & Hand, 2006; Scott & Palincsar, 2003).
Given the vital role of language through the sociocultural lens, teachers should use students’
language and background to communicate new knowledge and skills (Boutte & Johnson, 2013;
Gutierrez et al., 1997; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Nasir & Hand, 2006; Scott & Palincsar, 2003).
According to Vygotsky (1978b), children master their surroundings with the help of speech
before mastering their own behaviors. As they learn to master their surroundings, they produce
new relations with the environment and a new organization of behavior. These new forms of
behavior form the intellect and become the basis of productive work (Vygotsky, 1978b).
The language children bring to the classroom gives evidence of what Vygotsky called
zones of proximal development (ZPD). One way for a teacher to impart new knowledge is to
teach to the child’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978b). The ZPD assumes that the
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 12
student brings previously learned skills and language before entering school, and the teacher’s
role is to enable the student to construct new knowledge using scaffolds to match the child’s
stage of development (Scott & Palincsar, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978b). Because the teacher acts as a
mediator of the child’s acquisition of new knowledge and a new language, the child depends
upon the teacher’s use of the child’s first language to guide him/her into constructing new
knowledge (Harris & Schroeder, 2013). More specific to this study, speakers of African
American Language—a form of Ebonics—rely on the teacher to teach Standardized/Academic
English as a second language (Ogbu, 1999; Sligh & Conners, 2003).
African American Language and Schools
Much of what is known about language and learning, in general, has implications for
African American Language (AAL) and schools. According to sociocultural theory, social
context is a mediator of learning and thinking, and therefore the social contexts in which students
continue learning and thinking can be harmful or beneficial to a student’s academic success
(Ball, 1996; Foster, 1992).
African American children who speak African American Language acquire language
from multiple social activities in their homes, church, families, and so forth (Gee, 2001; Harris &
Schroeder, 2013). However, the language that African American students bring with them to
school is often not valued or accepted as an asset for learning (Foster, 1992; Gutierrez et al.,
1997; Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Ogbu, 1999). American schools value and
teach Standardized/Academic English as the language for classroom discourses, access to
curriculum content, and the language in which students develop literacy. It is the language of
preparing students for educational contexts and employment (Green, 2002).
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 13
It is important to explicitly communicate to students who speak AAL that acquiring SAE
is not intended to replace their first language (Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Ogbu,
1988). It is important for teachers to recognize that students’ first language is a source of cultural
identity, self-concept, and self-esteem (Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Ogbu, 1988).
Gee (2001) has referred to one’s first language as Discourse with a capital “D,” or one’s
“identity kit.” Discourse is one’s way of speaking, thinking, interacting, believing, and dressing,
so that the person takes on an identity and/or role that others will recognize (Gee, 2001, 2008;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Therefore, when teachers display negative attitudes toward AAL,
students can start to doubt themselves and the value of their family’s language (Hilliard, 1983).
As a result, these students can feel inferior, rejected, and shamed. They feel that they are not
accepted, have no place in education—and thus suffer academically (Boutte & Johnson, 2013;
Foster, 1992; Green, 2002; Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Williams, 2010).
However, unless they also acquire SAE, they will be unable to access the curriculum and acquire
the tools to meet their academic goals.
As part of exhibiting respect for students’ home language, teachers should be cautious of
over-correcting AAL speakers’ variations on SAE in their speech and writing (Wheeler, 2008).
Students who speak AAL are speaking and writing in the language patterns of their community
or home. AAL linguistic patterns that appear in student writing are not “errors” or “incorrect”
and should not be viewed as a sign of carelessness or incompetence (Boutte & Johnson, 2013;
Shaughnessy, 1977; Wheeler, 2008). Teachers should take the opportunity to build on the AAL
patterns (existing knowledge) and leverage new knowledge of SAE patterns by using strategies
like contrastive analysis (Wheeler, 2008). Contrastive analysis is an approach that compares
elements of AAL and SAE by identifying differences and forming an understanding of those
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 14
differences through explicit instruction (Wheeler, 2008). Students’ uptake of the feedback
depends on their understanding of the teacher’s reasons. With regard to writing, if the feedback
is explicit and targeted, students are more likely to accurately revise their subsequent drafts (Lee,
2013).
A new initiative known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) places emphasis on
the connection between SAE and access to K–12 curriculum. The CCSS highlight the increasing
complexity of texts students must read in order to be prepared for college and future careers
(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014g). Therefore, students’ acquisition and use of
SAE is imperative to their being able to access the language and vocabulary in texts, as well as to
produce texts in SAE. The CCSS standards weave English language arts standards throughout all
content areas of K–12 curriculum, thereby emphasizing the role of language in the learning
process.
The English language arts standards, which are divided into four domains: reading,
writing, speaking and listening, and language, are explicit about the importance of SAE in
learning content. The standards, especially in the language domain, set the expectations for
students to demonstrate command of SAE and acquire and use a wide-ranging vocabulary for
reading, writing, speaking, and listening (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014f).
Statement of the Problem
Previous research has examined the relationship between language and learning within
both the classroom and instructional practices that support students’ language background. What
is known through various studies is that teachers' limited knowledge and awareness of students’
first language, specifically AAL, can interfere with student learning and negatively impact
students’ academic achievement (Craig, Thompson, Washington, & Potter, 2004; Delpit, 1998;
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 15
Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
Teachers without this knowledge are neither able to target the source of students’ variations on
SAE nor able to provide the learning experiences for students to acquire SAE (Craig et al., 2004;
Delpit, 1998; Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson,
2011). Research has also found that teachers’ inability to recognize language or dialect-based
features can be detrimental to students’ motivation, self-confidence, and self-efficacy (Delpit,
1998; Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
This effect is particularly true for speakers of AAL.
Many of the difficulties African American children experience are related to differences
between their first language and the academic language of schooling (Boutte & Johnson, 2013).
These differences may be in language use, language identity, and culture in language use (Harris
& Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Ivy & Masterson, 2011; Ogbu, 1999). Teachers
with limited knowledge of the various forms of Ebonics, including AAL’s linguistic structure
and cultural orientation, may cause students to feel devalued as well as delay their academic
achievement (Boutte & Johnson, 2013; Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Green,
2002; Ivy & Masterson, 2011; Ogbu, 1999). It is important for teachers to understand and
examine how their knowledge, perceptions, and instructional practices as they relate to African
Americans and AAL could impact the academic achievement of this body of students (Hollie,
2001; Okoye-Johnson, 2011). For example, some teachers’ negative attitudes and stereotypes
about AAL and the people who speak AAL may subconsciously lead to inadequate educational
opportunities, negative student-teacher relationships, and low expectations (Byrnes & Wasik,
2009; Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Richman, Bovelsky, Kroovand, Vacca, & West,
1997; Tyler, Boykin, & Walton, 2006). Another example of teacher interference with learning
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 16
concerns their perceptions and/or inability to recognize features of various forms of AAL in
reading and writing that are common among African American students. These variations are
often summarily treated as errors (Craig et al., 2004; Green, 2002). Despite existing research that
points to AAL as a language, many students who speak AAL continue to feel that their language
is inferior (Hollie, 2001; Okoye-Johnson, 2011).
Purpose of the Study
Academic achievement for speakers of African American Language (AAL) is maximized
when teachers know how to recognize, instruct, and appropriately respond to students’ use of
AAL (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Sligh & Conners, 2003). Fogel and Ehri
(2006) have discussed the importance of offering instruction to teachers in order to alter their
negative views of AAL, raise awareness of language and dialect differences, and teach effective
literacy and language instructional practices. A better understanding of teachers’ perceptions and
knowledge has important implications for the classroom.
Studies have shown that when teachers are knowledgeable of AAL and use a culturally
and linguistically sensitive approach, students are able to acquire Standardized/Academic
English while maintaining their identities and their home language (Harris & Schroeder, 2013;
Williams, 2010). More importantly, they are more likely to gain academic achievement (Fogel &
Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Gay, 2002; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Williams, 2010).
The study’s primary purpose was to explore first and second grade teachers’ knowledge
and perceptions of African American Language and its speakers, as well as perceptions and
implementation of instructional practices for supporting African American students whose first
language is AAL in acquiring proficiency in SAE and accessing the curriculum. More
specifically, the researcher examined differences in African American students’ use of SAE
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 17
between first and second grade, and the formal and informal interactions teachers have with their
African American students who speak African American Language. This study has implications
for language pedagogy, classroom instructional practices, professional development, and teacher
preparation programs in language and literacy education.
Research Questions
Three research questions guided this study. Findings related to these questions were
gathered by triangulating data from interviews, observations, and analysis of student work. The
questions were:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions and knowledge about African American Language, a
form of Ebonics?
2. What is the nature of first and second grade classroom discourses between the
teacher and African American students when students speak African American
Language?
3. What are some structured pedagogical practices used by some teachers for guiding
speakers of African American Language into becoming proficient writers and
speakers of SAE?
Importance of the Study
Understanding teachers’ perceptions and knowledge of African American Language, a
form of Ebonics, is extremely important, considering the low academic achievement of African
American students. According to Clark and Estes (2008), only when educators recognize their
own knowledge gaps and perceptions can they start to address them. Therefore, it is important
that teachers understand and learn how language plays a role in students establishing their
identities in relation to school and academic achievement (Foster, 1992; Gee, 2001; Harris &
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 18
Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Williams, 2010). Because of the negative feedback
AAL speakers receive from teachers, particularly about AAL, many African American students
disidentify with the academic process (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Ogbu, 1999; Harris &
Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Sligh & Conners, 2003; Williams, 2010). Students
who feel disconnected from the academic process can have low self-efficacy, academic progress,
and self-concept (Harper, Braithwaite, & LaGrange, 1998; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
Consequently, the achievement gap will continue to grow, and African American students will
continue to face academic as well as social challenges (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Harper
et al., 1998; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
Delimitations
This current study is limited in scope and generalization as it is a case study conducted in
one school. It is restricted to first and second grade teachers in the current urban elementary
school and should not be generalized to teachers outside of the particular school. The findings,
however, may be of interest to researchers who want to replicate this study. The setting was also
a limitation, as the researcher is a current district employee. Thus, teacher responses and
observed classroom practices may have been different if the researcher were from an outside
agency; however, because the researcher was an employee of the district, the researcher had the
ability to directly access key stakeholders and participants.
Researchers use different terms to identify the language spoken by African American
people in the United States: Ebonics, African American English, African American Vernacular
English, Black English, and African American Language. However, they all refer to the same
variety (Green, 2002). Ebonics encompasses all of the languages from West and Niger-Congo
Africa that developed among the African slaves in the Caribbean and various parts of the United
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 19
States (Williams, 1975). Ebonics is a language that has a system, structure, and organization of
sounds, words, sentences, meanings, and vocabulary (Green, 2002; Rickford, 2012). It is
considered a language, not a variation of English (Linguistic Society of America, 1997). For the
purposes of this research, the researcher will use the term African American Language to refer to
the language that African American students may bring to the classroom.
The terminology in the Martin Luther King Junior Elementary School Children v. Ann
Arbor School District Board and Ebonics Resolution in Oakland vary as well. In the Ann Arbor
case, the commonly used term was “Black English,” whereas the Oakland school board used
“Ebonics,” “African Language systems,” and “Pan-African communication behaviors”
(Kretzschmar, 2008; Labov, 1982; Perry & Delpit, 1998).
Additionally, the terms Standard Academic English, Standard American English, and
Standard English refer to the academic language in schools’ curricula and assessments (Byrnes
& Wasik, 2009; Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). However, the researcher uses the term
Standardized/Academic English (SAE) to indicate that it is not a superior language; rather, it is a
language that has been standardized and socially constructed to be the dominant language in
schools and American society (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
In this study, the term “proficient speakers of SAE” will coincide with the definitions
used to describe student performances on standardized tests administered in the various states of
the United States. Lastly, the terms discourse and Discourse with a capital “D” are used
differently. Discourse with a capital “D” refers to a community of practice that involves
language, mostly in academic settings (Gee, 2001, 2008). However, discourse with a lower-case
“d” will refer to language in use (Gee, 2001, 2008).

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 20
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).
Assessment. A measure of success for student learning, which can be formative,
summative, informal, or formal (Paris et al., 2010).
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).
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 responsive teaching. Using cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of
references, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to facilitate student learning
(Gay, 2000, 2002).
Dialect. Variations of language marked by certain ways of pronouncing words,
vocabulary choices, and variations of syntax (Freeman & Freeman, 2004).
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 21
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, 2001, 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 (Williams, 1975).
Literacy. Relationship between spoken and written language, conventions of print,
fluency, knowledge of letters, sounds, words, and comprehension (Brock, Boyd, & Moore, 2003;
Heath, 1984).
Multicultural. Equal educational opportunities for students from diverse racial, ethnic,
social-class, and cultural backgrounds (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
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, 2014a).
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Primary federal entity for collecting
and analyzing data related to education (NCES, 2014b).
Opportunity gap. Society-wide hurdles that limit the opportunities for academic success
for students from diverse cultural groups who have historically been excluded from or received
limited access to education (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
Professional development (PD). Processes and activities designed to improve the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators in order to improve student learning outcomes
(Guskey, 2000).
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 22
Second Language Acquisition. Process of acquiring a second language subconsciously by
exposure to models and practice within social groups, without formal teaching (Gee, 1992). It
requires meaningful interaction in the target language in which the learner is focused on meaning
rather than form (Krashen, 2003).
Standardized/Academic English. The academic language that has been socially
constructed, imposed, and determined to be more prestigious and socially acceptable (Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 includes the background of the problem, statement of the problem, purpose,
and importance of the study. It also includes the research questions, limitations and delimitations,
and definition of terms utilized throughout this study. Chapter 2 contains a comprehensive
review of literature and theories related to language and learning, with an emphasis on
instruction for speakers of African American Language. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology of
the study and comprises the sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, limitations,
and data analysis. Chapter 4 presents the results and summary of the findings. Chapter 5 offers a
discussion of findings, implications for practice, recommendations for future research, and
conclusion. The study concludes with references and appendices.

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the research literature relevant to this
study. It is divided into four sections. The first section presents a historical overview of African
American Language and schooling, setting the context for the need of this study. The second
section presents sociocultural theory as the theoretical foundation for the study. The third section
discusses language and literacy factors that contribute to the achievement gap. It provides a
background of identity development, voluntary and involuntary immigrants, and language
development. It also includes features of various forms of Ebonics and the impact of teachers’
misperceptions. The last section presents instructional practices for supporting African American
Language speakers’ opportunities to learn, including written feedback on student work, and
implications for the role of Common Core State Standards for instruction.
Strong oral language skills lay a strong foundation for reading acquisition (Scarborough,
2001; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Therefore, it is imperative that educators scaffold the
learning of SAE so that students have increased language capacity to access and understand texts
and assessments. To do so, educators must understand the language and culture of AAL,
recognize language or dialect-based features, acknowledge any of their own biases or negative
beliefs, and select appropriate teacher- and evidence-based instructional practices.
Attitudes toward AAL influence the instructional practices teachers employ (Green,
2002). Labov (1995) has explained that the effects of speech on teachers’ attitudes are the single
most powerful factor in determining teachers’ predictions of student performance. Therefore, our
efforts and resources should be invested in providing professional development for
understanding various forms of Ebonics, primarily AAL, and adopting instructional practices in
order to change teachers’ attitudes and preconceived negative beliefs about the language.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 24
Furthermore, researchers have proposed culturally responsive teaching practices that provide an
opportunity for all students to be successful and produce academic achievement (Boutte &
Johnson, 2013; Brynes & Wasik, 2009; Connor & Craig, 2006; Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster,
1992; Gay, 2002; Green, 2002; Haddix, 2012; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson,
2011; Sligh & Conners, 2003; Williams, 2010).
History of Ebonics and Schools
Mainly since the 1960s, the form of Ebonics known as AAL has faced resistance in being
established as a valid system of language. This language has endured multiple labels that reflect
negative attitudes about African Americans and their culture (Smith, 1994). The name Ebonics
originated from a positive perspective to legitimize the language created by slaves and to
establish an identity among users of that language (Kretzschmar, 2008). The history of racism
and discrimination that followed African Americans from the time of slavery through the 1960s
affected the way their language was viewed (Hilliard, 1983). Green (2002) found that some
language researchers believed that African Americans simply spoke a Black dialect and a variety
of English used by Black and White Southerners. For example, Farrison (1970) claimed that
there was no significant difference in vocabulary and grammar as compared to
Standardized/Academic English and what is now called Ebonics was not viewed as a legitimate
language.
Many researchers acknowledge that African Americans who spoke AAL faced a racist
stereotype that their language patterns were unintelligible, uneducated, lazy, and haphazard
(Baratz & Shuy, 1969; Green, 2002; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hilliard, 1983; Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011; Kretzschmar, 2008; Ogbu, 1999; Perry & Delpit, 1998; Sherwood, 1999). This
failure to recognize African Americans’ language was also evident in schools, especially among
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 25
teachers. Research in the 1970s about teachers’ attitudes revealed racial bias and negative
attitudes toward African American language (Black People’s Progressive Association, 1978;
Brittan, 1976; Coard, 1971; Sherwood, 1999). Teachers blamed African Americans’
underachievement on the children themselves, and thus teachers did not expect African
American students to attain high academic achievement (Sherwood, 1999).
This deficit view of African American intelligence was reflected in how people—
especially educators—responded to African Americans’ language (Harris & Schroeder, 2013;
Hilliard, 1983; Kretzschmar, 2008; Sherwood, 1999). Foster (1992) found that earlier researchers
believed that African American students had difficulties becoming literate as a result of cognitive
and linguistic deficits. According to Foster (1992), teachers’ ignorance and negative views of
how African American children learn kept these students from fully participating in the
classroom, which led to negative evaluations and low expectations from teachers. Consequently,
the low expectations acted as a self-fulfilling prophecy and were detrimental to African
Americans’ academic progress (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Hutchinson, 1997; Sherwood,
1999). In contrast, Labov (1972) was one of the scholars who openly criticized the view that “the
linguistic behavior of ghetto [African American] children . . . is the principal evidence of genetic
inferiority” (p. 202).
Many have acknowledged research conducted during the 1970s, which found that
teachers’ negative attitudes pointed to their limited knowledge about AAL and appreciation for
its cultural background and importance in developing identity (Green, 2002; Harris & Schroeder,
2013; Kretzschmar, 2008). The institutionalization of these negative attitudes about African
American students’ capabilities led to the 1979 case of Martin Luther King Junior Elementary
School Children v. Ann Arbor School District Board. It was the first influential case to address
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 26
how Ebonics influenced academic achievement (Green, 2002; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Labov,
1982; Pearson et al., 2013). A group of parents of African American children sued Ann Arbor
District claiming that the Ebonics-speaking African American students had difficulty adapting to
Standardized/Academic English instruction and that the schools were not providing them the
education that was effective in overcoming these barriers (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Green, 2002;
Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Labov, 1982; Pearson et al., 2013). They also claimed that their
assessment practices for special education were flawed and unfair, particularly around language,
often leading their children to be placed erroneously in special education and remedial classes
(Green, 2002; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Labov, 1982; Pearson et al., 2013).
The court decided that the school district failed to consider the students’ linguistic
system. Two mandates resulted from this case: (a) develop protocols and procedures to identify
children who speak Ebonics, and (b) provide professional development for teachers to increase
their knowledge of Ebonics, develop strategies to assist children with Standardized/Academic
English (SAE), and introduce various methods of assessment (Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Labov,
1982).
The Ebonics Resolution of 1996 in Oakland addressed Ebonics and African Americans in
schools. It involved the Oakland School Board addressing the needs of African American
students in the district. African American students comprised only 53% of the student
population, yet represented 80% of the suspensions, and 71 percent were classified as having
special needs (Perry & Delpit, 1998). Moreover, the grade point average for White and Asian
students was 2.7 and 2.4, respectively. The grade point average for African American students
was 1.8 (Perry & Delpit, 1998). The data reflected the Oakland school system’s failure to address
the needs of African American students (Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Perry & Delpit, 1998). As a
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 27
result, the school board adopted a resolution called the Black Language/Ebonics Resolution
(Perry & Delpit, 1998), which required the superintendent of schools to address the academic
performance of African American children on standardized reading assessments (Harris &
Schroeder, 2013). One of the points addressed in the resolution stated:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Superintendent in conjunction with her staff shall
immediately devise and implement the best possible academic program for imparting
instruction to African-American students in their primary language for the combined
purposes of maintaining the legitimacy and richness of such language whether it is
known as “Ebonics,” “African Language Systems,” “Pan-African Communication
Behaviors” or other descriptions, and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English
language skills. (Perry & Delpit, 1998, pp.144–145)
Furthermore, the board maintained that Ebonics should not be viewed negatively, but should be
acknowledged and respected (Perry & Delpit, 1998). The school board’s proposal was to use the
children’s first language, which was Ebonics, to teach Standardized/Academic English by
highlighting contrasts between the two languages (Green, 2002; Harris & Schroeder, 2013;
Pearson et al., 2013). The board called upon the district to provide teachers and parents with
training in Black English patterns and to pursue and secure federal funding to support Ebonics
programs (Baron, 2000; Perry & Delpit, 1998). However, the only resolution that was fulfilled
was that the Oakland School Board resolved to recognize AAL as the primary language of
African American students, which was reflected in a later modification of resolution (Perry &
Delpit, 1998).

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 28
Language vs. Dialect
To this day, there is considerable debate about whether the language spoken by up to
80% of African Americans is a language or a dialect. Rickford (2012) reported that the term
“Ebonics” was created in 1973 by a group of Black scholars in order to erase the previously
coined term “Nonstandard Negro English.” However, it was not until the Oakland School Board
issued a resolution in 1997 that “Ebonics” became the term for this primary language, and the
term “Ebonics” was accepted by the Linguistic Society of America (Rickford, 2012). To some
educators and researchers, using the term African American Vernacular English (AAVE) negates
the view that the language many African Americans speak is a language. In 1997, the Linguistic
Society of America recognized Ebonics as a legitimate language with which African American
students entered school.
Nonetheless, AAVE, Ebonics, and African American Language essentially refer to the
same rule-governed linguistic system (Green, 2002; Rickford, 2012). In this study, the researcher
uses “African American Language” (AAL) to represent the view that African Americans speak a
language—one that plays a major role in identity development and learning.
Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural theory, deeply rooted in the work of Lev Vygotsky (1978a), addresses how
one acquires language and examines the roles of social and cultural processes in human learning.
The theory acknowledges that one’s culture plays a critical role in how one develops cognitive
skills and competence (Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Vygotsky, 1978a). The theory also argues that
language is a tool used to mediate the learning process and that knowledge is coconstructed in
social situations in which language plays a role (Heineke, 2013; Lantolf & Appel, 1994).
Individuals use language to communicate meaning, express and make sense of their experiences,
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 29
and transform thinking (Gutierrez et al., 1997; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Vygotsky, 1978a).
Therefore, if language operates this way for all children, this principle is also applicable to
African American students—but sadly it does not apply in current practice, and speakers of AAL
seem to be consigned to outside this feature of the human learning experience.
Sociocultural theory explains how students acquire their primary and secondary
Discourses and how these Discourses affect relationships in the classroom. In the context of
schooling, the classroom is filled with students who have a previously learned language, culture,
and literacies (Gutierrez et al., 1997; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Nasir & Hand, 2006; Scott &
Palincsar, 2003). In particular, African American children who speak AAL learned their primary
Discourse through past language activities in various environments, such as home, church and
neighborhoods, which are rooted in social and cultural traditions and rituals (Harris & Schroeder,
2013). To acquire SAE, African American students require settings in which various social
activities present multiple opportunities to practice and use SAE, just as they have had multiple
opportunities to practice and use AAL (Gutierrez et al. 1997; Harris & Schroeder, 2013).
Vygotsky (1978b) believed that learning took place in the midst of activity and through
meaningful cultural practices (Smagorinsky, 2013). Children learn language by interacting with
others; therefore, this principle applies to acquiring a second language: SAE (Gutierrez et al.,
1997; Smagorinsky, 2013; Vygotsky, 1987). Furthermore, African American students need their
teachers to use students’ linguistic and cultural background and previous knowledge to
communicate new skills and knowledge (Boutte & Johnson, 2013; Green, 2002; Gutierrez et al.,
1997; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Nasir & Hand, 2006; Scott &
Palincsar, 2003; Smagorinsky, 2013).
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 30
An example of Vygotsky’s notion of zone of proximal development (ZPD) is the ability
of teachers to recognize students’ ZPD in relation to language. The role of the teacher is to
bridge the difference between the language the student already has and the new language the
student will acquire with assistance from the teacher (Moje et al., 2004). One definition of
African American children’s ZPD is the working language they bring to the classroom, which a
skilled teacher is able to build on to enable the student to learn another language. With regard to
teaching SAE, the teacher can identify the AAL speakers’ proficiency in relation to SAE and
then determine the appropriate instruction to assist the student in acquiring SAE (Harris &
Schroeder, 2013).
Language and Literacy Factors Contributing to the Achievement Gap
The achievement gap refers to the low academic performance of primarily students of
color who are also typically low income as compared to their middle-class White and Asian
American peers (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). These students of color who are also typically low
income have a history of being denied schooling and isolated from mainstream society and users
of SAE (Rickford & Rickford, 2000). As such, they frequently live in highly segregated
communities based on the social order or systems in America (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). African
Americans are typically segregated in schooling, housing, and employment (Ogbu & Simons,
1998). Thus, race and socioeconomic status are intricately linked. This heightened segregation,
therefore, has impeded the access of low-income African Americans to SAE, which is
predominant in middle class White communities. African Americans have limited opportunity to
transition gradually to SAE as some other immigrant groups (Baugh, 1998). The limited
exposure and opportunity to transition to SAE contributes to the academic achievement gap
between African American students and White and Asian American students. Hispanic students
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 31
differ from African Americans as they have access to structured and systematic instruction
designed to foster their acquisition of proficiency in SAE. Issues related to the achievement gap
include language, identity, and the cultural gaps between teachers who represent the dominant
culture and African American students who are a minority (Green, 2002). Some researchers
prefer to use the term opportunity gap, as opposed to the achievement gap (Byrnes & Wasik,
2009; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Both terms signify the unfair differences and opportunities
African American students face, particularly through teachers’ instructional practices that do not
apply principles of language acquisition to speakers of AAL.
The instructional gap between AAL and SAE has implications in the classroom and
opportunities for academic achievement. When students feel secure knowing that their language
and identity is appreciated, they are able to identify with the educational standards, environment,
and expectations provided for them (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Ogbu, 1999; Harris &
Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Sligh & Conners, 2003; Williams, 2010).
Identity Development
Language is not just a means of communication. Students enter school with a language
that their family, community, and friends similarly speak (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). It is a
source of identity and is connected to one’s cultural identity, self-concept, self-esteem, and views
(Hilliard, 1983; Ogbu, 1988). Depending on students’ entrance to America, teachers place
differentiated value on their identities and cultural orientations (Henfield & Washington, 2012;
Hilliard, 1983; Ogbu, 1999). Therefore, it is important that educators are explicit about
supporting African Americans’ primary language, while introducing SAE as a second
language—not one that will simply replace the other (Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011;
Ogbu, 1988). In fact, most linguists assert that educators should use the student’s first language
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 32
to build the second language (Au, 1998; Cummins, 1986; Cummins, 1994; Foster, 1992). A
teacher’s attitude can influence how the student accepts or rejects his first language (AAL) and
the second language (SAE). Learning SAE does not have to be a threatening experience for
African American students if they know that SAE will not replace AAL (Hilliard, 1983; Hudley
& Mallinson, 2011). This principle also applies to speakers of other variations of Standardized
English, such as Mexican American English–speaking students who acquire an English
vocabulary but retain syntax and grammar from their first language (Bateman & Wilkinson,
2010; Fought, 2003). Speakers of variations of Standardized English enter school at early grades
and receive little or no support because they are assumed to be English-Only speakers. They
exhibit language proficiency in variations in Spanish and/or English that masks their limited
proficiency in SAE or the standardized versions of their home language (Bateman & Wilkinson,
2010; Colombi, 2009). Similar to the African American Language–speaking students, Mexican
American English–speaking students suffer academically because of lack of support from
educators (Bateman & Wilkinson, 2010). Though the challenges of the two ethnic groups are
comparable, the emphasis in this study will be on African American students.
Voluntary and Involuntary Immigrants
The value teachers place on various languages is reflected in day-to-day responses to the
different kinds of language and general behavior that students display. For instance, some
students are the children of involuntary immigrants who were conquered, enslaved, or colonized
and forced to come to the United States against their will (Ogbu, 1999; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998).
In addition to being a minority, involuntary immigrants experience less economic and
educational access than voluntary immigrants and face more language and cultural challenges
(Ogbu, 1999; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998).
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 33
On the other hand, voluntary immigrants are people who have willingly moved to the
United States seeking better opportunities (Ogbu, 1999; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). These
minorities are willing to conform to the mainstream White culture and discourse. They do not
feel threatened or devalued in the school system and are willing to master SAE and adopt the
rules and customs of schools. They believe that adopting White American behaviors will lead to
more success in school and society and, as a result, economic and educational achievement
(Ogbu, 1999; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Voluntary immigrants usually experience some problems
at school when they first arrive because of language and cultural differences (Wang, 1995).
However, they typically do not experience long-lasting cultural and language problems, and
experience more economic and educational access (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998).
Both voluntary and involuntary immigrants know that the standardized “White” English
is a means to academic and economic success, but their willingness to learn it differs based on
their collective identity or language frame of reference (Ogbu, 1999; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998).
The collective identity of immigrants, which may differ from the collective identity of White
Americans, refers to a member’s sense of belonging to a group that is constructed around shared
experiences and language (Ogbu, 1999; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998; Perry & Delpit, 1998). The
language that is used within a given group or community is called a “language frame of
reference” and is an important representation of one’s collective identity. The language frame of
reference for involuntary minorities, like African Americans, developed after they were deprived
of their original language (Ogbu, 1999).
African Americans and other involuntary immigrants understand the importance of SAE
(Ogbu, 1999; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). However, because of how they became involuntary
minorities, they have a negative response to the idea of adopting SAE (Ogbu, 1999). Ogbu has
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 34
offered three explanations for their reluctance, which is true of large numbers of African
Americans, but not all. First, many African Americans do not consider themselves foreigners;
therefore, they do not see the need to learn a new language. Second, they are not motivated to
master Standardized/Academic English because they do not believe it will lead to goals
associated with that skill. Mastering this language is viewed as “acting White” and giving up
their minority identity (Fox, 1997; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). According to Steele (1992),
African American students, in particular, feel that academic success means mastering White
behaviors, language, and culture. For example, teachers expect students to “talk proper,” but this
directive sends the message that the students’ home language is wrong and not valued (Ogbu &
Simons, 1998). Lastly, their language frame of reference gives them a sense of self-worth and
identity to which adopting SAE would be oppositional. And, in losing their language, their
identity is threatened (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Ogbu, 1999; Perry & Delpit, 1998). These feelings
among a significant number of African Americans lead to ambivalence and reduced efforts
toward schooling and education (Ogbu, 1999; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). Some behaviors include
not paying attention in class, not completing homework or class assignments, and/or challenging
a teacher’s authority (Ogbu, 1999).
It is apparent through theories put forward by Vygotsky (1978b) and Piaget (1964) that
language is essential to learning, particularly in early childhood development and throughout
schooling. In fact, students come to school with a rather well-developed language, cultivated in
the context of family and community (Vygotsky, 1978b). Therefore, when students are denied
access or legitimacy to the language they bring from home as part of the school experience, their
learning and identity, as well as further language development, is hampered (Au, 1998; Gay,
2002; Green, 2002; Foster, 1995; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Smagorinsky, 2013). Students
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 35
need to be able to access their first language in order to learn a second language (Au, 1998;
Green, 2002; Gutierrez et al., 1997; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
Language Development
African American students, like all students, enter school at various stages of developing
an identity that is shaped by language, culture, and tradition (Smagorinsky, 2013). African
American students who speak AAL have language patterns and rules that reflect their family and
community, as do speakers of other languages (Gutierrez et al., 1997; Lantolf & Appel, 1994;
Nasir & Hand, 2006; Scott & Palincsar, 2003). By the time they enter school, African Americans
have participated in discourses that take place in their homes and community, but that may differ
from the discourses of the classroom.
Discourse with a capital “D” is a community of practice that involves language. It is
composed of ways of speaking/listening and often writing/reading that is combined with ways of
acting, thinking, believing, dressing, feeling, and so forth (Gee, 2001, 2008). It is seen as an
identity kit allowing one can to take on a social role others will recognize (Gee, 2001, 2008).
These identities might be gang member, doctor, African American, regular at a local bar, video
gamer, teacher, and so on. These socially constructed identities and experiences are shaped and
influenced by language and facilitate learning (Gee, 2001, 2008; Iverson, 2007).
“Primary Discourse” is the language and behavior one acquires early in life and is found
in the home and community (Gee, 2001, 2008). It is one’s initial sense of self and sets the
foundation of one’s “everyday language” (Gee, 2008). People acquire “Secondary Discourse”
later in life, usually within formal institutional contexts, such as religious groups, schools,
governments, or businesses (Gee, 2008; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) notion
of dominant discourse is akin to Gee’s (2001, 2008) Secondary Discourse, which describes the
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 36
formal Discourses of schooling. Both Discourses are tied to power and exclusion, which identify
people who are eligible to share or participate in the privileges of these Discourses (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997). In our current society, the White SAEspeaking group is the privileged, dominant
group, and the current teaching force is predominately White (Fogel & Ehri, 2006). If there is a
gap between the student’s and teacher’s culture, the dominant group will most likely exert
greater control (Freire, 1993; Rocque, 2010). Children from diverse backgrounds face cultural
and linguistic mismatches with their teachers due to the early history of slavery, the subsequent
attitudes that developed about AAL, and the fact that the majority of the educators are White,
middle class, monolingual females (Brock et al., 2006). These mismatches can subconsciously
lead teachers to biases and a deficit view of children from diverse backgrounds (Brock et al.,
2006).
Based on their language (AAL), African Americans are excluded from full participation
in classroom discourses in which knowledge is constructed (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Hilliard,
1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Their primary Discourse in AAL is stigmatized, and the
educator’s negative attitude or rejection through over-correction threatens their identity (Hilliard,
1983). Rejecting African American students’ language has denied them a key factor in their
identity development; for instance, many AAL speakers feel the need to shed their first language
and identity to succeed and, at the same time, are conflicted by social pressures to avoid “acting
White” or “selling-out” (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Conversely, African American students
who speak AAL may lose confidence in their school and teachers and feel discouraged from
continuing their education (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). In order to effectively work with the
increasing ethnic diversity in today’s schools, educators need to understand that culture is a
socially constructed system that depends on and is expressed through language and
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 37
communication (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Ivy & Masterson, 2011). Gee (2008) has suggested
that expanding secondary Discourse to include the diversity within the classroom requires many
opportunities to practice socially.
Features of Ebonics
The history of racism and discrimination toward African Americans has led to
misconceptions that AAL is lazy, broken, and illogical English (Green, 2002; Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011). These stereotypes have been negatively promoted by society and media. The
solution to these stereotypes is to understand that one’s language contains culture, history, and
personality. Further, these stereotypes are ignorant of the actual language patterns and rules that
govern AAL (Green 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
These language patterns and rules have educational implications. Educators who can
communicate the differences between AAL and SAE and provide activities that help students
acquire SAE will encounter less student withdrawal and disengagement (Hudley & Mallinson,
2011). Furthermore, educators who value African American students’ linguistic and cultural
heritage allow more opportunities for academic success.
Although phonologically, AAL shares most vowel and consonant sounds with SAE, there
are enough specific sound-related differences to pose education problems for AAL-speaking
students who use these variants (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Rickford,
1999). These differences affect how African Americans read and spell (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009;
Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). For example, the /r/ sound may be completely or merely absent in
words, as in “fatha” for father. The /th/ sound may be pronounced as a /d/ sound at the beginning
of words and pronounced as a /f/ sound at the end of words, such as “dey” for they and “wif” for
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 38
with. AAL speakers may also pronounce /i/ and /e/ similarly before nasal consonants, such as
“hem” for him or “pin” for pen.
Another phonological difference in AAL is the /b/, /d/, and /g/ sounds at the end of
syllables and words, which may sound like /p/, /t/, or /k/ sounds, respectively (Byrnes & Wasik,
2009; Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). For example, grab may be pronounced as
“grap,” bad as “bat,”and lag as “lack.” Additionally, words with the /st/, /sk/, and /nd/ final
consonant clusters may be pronounced as /s/, /s/, and /n/, respectively. For example, students
who speak AAL may say “tes” for test, “des” for desk, and “han” for hand (Green, 2002).
Grammatical features, which are highly stigmatized by educators, are systematic and
follow rules in the same manner as the phonological features of AAL (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009;
Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Rickford, 1999). One example is the use of multiple
negatives. Speakers of AAL use multiple negatives, such as “ain’t no” or “didn’t have no,” in
order to add emphasis to their speech and writing (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Another example
is the absence of –s inflections in third-person singular verb forms and possessive and plural
contractions (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). One might say “He hate cats”
for “He hates cats,” “Let’s go to my mama house” for “Let’s go to my mama’s house,” or “I
have 50 cent” for “I have 50 cents.”
Another grammatical feature that is often parodied and stigmatized is the use of habitual
or invariant forms of be. The AAL language uses be to express habituality and in substitution for
words such as “usually” or “often” (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Pearson
et al., 2013). An example is “He be running late to work.”
In addition to phonological and grammatical patterns, AALs’ rhythmic patterns and
melody of speech are distinguishable from SAE (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Take, for example,
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 39
the words in Paul Laurence Dunbar’s poem “Opportunity” (1913). His rhythmic patterns are
evident in the example below:
Granny’s gone a–visitin’,
Seen huh git huh shawl
W’en I was a–hidin’ down
Hime de gyahden wall.
Seen huh put her bonnet on,
Seen huh tie de strings,
An’ I’se gone to dreamin’ now
‘Bout dem cakes an’ t’ings.
In this poem, Dunbar expresses the universality of a child-grandmother relationship by using
AALs’ rhythmic patterns and melody of speech to fulfill literary functions (Lee, 1995). This
propensity for rhythmic language is also reflected in rap, which was rapidly embraced by African
Americans and others as a popular form of expression (Green, 2002). Rap, which combines
rhetorical strategies and expressive language, such as the braggadocio tone and signification, has
its roots in a verbal strategy employed in the African American community (Green, 2002).
Therefore, these strategies are just as important as the phonological and syntactical features of
AAL (Green, 2002).
When working with African American students who speak AAL, educators must allow
them to enter the discourses with the language they bring with them rather than viewing its use
as being uncooperative or hostile (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Research on
syllable patterns shows that AAL speakers may stress the first syllable of words, whereas the
pattern in SAE is to stress the second syllable (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). For
instance, AAL speakers may pronounce cement as “CE-ment” and SAE speakers would
pronounce it as “ce-MENT” (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Another example is police as “PO-
lice” instead of “po-LICE,” as SAE speakers would say.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 40
Another difference between SAE and AAL is the tone of voice. When speakers of SAE
ask a question, their voices rise at the end. In contrast, AAL speakers may ask questions with a
flat intonation, which could be misinterpreted by SAE speakers as indifference, disrespect, or
anger (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Rickford, 1999). Differences in the voice
intonations of AAL speakers are perceived negatively, and consequently, are deleteriously
evaluated academically, socially, and emotionally (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
Misinterpretations of students’ attitudes or behaviors lead to discipline problems and
disconnections between student and teacher (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Murray & Zvock, 2011;
Townsend, 2000). For example, if an African American student asks, “Why am I taking this
test?” (with a flat intonation) versus “Why am I taking this test?” (with a rising intonation), the
student’s question may be interpreted as a signal of uncooperativeness, noncompliance, or
disrespect, even though the student may not have intended to send that message (Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011).
In addition to the tone of voice, the level of volume used by AAL speakers is often
viewed in a negative light. A negative stereotype that African Americans speak loudly and are
rambunctious is often described as “acting ghetto” (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
However, in the classroom, they are often seen as withdrawn, silent, or having limited language
skills. These students are often less confident in their use of SAE and feel less safe in academic
contexts (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). This response is confused as a lack of intelligence or
disinterest in learning, and such students are often referred to special education (Green, 2002;
Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
There are also conversational norms specific to AAL. For example, African Americans
who speak AAL frequently do not tell narratives in a linear way with a clear beginning, middle,
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 41
and end, unlike the linear narratives of SAE. African American Language speakers share
narratives in a series of topics, anecdotes, or themes that are not clear or explicit to the SAE
listener (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). These have implications in writing and building
relationships between teachers and students. African American students can feel unheard,
unrecognized, or underappreciated if their teachers do not understand their topic-centered versus
linear approach to storytelling (Brock et al., 2003; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). In turn, they may
lose confidence in their educator and be unwilling to develop a relationship with someone who
does not understand them (Brock et al., 2003; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011)
Certain forms of verbal play, including instigation and signifying, are often
misinterpreted. Signifying is a traditional form of African American discourse that includes
innuendos, play on words, and responses that are quick and witty (Lee, 1993). One type of
playful interaction among African American peers is exchanging insults and making derogatory
remarks about each other and/or each other’s family (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
The popular “yo-mama jokes” and other instigation tactics are used as a vehicle to learn verbal
and creative improvisation skills; they use figurative language and cultural and personal
knowledge (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). African American students come to
school with language skills, such as signifying, that parallel similar insults and verbal jousting in
Shakespeare’s plays (Lee, 1993). Lee (1993) makes these comparisons explicit to bolster African
American students’ identities as creators, improvisers, and users of literary devices. She also
makes these parallels as scaffolding instructional strategies to interpret literary works by authors
such as Shakespeare.
Other conversational norms specific to AAL speakers are using titles to show respect,
making less eye contact when listening to the speaker, and engaging in more conversational
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 42
overlap (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Overlapping occurs when more than one person is
speaking at a time. Speakers of African American Language can be engaged in multiple
activities and conversations simultaneously. They are accustomed to socializing with others in
their homes and communities using overlapping as a style of communicating that exhibits
engagement in the conversation (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Townsend, 2000). At school,
however, most teachers do not appreciate or understand this approach to conversation and, as a
result, penalize students for being noncompliant or disrespectful.
Dunbar’s proficiency in AAL and SAE is an example of an appropriate goal for AAL
speakers in today’s schools. He is able to write fluently in AAL, such as in “Opportunity,” but
also with precise SAE. For instance, in “Sympathy” (1893), Dunbar writes “I know what the
caged bird feels, alas! / When the sun is bright on the upland slopes; / When the wind stirs soft
through the springing grass; / And the river flows like a stream of glass.” This poem captures
imagery and expresses the pain of captivity by mastering conventions of SAE. Just like Dunbar
and other African American writers, African American students can be fluent and proficient in
both languages. The ability to function fluently in more than one language benefits students’
academic development when teachers value their identity and their first language (Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011; Lee, 1995).
Impact of Teachers’ Misperceptions
For many teachers, valuing the identity and first language of African American students
is problematic. The learning experiences students need in order to be proficient in both their
home language and in SAE are marred by teachers’ misperceptions. Teachers’ misperceptions
about the origin or value of AAL prevent them from recognizing the phonology, grammar, and
rules in AAL that have implications for success in schools. Consequently, African American
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 43
students are at a disadvantage in carrying out certain tasks that require thinking, writing, and
speaking in SAE (Heath, 1984).
Researchers have found that teachers view African Americans’ pitch and tone offensive
and combative (Monroe, 2005; Townsend, 2000). Disapproval of AAL has inadvertently led to
fewer educational opportunities for African Americans compared to those for White and Asian
students (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). For example, Black and Hispanic
students are more likely to be assigned to lower reading groups than their White and Asian peers
(Oakes, 2005). This assignment to lower reading groups could be further explained by teachers’
inability or even unwillingness to address language differences when African American students
first enter school. Even when students of different ethnicities are assigned to the same ability
group, teacher-student interactions differ according to ethnicity (Brock et al., 2003; Tate, 1995).
African American students are sometimes penalized and chastised for integrating their home and
cultural languages (Tate, 1995).
Although language is important in how people establish their identities—particularly in
relation to school and academic achievement—African American children who speak AAL may
find school challenging if teachers have negative attitudes toward AAL (Hudley & Mallinson,
2011; Ivy & Masterson, 2011). These misperceptions are sometimes caused by a mismatch
between the teacher’s and the student’s cultural backgrounds. Certain behaviors and symptoms
surface on the part of students in response to teachers’ rejection of their language. As stated
earlier, African American students who speak AAL can feel discouraged from continuing their
education, disengaged from school, fail to pay attention in class or complete class assignments,
and become defiant and challenge teachers’ authority when language—their most valuable
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 44
psychological tool for learning—is rejected in the classroom (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011;
Morris, 2005; Ogbu & Simons, 1998).
Instructional Practices for Supporting Learning in SAE-Dominant Classrooms
Schools must provide assistance to students for acquiring SAE. School is one of the few
places they will have access to SAE. Early experiences and language development occur in a
context in which they were only hearing speakers of SAE and a lot of that is due to segregation
(Smith & Crozier, 1998). African American Language speakers frequently live in communities
that are segregated and where they and their parents have little access to SAE (Smith & Crozier,
1998). Students who come into the classroom with a language other than mainstream English are
already disadvantaged because of the dominance of SAE in the classroom; as a consequence,
they may develop literacy problems in SAE (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Snow et
al., 1998). According to the sociocultural perspective, language plays an important role in
shaping literacy learning opportunities (Brock et al., 2003). Therefore, African American
students must develop fluency in SAE in order to write, read, and connect to the curriculum
(Brock et al., 2003; Craig & Washington, 2004; Craig, Zhang, Hensel, & Quinn, 2009). A well-
developed SAE language will allow AAL speakers to make more meaning and connections to
texts that are typically written in SAE (Brock et al., 2003; Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson,
2011).
Teachers’ actions that reflect their misperceptions are usually based on limited
knowledge and feelings of inadequacy with students speaking AAL. However, researchers and
practitioners have created multiple instructional practices that support learning SAE without
denigrating African American AAL-speaking students’ identity. One of the proposed practices is
to be culturally responsive and to provide opportunities for all students to be successful (Byrnes
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 45
& Wasik, 2009; Connor & Craig, 2006; Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Some
practices reinforce the knowledge that African American students who speak AAL are not
making errors in their speech. Teaching SAE as a language that students can add to their
repertoire of languages—instead of replacing their home language—can be validating to the
student, allowing them to accept SAE with less resistance. This strategy has been coined “code-
switching” by some, but it is imperative that instructors explicitly teach students when and how
to adapt or translate their language (Connor & Craig, 2006; Townsend, 2000). Whether the term
is “code-switching” or “second language acquisition,” they both refer to the ability to
interchangeably use forms of Ebonics and SAE, depending on the environment or context (Ball,
1996; Craig & Washington, 2004; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hill, 2013; Ogbu, 1999). More
specifically, a person’s ability to code-switch subconsciously is evidence that person has
acquired the second language. Once a student has acquired a second language, only then can
he/she monitor his spoken or written output (Freeman & Freeman, 2004). Teachers need to make
clear to African American students that the language they are speaking is not incorrect; it follows
the language patterns they learned in their home and community. However, at school they are
acquiring a second language and applying the rules that govern SAE as a second language
(Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Wheeler, 2008).
An instructional approach to teaching or fostering the ability to use languages
interchangeably is contrastive analysis. Contrastive analysis is a formal instructional strategy in
which the teacher pays explicit attention to language and builds upon students’ existing language
patterns (Green, 2002; Wheeler, 2008). Contrastive analysis is highly effective in helping
students think about their own language in formal and informal contexts and discover the
patterns in SAE without feeling that their home language is flawed or inappropriate (Delpit,
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 46
2006; Hill, 2013; Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Perry & Delpit, 1998; Wheeler,
2008). Instructional lessons toward acquiring SAE can stem from examining African American
students’ writing, tape recordings of oral narratives, or stories read aloud by the student (Craig,
Kolenic, & Hensel, 2014; Craig & Washington, 2004; Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011;
Ivy & Masterson, 2011). By reviewing these student work products, teachers can: (a) identify the
key markers that represent African American students’ language that interrupts their ability to
decode SAE text, make meaning from the text, or write in SAE; (b) use the key markers that
were found to develop a contrastive analysis chart that teachers use to help students contrast the
grammatical patterns of AAL to the patterns of SAE (Wheeler, 2008); and (c) lead students to
putting their knowledge of these two contrasting languages to work through metacognition,
which is their ability to think about how and what they are thinking (Wheeler, 2008). Reflecting
and discussing language in this way fosters successful use of SAE, while validating and building
on the student’s existing language to leverage new language and knowledge (Green, 2002;
Haddix, 2012; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Wheeler, 2008). However, in order to use the
contrastive analysis approach, the instructor must be aware of the students’ language ZPD, which
is the language they bring to the school setting.
One method to tap into the language ZPD of AAL speakers is using Carol Rodgers’s
(2002) reflective cycle, which consists of the following stages: (a) be “present” and notice what
is occurring in the classroom; (b) describe the experience without interpretation or assumptions;
(c) critically analyze and make meaning of the experience, guided by multiple perspectives; and
(d) experiment or test an intelligently developed instructional plan (Rodgers, 2002). The
reflective cycle requires slowing down the teaching/learning process and allows teachers to be
present without judgment. This cycle can be a powerful tool for teachers to understand and
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 47
become aware of African American students’ AAL without interpretation or assumptions
allowing them to build lessons around the different grammatical or phonological structures of
SAE and AAL. Therefore, to address students’ language differences, teachers must be aware of
and responsive to African American students’ cultural, linguistic, and experiential filters (Au,
2003; Brock et al., 2003; Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Gay, 2002; Henfield & Washington,
2012; Moje et al., 2004; Okoye-Johnson, 2011; Pearson et al., 2013). This principle is central to
culturally responsive teaching, which involves using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences,
frames of references, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students as expressed through
their language (Gay, 2000, 2002). Culture and language are so intertwined that it is difficult to
separate them, and teachers need not only to pay attention to students’ language, but also to the
cultural contexts in which language is developed and expressed (Gutierrez et al., 1997; Harris &
Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Ivy & Masterson, 2011; Ogbu, 1999; Vygotsky,
1978a). Essential components of culturally responsive teaching that embraces students’ culture
and language require that teachers:
• acquire knowledge of cultural characteristics of ethnic groups, such as ethnic groups’
protocols of interaction with adults and implications of gender role socialization
(Gay, 2002);
• incorporate cultural diversity reflecting students’ cultural experiences in every subject
by adding multicultural content to the curriculum (Gay, 2002; Pearson et al., 2013);
• go beyond awareness and respect for ethnic groups by acquiring knowledge about the
contributions of different ethnic groups to a wide variety of disciplines and a deeper
understanding of multicultural education theory and research (Gay, 2002);
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 48
• instill high expectations and believe that students will succeed in school and beyond
by presenting students with new and challenging material instead of remedial
exercises that focus on their deficiencies (Brock et al., 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1995;
Pearson et al., 2013);
• demonstrate appreciation for linguistic diversity by allowing African American
students to incorporate verbal styles in their learning and not constantly interrupting
them when they are speaking or reading out loud (Gay, 2002; Pearson et al., 2013);
• be aware of the power of images, symbols, icons, and other artifacts that are on
bulletin boards, in trade books, ethical principles, rules and regulations, and publicly
displayed statements of social etiquette in the classroom (Gay, 2002).
Incorporating culturally responsive pedagogy in the classroom increases African
American AAL-speaking students’ engagement and motivation to learn (Gay, 2002; Pearson et
al., 2013).
Written Corrective Feedback
Scholars of AAL agree that when speakers apply rules consistent with AAL to produce
variations on SAE, these variations are not to be confused with errors (Boutte & Johnson, 2013;
Green, 2002; Wheeler, 2008). However, little research has been done regarding appropriate
teacher feedback to AAL speakers’ written expression. The only research to rely on comes from
a genre known as “written corrective feedback.”
Research separates written corrective feedback approaches into two fields: second
language (L2) and second language acquisition (SLA) approaches to writing (Bitchener & Ferris,
2012; Ferris, 2010). L2 and SLA writing researchers investigate similar phenomena, but pose
different questions. Researchers have different views about corrective feedback. Ferris (2010)
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 49
has stated that one focus examines how feedback contributes to students’ acquisition of specific
linguistic features, whereas, L2 researchers are more focused on the role of corrective feedback
in the overall effectiveness of students’ texts. The instructional practices suggested in this section
are through the lens of an L2 researcher.
Providing feedback is an essential aspect of formative assessment and contributes to
students’ writing development (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Sadler,
1989). Feedback can be presented in several forms: written corrective feedback, individual
student-teacher conferences, classroom discussions, and peer feedback. Written corrective
feedback, however, is the teacher’s feedback written on students’ writing products. The nature of
written corrective feedback can impact students’ long-term writing development (Bitchener &
Ferris, 2012). Previous research found that low-income and minority students most often
received written corrective feedback that was superficial and not focused on content, but rather
on mechanics (grammar, punctuation, and spelling) or clarification of specific phrases or
pronoun usage (Matsumura, Patthey-Chavez, Valdes, & Garnier, 2002). Bitchener and Ferris
(2012) argued that form-before-content corrections should be discouraged for several reasons:
(a) the teacher’s time and energy to correct grammar and conventions is wasted if the student is
expected to revise (add, delete, and rearrange text) text that may disappear in later versions; (b)
attention to grammar and conventions too early may distract students and interfere with their
cognitive processing to develop their content; and (c) students may misconstrue the purpose of
writing and view writing as being more about an immaculate final product, than about
communicating content effectively. However, grammar and conventions are still an important
aspect of reading and writing. Learning SAE grammar and conventions is important because
deviations can distract readers and stigmatize writers (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012).
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 50
Research on L2 written corrective feedback suggests that feedback be “direct,”
“focused,” and include “positive” comments in order to facilitate students’ acquisition of
academic language and literacy skills (Alimohammadi & Nejadansari, 2014; Bitchener & Ferris,
2012; Ferris, 2010; Lee, 2013). When feedback is explicit and targeted, students are more likely
to revise subsequent drafts accurately (Lee, 2013). With “direct” corrective feedback, the teacher
provides the correction above or near the deviation from the target language usually by crossing
out, circling, or inserting the correct form or word (Alimohammadi & Nejadansari, 2014;
Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2010). Teachers who provide “indirect” corrective feedback
indicate that a deviation has been made, but do not provide an alternate form or explanation,
leaving the student to solve the deviation.
L2 researchers argue for both “direct” and “indirect” approaches. Proponents of “direct”
feedback suggest that it is more explicit, more immediate, reduces confusion, and offers more
information to help them address more complex deviations from the target language (Bitchener
& Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2010). Furthermore, “direct” feedback in conjunction with meta-linguistic
explanation (providing extra information about the correction) has proved to be more effective
(Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). On the other hand, supporters of “indirect” feedback tout its
effectiveness because they claim it engages students in problem solving and forces them to
reflect on their linguistic deviation (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2010). Although there is no
clear conclusion about which type of feedback is more effective, what is known is that recent L2
findings suggest that some form of “direct” corrective feedback with meta-linguistic explanation
may be more helpful for improving accuracy (Bitchener 2008: Bitchener & Ferris, 2012;
Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Sheen, 2007). In addition to the explicit “direct” feedback, students
still need time and repetition to master linguistic patterns (Hyland & Hyland, 2006).
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 51
Another aspect of written corrective feedback is “focused” versus “unfocused.” Teachers
who provide “unfocused” feedback provide comments on a wide range of students’ differences
from SAE; whereas “focused” feedback restricts comments to a few (two or three) targeted
linguistic features, such as definite and indefinite articles (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris,
2010). According to L2 researchers, a “focused” approach to feedback leads to long-term effects
(Bitchener 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008). A “focused” approach that includes fewer and
clearer corrections is less overwhelming to the student and easier for him/her to understand
which deviations were made (Ferris, 2010; Lee, 2013).
Feedback can also be divided into “positive” or “negative.” “Positive” feedback identifies
features that were “correct,” and “negative” feedback identifies features that were “not correct”
(Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ellis, 2009). In a sense, all corrections are considered “negative”
feedback and L2 researchers argue that a role exists for “negative” feedback (Bitchener & Ferris,
2012). Teachers provide “negative” feedback to bring attention to linguistic forms, but they
should also include specific, targeted “positive” feedback in order to foster motivation and
provide affective support (Alimohammadi & Nejadansari, 2014; Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ellis,
2009).
Furthermore, research has found that written corrective feedback can be effective when it
is combined with one-on-one teacher conferences (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). Combining
feedback with discussions is consistent with Vygotsky’s (1978b) explanation that writing is a
social process that is used to fulfill a social purpose. For students to develop as writers, they need
to be engaged in social interactions under adult guidance and with peers (Vygotsky, 1978b).
Furthermore, these interactions should occur in the student’s ZPD in order to aid learning and
development (Sperling & Freedman, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978b). Even a short five-minute
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 52
conference that is individualized and focused is beneficial in helping students develop their
accuracy and understanding of recurring differences between their first language and the
language they are acquiring (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012).
Another type of interaction pertaining to written corrective feedback is peer feedback.
Peer feedback can be an effective form of feedback as students work together to construct
understandings about written language (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Lantolf & Appel, 1994;
Peterson & Portier, 2014). There are several advantages of peer feedback: (a) it allows students
to gain a sense of their potential audience and responses to their writing (Peterson & Portier,
2014); (b) they gain experience identifying linguistic differences and may be more likely to read
their own writing with a keen eye and self-correct before the teacher or partner does (Bitchener
& Ferris, 2012); and (c) students have a chance to experiment with new ideas shared by their
peers (Peterson & Portier, 2014). Teachers can successfully implement peer feedback by
modeling, providing examples, and offering reinforcement on effective feedback as students read
their writing to their partner (Peterson & Portier, 2014). Students can also be asked to simply
identify where they think the difference has occurred, instead of correcting it for their partner
(Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). This kind of peer editing occurs when students have a rubric or clear
criteria of what the work should look like (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Peterson & Portier, 2014).
Preparing for the Common Core State Standards
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) recognizes language and its implications for
learning curriculum and content. Forty-three states have adopted the CCSS, which were
developed in an effort to set clear educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade. The
goal of the standards is to promote equity by ensuring that all students are prepared with the
skills and knowledge to collaborate and compete with their peers in the United States and abroad
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 53
(National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2010). The CCSS calls for students to read progressively complex texts as they move
through grades K–12 to be ready for the rigors of college, careers, and life challenges (Common
Core State Standards Initiative, 2014e). Recognizing that language development occurs over
time with effective instruction, the English Language Arts standards build on one another in a
sequential manner to ensure that students have a foundation for the increasing complexity of
texts at each grade level. For example, Reading Standard 3 in kindergarten states, “With
prompting and support, identify characters, settings, and major events in a story” (Common Core
State Standards Initiative, 2014b). The same reading standard in first grade states, “Describe
characters, settings, and major events in a story, using key details” (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2014c). In second grade, Reading Standard 3 states, “Describe how
characters in a story respond to major events and challenges” (Common Core State Standards
Initiative, 2014d).
Along with the growing complexity of texts is a focus on students’ academic vocabulary.
The CCSS calls for academic vocabulary to be taught in context, not in isolation, but within all
subject areas through conversation, direct instruction, and reading, extending across the domains
of reading, writing, speaking, and listening (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014g).
An example is the College and Career Readiness Anchor Standard for Language #6:
Acquire and use accurately a range of general academic and domain-specific
words and phrases sufficient for reading, writing, speaking, and listening at the
college and career readiness level; demonstrate independence in gathering
vocabulary knowledge when encountering an unknown term important to
comprehension or expression. (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014a)
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 54
The new standards are explicit about how academic language, or SAE, is essential to the learning
process and without attention to it, students are denied learning opportunities. The CCSS makes
the role of language in learning more explicit than ever, calling on all teachers to have
foundational knowledge about the role of language development in student academic
performance. SAE language is required for students to meet all the standards in all content areas,
even in those cases where the word “language” is not explicitly stated (van Lier & Walqui,
2013). For example, a second grade writing standard states, “Write narratives in which they
recount a well-elaborated event or short sequence of events, include details to describe actions,
thoughts, and feelings, use temporal words to signal event order, and provide a sense of closure”
(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014e).
African American students who speak AAL—and are not yet fluent in SAE—are at a
disadvantage with the implementation of the Common Core State Standards if teachers do not
provide targeted instructional experiences to teach SAE as they implement the standards. As
Vygotsky (1978b) has pointed out, people learn through activity and experiences that are
meaningful to them. Therefore, in order to develop and acquire SAE, African American students
who speak AAL will learn SAE by participating in meaningful and engaging activities (projects,
presentations, investigations) through perception, interaction, planning, research, discussion, and
the coconstruction of various academic products in which teachers model the use of language as
an aid in performing tasks (Smagorinsky, 2013; van Lier & Walqui, 2013). According to
Vygotsky (1978b), when adults model the use of language in performing tasks, students
associate the actions with specific language, which they later adopt as their own inner speech as
they engage in similar tasks. Furthermore, the teacher can carefully scaffold the activity and
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 55
allow a range of focused cognitive and linguistic work, while allowing for individual and group
choices (van Lier & Walqui, 2013).
The CCSS provide educators with an opportunity to reconceptualize their view of
language and the ways in which it is used across subject areas to promote learning. African
American students are more likely to acquire SAE as a second language so long as teachers do
not make them feel that they have to lose the language they grew up with, and as long as teachers
provide students with opportunities to integrate language and action deeply and coherently (van
Lier & Walqui, 2013).
Summary
The conceptual framework in this study is based on sociocultural theory and
sociolinguistic (Gee, 2001, 2008) theories to examine classrooms for practices that reflect an
acknowledgement and respect for the language and culture of students. Some educators advocate
that their students master Standardized/Academic English because they know that there are real-
world benefits, such as getting ahead in educational and professional pursuits and facing less
discrimination (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). However, researchers have found that academic
achievement increases when teachers take a culturally and linguistically sensitive approach that
considers African American students’ cultural and experiential filters (Gay, 2002; Haddix, 2012).
With knowledge and understanding of AAL and its cultural background, educators will be better
equipped to instruct students in ways that validate and support AAL’s linguistic and rhetorical
traditions (Haddix, 2012; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Teachers can foster positive learning
outcomes by teaching African American students the norms, rules, and conventions of SAE
while recognizing and respecting the norms, rules, and conventions of the language they bring
with them from home (Haddix, 2012; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 56
This chapter presented a review of the literature relevant to the development of
Standardized/Academic English of African American students who speak AAL. This chapter
provided the literature for the history, theories, and teaching practices for SAE development. The
subject matter addressed in this chapter included: (a) a history of Ebonics and schools, (b) a
sociocultural theoretical framework, (c) language and literacy factors that contribute to the
achievement gap, and (d) instructional practices to support the acquisition of SAE.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 57
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology used to address the purpose and research
questions of this study. The chapter also presents the sample, population, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis of the study. The study’s primary purpose was to explore first and
second teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of AAL and its speakers and the instructional
practices they perceive and implement to support their African American students whose first
language is AAL in acquiring proficiency in SAE and in accessing the curriculum. The
researcher also examined differences in African American students’ use of SAE between first
and second grade, and formal and informal interactions teachers have with their African
American students who speak AAL. Three research questions were:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions and knowledge about African American Language, a
form of Ebonics?
2. What is the nature of first and second grade classroom discourses between the teacher
and African American students when students speak African American Language?
3. What are some structured pedagogical practices used by some teachers for guiding
speakers of African American Language into become proficient writers and speakers
of SAE?
This study utilized qualitative research methods of data collection through interviews,
field observations, and document analysis of student writing. This combination of methods for
collecting data is called triangulation, which is a strategy that involves using multiple methods to
gain more in-depth information (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Maxwell, 2013). The research
questions served the researcher’s exploration of teachers’ perceptions and knowledge. They also
prompted consideration of student-teacher interactions involving African American speakers of
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 58
AAL. Therefore, qualitative methods provided the best way to acquire rich descriptions that
helped the researcher understand how teachers interpreted, constructed, and created meaning
with their African American students who are speakers of AAL (Corbin & Strauss, 2008;
Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
For this study, the researcher collected data using interviews and observations from
teachers at an urban elementary school in Southern California. Interviews allowed the researcher
to gain more information about teachers’ perspectives and knowledge of students’ use of AAL
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Two sets of follow-up observations in the classrooms of the
same teachers who were interviewed allowed the researcher to observe student-teacher
interactions and added more information about different aspects of the phenomena that either
supported or contradicted teachers’ stated theories, beliefs, and perceptions about AAL in the
classroom (Maxwell, 2013). Student writing samples that included teacher feedback were used to
analyze AAL patterns, as well as the type of feedback provided by the teacher to guide speakers
of AAL into becoming proficient writers in SAE.
Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling is a strategy used to deliberately select individuals, in order to
discover, understand, and gain insight of those from whom the most can be learned (Maxwell,
2013). For this study, the researcher used purposeful sampling by selecting a school in Mayberry
School District, an urban K–5 elementary school that had the highest population of African
American students. Based on scholars who have stated that millions of African Americans speak
some form of AAL (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011), the unit of analysis in this study
was first and second grade teachers in classrooms with the highest numbers of African American
students as compared to other classrooms; each teacher who participated in this study had five to
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 59
eight African American students. This was an appropriate sampling strategy because the
researcher examined how teachers who had high numbers of African American students
interacted with their students in classroom discourses as they constructed knowledge and helped
them acquire SAE. The design of the study was based on research that found a sharp decrease of
AAL use and an increase of SAE use among students over the course of first grade (Craig &
Washington, 2004; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). The researcher noted whether the discourses of
second grade teachers differed from those of first grade teachers, assuming that speakers of AAL
are more proficient in their use of SAE at second grade as a result of instruction. In this study,
the researcher examined whether second grade teachers used students’ new ZPD around the
acquisition of SAE. Another criterion for the sample was at least one teacher from each grade
level was tenured and had taught at that site for at least three years so they could speak from
multiple years of experience with AAL and African American students.
The process for gaining access was important because it allowed formal access and entry,
and was the start to developing a rapport with gatekeepers and subjects (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007). In this study, the principal was the first level of access and served as a gatekeeper to the
desired subjects: the teachers. Once the researcher received a list of teachers who fit the
researcher’s criteria, the researcher emailed them, briefly described the study, length of interview
(approximately 45 minutes), and reasons for selecting them. Participants also received a $5.00
gift card to Target.
Instrumentation
The conceptual framework in this study was sociocultural theory and language theories
that served to examine classrooms for practices that reflected acknowledgement and respect for
the language and culture of students. Data were collected using interviews, observations, and
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 60
analysis of student work from teachers. Triangulating these forms of data enabled the researcher
to draw inferences about teachers’ perspectives, knowledge, and interactions with speakers of
AAL (Maxwell, 2013).
For this study, the researcher used a semistructured face-to-face interview protocol. This
format was particularly chosen because of its flexibility and allowance for an open-ended
structure (Merriam, 2009). This flexible and open-ended interview protocol was important to the
study because the researcher could ask for more information, allowing the researcher to respond
to the participants’ responses, views, ideas, or situations (Merriam, 2009). The literature review
helped the researcher draft interview questions. The researcher also borrowed wording from
questions in Johnston’s (2011), Williams’s (2010), Lemoine’s (2003), and Perry and Delpit’s
(1998) interview protocols that targeted the research questions. Then, the researcher used
Merriam (2009), Weiss (1994), and Bogdan and Biklen (2007) as guides to (a) rephrase or
eliminate questions that were leading, biased, yes/no, or had multiple questions; (b) include
questions that ask for concrete examples of specific incidents; and (c) start the interview with a
general, neutral question. Some interview questions were intentionally broad in order to avoid
overly prompting the respondent. The researcher piloted these questions with teachers at the
researcher’s school site and asked for feedback, specifically about the flow and clarity of the
interview questions.
To avoid eliciting responses from interviewees intended to be socially acceptable, the
interview questions allowed interviewees’ description of scenarios. The researcher allowed
participants to select the time and date of the interview in order to avoid pressuring them and to
put them at ease about participating in this study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The researcher
recorded the interview in order to eliminate the need for trying to write too many notes while
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 61
listening to the interviewee. The recording tool allowed the researcher to stay more engaged in
the conversation (Merriam, 2009).
Similar to the approach in scheduling interviews, the researcher allowed the participants to
select the time and date of both observations. Observations focused on interactions/discourses
between the teacher and users of AAL who were (or were not) described in the interview. Two
observations of the same teachers the researcher interviewed allowed the researcher to gather
more information about different aspects of the phenomena of teachers’ stated knowledge and
perceptions about AAL in the classroom (Maxwell, 2013). A second observation of each teacher
was conducted to indicate whether the observed practices were common or aberrational. The
researcher’s stance was observer as nonparticipant. As a peripheral member, the researcher had
the job was of observing without participating in activities (Merriam, 2009). The researcher
selected this role to avoid interfering with the instruction. Secondly, the researcher’s presence
was as subtle as possible, thereby reducing the potential for the teacher and students to alter their
behavior and interactions with each other (Merriam, 2009).
The observation protocol was created using some features of Merriam’s (2009)
observation protocol checklist, including a place to record minutes, teachers’ discourses or
actions, students’ discourses or actions, and observer’s comments (see Appendix B). There was
no structure to the note taking, except scripting in order to write freely and reduce preconceived
expectations for what the researcher observed.
The researcher selected writing samples based on the teachers’ Common Core Standards–
based writing assignments. The purpose was to examine teachers’ comments and edits to
phonological and grammatical features of AAL. The researcher used students’ spelling as
indicators of phonological differences.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 62
Data Collection
Data collection consisted of interviews, observations, and analysis of student work. Prior
to collecting data, the researcher submitted a proposal to USC’s Institution Review Board (IRB).
Once granted permission, the researcher met with the researcher’s superintendent and principal
of the selected school site. Merriam (2009) has advised researchers to pilot interviews in order to
learn which questions need rewording, are confusing, useless, or necessary. The researcher
conducted five pilot interviews with teachers at the researcher’s current school site in order to
practice interviewing and revising the interview questions.
Once the interview questions were finalized, the selected participants received an email
asking for access and a letter explaining the study. Participants who accepted also received a
letter of consent. For each participating teacher, the researcher conducted one interview, one one-
hour observation and a second 30-minute observation, and collected one student writing sample.
Interviews were tape recorded, transcribed, and coded for themes. Observations were scripted
and later coded for themes. Student work did not include student names in order to maintain
anonymity. They were later coded to facilitate the researcher’s access to them.
Data Analysis
Analysis of data occurred as soon as the first piece of data was collected (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). The data analysis process involved consolidating, reducing, and interpreting
participants’ responses and actions (Merriam, 2009). The researcher began coding using a list of
instructional pedagogies drawn from the literature. The list included teachers’ positive and
negative behaviors. The negative behaviors the researcher began coding were: overcorrecting,
dismissing, ignoring, punishing, criticizing, yelling, interrupting, embarrassing AAL speakers,
authoritarian/directive teacher-student interaction, and scripted student-student
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 63
responses/discussions. The positive behaviors the researcher began coding were: incorporating
cultural diversity in instruction, explicitly promoting high expectations, involving student-
student interaction, involving teacher-student interaction, requiring choral reading, allowing
students to use text to model sentence formation, requiring students to repeat directions, using a
respectful tone and response to African American students, providing positive
reinforcement/praise, and acknowledging a student without reprimanding or embarrassing
him/her. These themes were important to the study because the researcher wanted to understand
and observe teachers’ behaviors and attitudes about African American students who speak AAL.
Validity and Reliability
Validity refers to the credibility of the study (Maxwell, 2013). The most obvious internal
threat to validity was that the researcher was the primary instrument of data collection and
analysis of interpretations of reality (Merriam, 2009). As a result, there is a possibility of
researcher bias and that the conclusions drawn fit existing theory, goals, or preconceptions
(Maxwell, 2013). Another threat to validity was that the researcher is an employee in the district
where data was collected. As a result, the researcher might have had a bias in approaching
interviews and observations. Therefore, the triangulation method of collecting data presented an
unbiased holistic interpretation of the phenomenon. Additionally, respondent validation during
interviews ruled out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of participants’ responses and
perspectives (Maxwell, 2013).
Limitations
One limitation in this study is that some of the literature is older because there is a gap in
the research; however, seminal, foundational work on AAL took place in the 1980s and 1990s.
Another limitation is the extremely limited research on written corrective feedback that targets
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 64
Standard English learners, and more specifically AAL speakers. Therefore, the literature
regarding written corrective feedback is generalized to all second language acquisition learners.

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 65
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to explore first and second grade teachers’ knowledge and
perceptions of African American Language and its speakers, as well as their perceptions and
implementation of instructional practices for supporting African American students whose first
language is AAL in acquiring proficiency in SAE. Additionally, the researcher examined
differences in African American students’ use of SAE between first and second grade, as well as
formal and informal interactions and discourses between teachers and African American students
who speak AAL. Finally, the researcher examined student writing samples for teacher feedback
to students as a source of support for African American students to acquire proficiency in SAE.
This chapter reviews the findings of teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of AAL speakers,
discourses, and instructional practices that scaffold AAL speakers into SAE as a second
language.
Research Questions
Three questions guided this study:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions and knowledge about African American Language, a
form of Ebonics?
2. What is the nature of first and second grade classroom discourses between the teacher
and African American students when students speak African American Language?
3. What are some structured pedagogical practices used by some teachers for guiding
speakers of African American Language into become proficient writers and speakers
of SAE?
Hillcrest Elementary School was located in Southern California and had a high Hispanic
and African American population. The student population was 62% Hispanic and 34% African
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 66
American—the highest number of African American students in the district. The analysis and
interpretation of the data gathered for this study consisted of triangulation from interviews,
observations, and student writing samples from first and second grade teachers (Table 1). The
qualitative data derived from these methods were the basis for the research question findings.
Teachers’ underlying beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge of language reflected their choices and
implementation of instructional practices.
Table 1
Matrix of Protocols to Research Questions
Research Question Observations Interviews Writing Samples
1 X
2 X X
3 X X X

Table 2
Description of Participants
Teacher
Grade
Level
Gender Ethnicity
Years of
Teaching
Experience
Education Background
First
Language
1 1st Female Filipino 15
Master’s in Education,
CLAD credential
Filipino
2 1st Female White 12
Master’s in Education,
CLAD credential
English
3 2nd Female Latina 2
Bachelor of Arts,
CLAD credential
Spanish
4 2nd Female White 12
Master’s in Education,
CLAD credential
English

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 67
Table 3
Courses/Trainings Participants Attended
Teacher
Bilingual
education
or 2nd
language
acquisition
Language
development
in children
AAL
speaker
training
Black history/
culture
Speakers of non-
standard language or
SELs
1 X X X X
2 X X X X X
3 X X
4 X X X

At the time of this study, Teacher 1 was a tenured teacher and had taught at the selected
school site for over three years. She had never taken courses related to bilingual education,
second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, or dialectology; however, she had taken a few
courses associated with language development in children, Black history and/or culture, and had
attended a few days of training related to African American speakers of AAL and speakers of
nonstandard languages.
Teacher 2 was also a tenured teacher in the district, but had taught at the selected school
site for one year. She had some background knowledge in AAL and language. She had
completed courses and attended trainings related to bilingual education, language development in
children, Black history and/or culture, African American speakers of AAL, and speakers of
nonstandard languages.
Teacher 3 was a nontenured teacher and had taught at the selected school site for two
years. She had not attended any training related to speakers of AAL or nonstandard language
speakers; however, she had completed multiple courses in bilingual education and language
development in children.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 68
Teacher 4 was a tenured teacher and had taught at the selected school site for over three
years. Although she had taken a few courses related to language development in children, she did
not have background knowledge in bilingual education, second language acquisition, or AAL
speakers. She participated in a few seminars and trainings related to nonstandard language
speakers and Black history and/or culture.
Findings
Research Question 1: What are teachers’ perceptions and knowledge about African
American Language, a form of Ebonics?
The researcher used a semistructured face-to-face interview protocol to gather teachers’
perceptions and knowledge about AAL (see Appendix A). Each interview was conducted after
the two classroom observations.
Knowledge About AAL
All four teachers were unable to provide a definition of AAL consistent with the research
literature. Teacher 1 defined AAL as “Ebonics . . . the way they acquire English is different . . .
[they] use actions and body movements,” and in interview question 31 referred to AAL as
“slang.” Teachers 2 and 3 described AAL as “slang” and a “dialect,” respectively. Teacher 4 was
unsure of AAL and said, “Ebonics [is a] mixture of Creole and all languages that fused,
including English.” Although the teachers were unable to provide a definition of AAL, they all
stated that they could understand someone speaking AAL.
Interview question 19 asked teachers to distinguish between statements written in slang
and AAL. Teacher 1 was the only teacher who identified and recognized specific grammatical
and syntactical features of AAL. Teacher 2 replied, “No” to every statement and said, “These are
all stereotypes, not African American Language!” Teachers 3 and 4 could not distinguish
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 69
between AAL and slang. However, question 25 asked first and second grade teachers to identify
phonological and grammatical features of AAL, respectively, and all teachers could provide
examples and/or features. Even Teachers 2, 3, and 4, who were unable to recognize statements
written in AAL earlier in question 19, were able to identify specific phonological and
grammatical features of AAL. For example, Teacher 2 noticed that students who speak AAL
“omit helping verbs, forget the –s, not being specific with vocabulary.” Contrarily, when asked
how the writing of an African American student was different to the writing of a student who
was proficient in SAE, Teachers 1, 2, and 3 said there was no difference at all; Teacher 4 said
there were some differences in grammar.
To further examine teachers’ knowledge, interview question 21 asked participants to rate
their degree of agreement with statements on a scale of 1–5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5
being strongly agree, regarding the role of language in learning and AAL. Each heading in the
chart below represents a subquestion about language and specific characteristics of AAL.
Table 4
Participants’ Responses on a Scale of 1–5 to Interview Question 21
Teacher
Language
plays an
essential role
in learning
Language
proficiency is
essential for
literacy
Academic
performance is
hindered if AAL is
student’s primary
language
AAL is
a form
of slang
Those who
speak AAL are
largely
uneducated
AAL has
grammatical
rules
1 2 5 3 2 1 2
2 5 5 3 4 1 3
3 4 5 2 3–4 3 3
4 4 4 2 3 2 2

Teacher 1’s responses to questions about language in learning indicated that she did not
have a firm understanding of the role of language in learning. She answered with a 2 when asked
whether language played an essential role in learning, but “strongly agreed” that language
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 70
proficiency was essential for literacy. When the researcher posed the same questions to Teachers
2, 3, and 4, they responded with a 4 or 5, which indicated that they understood the importance of
the role of language in learning and literacy. Furthermore, all four teachers answered 2 or 3 when
asked if the student’s primary language, AAL, hindered his or her academic performance. These
answers implied that teachers were unsure about the role of AAL in students’ learning.
Teacher 1 did not agree that AAL was slang, yet later referred to AAL as “slang” in
interview question 31. She strongly disagreed that AAL speakers were uneducated, but did not
agree that AAL had grammatical rules. Teacher 2 agreed that AAL was slang, strongly disagreed
that AAL speakers were uneducated, and was not sure whether AAL had grammatical rules.
Teachers 3 and 4’s responses indicated that they were unsure whether AAL was a form of slang,
whether those who speak AAL were largely uneducated, and whether AAL has grammatical
rules.
Furthermore, all four teachers stated that AAL did not belong in formal settings like
during classroom instruction, and that it should only be used in informal conversations with
friends, peers, and family. For instance, Teacher 2 stated that the use of AAL was appropriate in
“informal settings, like with family and peers. Not in classrooms or specific academic times, but
if they’re with their peers [it’s acceptable].” Contrary to teachers’ responses, the literature states
that students should be encouraged to use AAL, in addition to acquiring SAE, in formal
environments such as the classroom (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
SAE Perceptions
Teachers’ responses indicated that they perceived SAE as essential to academic success.
Each teacher mentioned that African American students’ proficiency in SAE was important for
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 71
writing, taking assessments, communicating, and/or being successful in future professional
careers. Along these lines, Teacher 3 stated:
Proficiency in Standard Academic English will help with vocabulary and writing
and communicating with everyone. To be successful, they need to speak properly.
It’s ok to do with their friends, but when it comes to writing, speaking, they need
to be correct.
The teacher’s use of the word “properly” represents a perception that AAE is improper.
Although teachers perceived SAE as essential to academic success, none of the teachers
perceived the use of students’ home language to be an asset in students acquiring SAE. Interview
question 23 asked teachers to agree or disagree with statements about the relationship between
AAL and the goal of schooling for African American students. All four teachers agreed that
schools should not teach AAL to African American students. However, Teacher 1 was the only
teacher who agreed that schools should provide instruction through AAL. She replied, “Yes, we
have to recognize a way to acknowledge it. It’s another tool.” All four teachers agreed that
schools should help African American students acquire SAE in addition to AAL. However, when
asked whether schools should help African American students acquire SAE in place of AAL,
both first grade teachers replied, “No,” and both second grade teachers replied, “Yes.” The
researcher has little explanation for the different responses based on grade level. Finally, when
asked if schools should show African American children an appreciation of their home language,
all four teachers said, “Yes.”
Summary
All four teachers were unable to provide a definition of AAL that was consistent with the
research literature and expressed limited knowledge of AAL and its role in learning. Teachers’
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 72
limited knowledge of AAL leads to misperceptions and missed opportunities to scaffold or use
African American students’ ZPD to help them acquire a second language (Green, 2002; Ogbu,
1999; Vygotsky, 1978b). In their responses to the interview questions, teachers in some instances
made inconsistent statements: (a) only Teacher 1 could identify statements that were written in
AAL, yet all teachers were able to provide examples of phonological and/or grammatical
features of AAL; (b) all teachers stated that schools should give African American students an
appreciation of their home language, but Teachers 3 and 4 stated that SAE should replace
students’ AAL, and all four teachers believed that AAL only belonged in informal settings; and
(c) although teachers were unable to provide a definition of AAL, they stated that they could
understand someone speaking AAL.
The variations in teachers’ responses to interview questions indicated teachers’ limited
knowledge or own inner conflict about AAL. Responses by Teachers 1, 3, and 4 indicated
confusion about AAL and its patterns, rules, and role in learning, whereas Teacher 2 avoided
categorizing African American students’ speech as AAL. The question thus arises as to why
Teacher 2 avoided assigning a language to African American students. Another explanation as to
why teachers say they can recognize someone speaking AAL but are unable to define it is that
they hold a deficit view of AAL and confuse it with slang (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallinson,
2011). The teachers did not express confidence in their knowledge of AAL in their interviews;
therefore, they called into question their ability to provide learning experiences that are essential
for AAL speakers to acquire SAE and for positively impacting African American students’
academic achievement (Craig et al., 2004; Delpit, 1998; Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Harris
& Schroeder, 2013; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Furthermore, teachers’ inability to recognize
AAL can be damaging to African American students’ motivation, confidence, and self-efficacy
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 73
(Delpit, 1998; Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Foster, 1992; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011).
Lastly, although most teachers understood the importance of language in learning, they
provided inconsistent and uncertain responses to questions about AAL and the goal of school for
African American students. Research suggests that teachers’ knowledge of the role of language
in classroom learning is a factor in their ability to use students’ home language as a tool for
classroom learning (Boutte & Johnson, 2013; Gutierrez et al., 1997; Lantolf & Appel, 1994;
Nasir & Hand, 2006; Scott & Palincsar, 2003). In response to interview question 33, Teacher 1, a
first grade teacher, said that African American students’ development of SAE is “not a big
concern at this level, as long as I can get across the information I need for them to perform well.”
However, earlier, Teacher 1 said that AAL is “another tool.” Unfortunately, the researcher did
not observe AAL in instruction, and it would have been helpful to ask her a follow-up question
about what she meant by “tool.” Teacher 2’s statements in the interview reflected a lack of
clarity about the distinction between AAL and slang, as well as the role of AAL in learning. Her
statements were contradictory. She stated that AAL was slang, refused to identify whether
statements in students’ writing were written in AAL or slang, and did not believe that schools
should provide instruction through Ebonics. Yet, she said, “Teachers should be aware of what
[African American students] bring,” and in response to interview question 33 said, “No, but be
respectful of [AAL], like any other second language learner. Never make them feel bad.” The
discrepancies in the teacher’s responses indicated her sensitivity to students’ emotional
connections to their home language and her lack of clarity about the cognitive implications of
using students’ home language to facilitate learning. According to research, this lack of clarity
limits her ability to effectively support AAL speakers in acquiring SAE (Green, 2002; Hudley &
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 74
Mallinson, 2011). Although the observations did not directly provide data in response to
Research Question 1, they did become an important resource for triangulating what teachers said
versus what they did.
Research Question 2: What is the nature of first and second grade classroom discourses
between the teacher and African American students when students speak African American
Language?
The researcher used interviews and two observations of each teacher to conduct the
descriptive and qualitative portion of this study (see Appendix A and Appendix B).
Classroom Culture
The first noticeable component of the classroom culture was the seating arrangement of
African American students in each classroom. Teacher 1’s classroom had four African American
students (three males and one female) seated in the back row, and only one African American
girl in the front row. Teacher 2’s seating aligned desks so that they created a large “U” shape and
then a smaller “U” shape inside the large “U.” She placed four African American boys in the
outside “U” and one African American girl in the inside “U.” Teacher 3 situated five African
American students (one male and three females) in the last row in back and one African
American male in the row on the far right side of the room. The other two sat on the far right side
of the room. Teacher 4 placed African American students evenly throughout the classroom. The
seating arrangement in all classrooms except Teacher 4’s showed that African American students
were not positioned to be an integral part of the learning. In fairness to the teachers, the
researcher did not know if their intentions in the classroom arrangement might have been based
on alphabetical or other schematic ordering. However, the effect was physical marginalization of
the African American students. Additionally, as a result, the researcher observed African
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 75
American students demonstrating the following disruptive and/or disengaged behaviors: talking
to other students, playing with a pencil box or math manipulatives left on the desk, walking
around the classroom to throw trash away, sharpening a pencil, drinking water, leaving to the
nurse’s office, looking inside their desks, drawing attention by waving arms in the air, and
talking to themselves.
In addition to the room arrangement, the discourse in every classroom was scripted as
most of the speaking came from the teacher. There was very little student-student and teacher-
student(s) interaction. Data gathered from the observations revealed that only Teachers 2 and 3
allowed student-student interaction; however, even this student-student interaction was highly
scripted as students turned to their partners and shared one sentence or one statement at a time.
For instance, Teacher 2 prompted students by asking, “Let’s share your ‘tummy’ sentence with
your elbow partner,” and “Share with your partner how you get ready in the morning.” Teacher 3
told students, “Carefully look at the paragraph . . . Turn to your partner and tell your partner what
the topic sentence is. Read the sentence to your partner,” and “Stop and think. One minute. Share
with your partner what you think the concluding sentence is.” The researcher did not observe
extended dialogue between teacher and students or among students in which students generated
language to represent their higher order thinking as a tool. A more effective and meaningful
exchange would include discussing and coconstructing learning (Smagorinsky, 2013; van Lier &
Walqui, 2013). For example, Teacher 3 could have asked partners to evaluate why the
concluding sentence was an effective conclusion or to create another concluding sentence
together.
The teacher-student(s) interactions were just as scripted in that the teacher spoke directly
to the student and the student was not required to respond, or the student was expected to give a
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 76
one-word response. For example, Teacher 1 said, “Charles, you forgot your finger spaces.
Remember that? So you have to fix this,” and walked away from the student. Furthermore, the
interactions were more authoritarian and directive in nature, rather than a dialogue in which both
the teacher and student had input. Teachers 1, 2, and 4 exhibited many occasions in which they
spoke to the student and did not require a student response at all or required only a one-word
response. Teacher 1 demonstrated 11 instances of the above-mentioned interaction. The
following is another typical example in Teacher 1’s classroom:
Teacher 1: [She is reading Sam’s paper]. It says, “I get my homework folder” and what’s
missing at the end of the sentence?
Sam: Period.
Teacher 1 turns to another student without responding to Sam
Teacher 2 demonstrated nine instances of short, scripted responses or exchanges between teacher
and student, and Teacher 4 demonstrated 17 instances. A typical example from Teacher 4’s
classroom was:
Teacher 4: You done, Terrence?
Terrence: [nods]
Teacher 4: Ok, but Terrence, you’re all over. What does [inaudible] have to do with
[inaudible]?
Terrence: [looks down at his paper]
Teacher 4: Ok, think about it.
Teacher 4 walks away.

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 77
Teacher-Nurtured Discourses with African American Students
All the teachers in this study demonstrated both positive and negative approaches to
African American students. Although the responses were not in response to AAL, they were
related to speakers of AAL and other cultural ways African American students expressed
themselves. Because most classroom interactions were scripted, African American students were
not given opportunities to speak AAL. However, AAL includes more than spoken or written
words; it comprises other cultural expressions and behaviors as well (Hilliard, 1983; Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011; Ivy & Masterson, 2011; Ogbu, 1988), and the researcher observed teachers’
responses not necessarily to language, but to African American students in general.
All four teachers exhibited some negative reactions and/or interactions with African
American students. As described earlier, teacher-student interactions were authoritarian and
directive, lacking opportunities for African American students to use their language other than
through one-word responses. There were no instances observed in which African American
students initiated dialogue with the teacher and the teacher responded. There were also no
instances in which the teacher engaged in dialogue with the students that encouraged them to be
metacognitive about their learning (Wheeler, 2008). Wheeler (2008) has advocated for students
to use metacognitive strategies to consciously reflect on their learning and language use.
Additionally, every teacher orally corrected African American students while they were speaking
and missed opportunities for contrastive analysis lessons. Here is an example from a
conversation between Teacher 3 and an African American student:
Teacher 3: Who is this story about?
[Teacher turns to Jolie and her partner.]
Teacher 3: What did you and your partner come up with?
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 78
Jolie: This story is about learning about grasshoppers.
Teacher 3: “This story is about learning about grasshoppers.” I’m hearing a word twice.
So you’re saying the story is about grasshoppers?
[Jolie paused and then changed her answer. Teacher 3 interrupts her.]
Teacher 3: You were right. You just repeated the word “about” twice.
In this exchange, the student started her sentence by incorporating the teacher’s question, which
followed the scripted response that Teacher 3 taught the class. Even though the teacher
understood Jolie’s sentence, she still corrected her and caused the student to lose confidence in
her answer.
The researcher also observed Teachers 1 and 4 criticizing and embarrassing African
American students for no visible reason. In the observed interactions, the students did not exhibit
behavior that justified the teacher’s tone and reaction. Teacher 1 only exhibited one example of
this kind of interaction with an African American student. However, Teacher 4 frequently
criticized and embarrassed African American students. Below is an interaction between Teacher
4 and an African American boy:
[Teacher 4 walks up to Jon’s desk.]
Teacher 4: What’s the problem, Jon?
Jon: She took my eraser.
Teacher 4: I just gave you an eraser! Where is it? What’s wrong with you?!
[Teacher 4 grabs an eraser from her desk and slams it on Jon’s desk.]
This was a typical interaction between Teacher 4 and an African American student. Although the
researcher only observed two teachers demonstrate overtly negative behavior to African
American students, all four teachers were dismissive in some manner to African American
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 79
students. Teacher 3 was dismissive by asking another student for an answer when an African
American student’s response was incorrect. She did not affirm the student and build upon his
answer to help correct his error. Teachers 1, 2, and 4 were dismissive when African American
students exhibited disruptive or uncooperative behavior. Here is an example of Teacher 2’s
response to two African American boys in the back of the room:
[Brad and David are talking and giggling. Brad throws something at David.]
David: Stop!
[Teacher ignores this and keeps teaching. David continues talking to Brad.]
Brad: I’m telling! [He raises his hand]
Teacher 2: Brad, just move on the other side of Miles. Take care of your problem.
It appeared here that the teacher lacked strategies for promoting positive engagement on the part
of the students or for guiding the students to appropriate behavior. Another example is with
Teacher 4 and Pam, an African American girl. After the teacher gave directions for the entire
class to write, Pam crossed her arms and put her head down, refusing to write. Teacher 4
approached her and said, “Come on Pam. I don’t know what the problem is, but you can get over
it!” and walked away. Pam did not react and did not start writing. Approximately l0 minutes
later, Teacher 4 helped a student who sat next to Pam, but still ignored Pam’s behavior.
Other negative interactions observed were punishing, ignoring, and yelling at African
American students. Teachers 1 and 2 punished African American students by either shouting or
telling them to move their clothes pin down on the behavior chart when teachers perceived them
as being disruptive. The behavior charts in Teacher 1 and 2’s classrooms included five levels of
classroom behavior to which students were instructed to move their clothespins when they
needed to be reminded of positive classroom behaviors. Teachers 2, 3, and 4 ignored African
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 80
American students when they displayed behaviors that were not on task or yelled out a response
without raising their hand. For instance, Teacher 2 ignored Ray’s disruptions for 30 minutes
before she finally acknowledged his behavior and said, “Ray, go pull your pin! You’re being
disrespectful and talking while I’m talking!”
Despite the negative interactions that occurred, each teacher in this study demonstrated
positive and culturally responsive approaches to African American students. All four teachers
offered African American students positive reinforcement and praise when they followed
directions, completed their writing, and answered questions correctly. For example, while
students wrote independently, Teacher 3 walked around and said, “Wow! Fantastic! Most of you
remembered to indent and have complete sentences!” Teachers 1, 2, and 3 also conveyed a
respectful tone with African American students and acknowledged their responses without
reprimanding or embarrassing them when they spoke out of turn. For instance:
[Teacher 1 rang the bell at the end of the writing workshop and the class immediately
put their hands on their head.]
Teacher 1: Did we enjoy workshop today?
African American girl: No!
Teacher 1: Why?
Girl: Because.
Teacher 1: Sorry about that. I promise next Friday we’ll have more fun.
However, Teacher 1 missed an opportunity to push the student to provide more explanation. The
dialogue that could ensue would be an opportunity to have her express evaluative thinking.
Another example is from Teacher 2’s class. The teacher introduced a vocabulary word “tummy,”
and the following exchange includes two African American boys, Ray and Brad:
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 81
Teacher 2: “Tummy” is a synonym for stomach. Everyone touch your stomach.
Ray: [Raises his hand and speaks at the same time.] My mommy always call my cousin a
fat tummy.
Teacher 2: Oh, is that a nickname?
Brad: [Without raising his hand.] It’s to be funny.
Teacher 2: Oh, to be funny? Ok, that’s ok, too. Sometimes we say things to be funny.
In both exchanges, Teacher 1 and 2 could have either ignored or reprimanded their African
American students, but they acknowledged and respected their answers. Teacher 2 demonstrated
a culturally responsive approach when Ray and Brad engaged in conversational overlap, which is
a conversational norm specific to AAL (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). The students were engaged
in the lesson and did not raise their hand and wait to speak; instead, they spoke as if they were
having a conversation with the teacher, and fortunately, Teacher 2 allowed it and did not
reprimand them because they spoke out of turn.
Summary
The observations of each teacher’s classroom culture and interactions led to two major
conclusions. First, the scripted interactions in both the first and second grade classrooms left
minimal opportunities for students to express higher-order thinking or to use language to
contribute to their own learning. The verbal interactions in the classroom did not qualify as
discourse or dialogue, but rather were short one-word or scripted responses to teachers’ questions
or directives. This type of interaction is what Freire (1993) calls communiqués, in which the
educator makes “deposits” of information instead of communicating with students. Furthermore,
the limited discourse or dialogue was not different between first or second grade classrooms. The
second grade teachers did not encourage discourse to any greater extent than the first grade
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 82
teachers, which led the researcher to believe that this was a reflection of the school’s or district’s
culture of instruction. The school/district’s culture of instruction may be similar to Freire’s
(1993) notion of communiqués. Second grade teachers did not show that they accessed and built
on students’ ZPD formed through first grade instruction, and students were not presented
opportunities to use language (home language or SAE) as a tool for constructing knowledge.
There was little evidence of the school implementing the concepts in the Common Core State
Standards, which emphasizes listening and speaking as a basis for building literacy and language
proficiency. African American students who speak AAL require multiple opportunities to
practice and use SAE if they are expected to acquire the language (Gutierrez et al. 1997; Harris
& Schroeder, 2013; Vygotsky, 1987). Moreover, the instructional practices of the teachers at
both grade levels fell short of engaging students in ways in which language had meaning or
purpose and where students were participants in coconstructing knowledge (Heineke, 2013;
Lantolf & Appel, 1994).
Secondly, the negative approaches and interactions with African American students
(although, as suggested above, some interactions were positive) reflected overall limited
knowledge about AAL and evidence-based practices to instruct speakers of AAL. This
conclusion is supported by: (a) three of the four classes placed either all or most African
American students on the outside rows of the seating arrangement, thus sending African
American students a message of marginalization from full participation in learning activities,
which resulted in less meaningful interactions with the teacher; (b) The negative interactions and
over-corrections, which shut down African American students’ cultural ways of expressing
themselves. This marginalization can lead to African American students’ loss of identity as
“student” and erodes their engagement with their schooling and teachers (Hilliard, 1983; Hudley
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 83
& Mallinson, 2011). Although teachers want to reduce spontaneous speaking out, they have to
teach students other ways to respond or set times when this kind of dialogue is encouraged or
accepted—but students need to know when they are permitted to do so; (c) In interview question
26, teachers were asked how they would respond to an African American student who stated
his/her answer in AAL. Their responses reflected limited knowledge about evidence-based
practices for instructing speakers of AAL. Teacher 1 said, “Acknowledge answer and ask
another student for another answer [and] never really correct a child.” Teacher 2 said, “I’d say,
‘You’re correct’ and restate it in correct academic language.” Teacher 3 said, “I thank the student
for answering. I correct the student using the correct sentence without letting the student know he
was right or wrong. Then I have the student and class repeat.” Teacher 4 said, “Correct them in
proper English. Let them know the answer is correct and reword it.” Teachers’ use of the word
“proper” demonstrates their deficit view of AAL and implies that African American students’
home language is wrong and not valued in the classroom (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). However,
Teachers 2, 3, and 4’s strategies are not inappropriate. Their responses highlight strategies that
encourage contrastive analysis and code switching.
There are some explanations for the teachers’ behaviors. Research points to how
teachers’ limited understanding of cultural differences contributes to teachers’ behaviors toward
African American students (Monroe, 2005; Rocque, 2010; Vavrus & Cole, 2002). If there is a
gap between the student’s and teacher’s culture, the dominant group will most likely exert
greater control (Freire, 1993; Rocque, 2010). Researchers have commented that schools are
notorious for removing students who are not able to follow the hidden curriculum and have not
acquired skills to negotiate the school environment and what is expected of them (Monroe, 2005;
Vavrus & Cole, 2002). For instance, many African American students have acquired the skill of
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 84
engaging in multiple activities and conversations simultaneously (Townsend, 2000). Many
students growing up in the African American culture are also highly social (Townsend, 2000). At
school, however, most teachers do not appreciate and understand this type of behavior and
penalize students for being noncompliant or disrespectful (Townsend, 2000).
The teachers’ demonstrations of limited knowledge about creating effective discourses in
the classroom may have contributed to the teacher-dominated classroom interactions. Effective
classroom teachers possess in-depth knowledge of meaning-construction processes, as well as
use of students’ cultural, linguistic, and experiential filters to enhance literacy instruction (Au,
2003; Brock et al., 2003; Ruddell & Unrau, 1997).
Research Question 3: What are some structured pedagogical practices used by some
teachers for guiding speakers of AAL into becoming proficient writers and speakers of SAE?
The researcher used data from interviews, observations, and student writing samples to
provide answers to Research Question 3 (see Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C).
Instructional Practices
During interviews, the researcher asked teachers to share instructional practices they
implemented that successfully facilitated the development of SAE. All four teachers mentioned
that they modeled speaking SAE. Teacher 1 said, “I talk in complete sentences and I don’t use
slang in my classroom. I follow the curriculum and ask students to say it in complete sentences.”
She later added in response to interview question 33, “As long as I can get across the information
I need for them to perform well.” Observations of Teacher 1 supported her response. During the
classroom observation, her interactions with students consisted mostly of giving directives and
correcting them to ensure students completed the writing activity. Students were not asked to
respond in complete sentences, and Teacher 1 was satisfied with a one-word response.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 85
Teachers 2, 3, and 4 added that they had students repeat the modeled sentences, but that
system was only observed in Teacher 3’s classroom. In the interview, Teacher 3 said:
I model before I have them do it by themselves. A lot of repetition. For example, for
incomplete sentences, I have the student think of the complete sentence and then say it
whole class. Lots of practice writing and fluency.
During the observation, students were asked to repeat sentences that the teacher stated or were in
the textbook. The following was a typical example of repetition in her classroom:
Teacher 3: [standing in front of class] Before we do writing, I’m going to show you
an example. Remember to look for topic sentences. Topic sentences introduce the
topic. Say it together.
Class: Topic sentences introduce the topic.
Teacher 3: Joey, what will we be looking for?
Joey: We’re looking for topic sentences.
Teacher 3: What are we looking for Ray? Autumn? Latrice? Everyone?
Class: [shouts] Topic sentences!
This exchange has some merit for focusing students’ attention, but the effect can be limited if
students are not provided opportunities to generate sentences in dialogue with the teacher while
they are constructing knowledge. The researcher did not see instances in which students were
given opportunities to use language to construct meaning or express higher-order thinking.
Teachers were also asked in interview question 26 how they would respond to an African
American student who answered a question correctly, but stated his/her response in AAL.
Teachers 1 and 2 said they would acknowledge his or her answer and model SAE structure,
which is an effective instructional approach. Teacher 1 said she would “acknowledge [the]
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 86
answer and ask another student for another answer…never really correct a child.” However, this
approach was not evident in the classroom observation. Not only was the classroom discourse
teacher-dominated, but also African American students were not given opportunities to
participate in dialogue in which they might have used AAL or SAE. Teachers 3 and 4 stated that
they would correct the student’s response and the observations supported their responses. For
example, Teacher 4 said, “[I would] correct them in proper English. Let them know the answer is
correct and reword it.” The phrase “proper English” implies that AAL is improper or inferior as a
language, which signifies a deficit view (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Teachers 3 and 4 consistently
verbally corrected students either in front of the class or individually. For example, Teacher 4
said to an African American girl, “They’re not ‘teresting’ are they? They’re ‘interesting,’ right?”
According to the literature, teachers who subconsciously hold a deficit view of AAL may
exclude African American students from full participation in classroom discourses and engage in
over-correction (Brock et al., 2006; Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson,
2011). As a result, teachers may have a conceptual knowledge of effective instructional
approaches, but not always put them into practice. The contrast between what Teacher 1 said in
her interview and what the researcher observed may indicate the difference between the teacher’s
conceptual knowledge and what she was able to put in practice.
Writing Instruction
Another instructional practice that was observed in three of the four classes was
formulaic writing lessons that restricted students’ opportunities to express their thinking in
writing. Teachers 1, 2, and 3 approached writing instruction by reviewing the specific genre
(narrative or informative), providing a prompt that the entire class copied, and then heavily
guided the rest of the writing activity. Teachers 1 and 2, first grade teachers, provided more
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 87
structure than second grade teachers. Teacher 1 conferenced with four students at a time as she
pointed out corrections she made on their papers and guided students into revising their rough
draft onto a final draft. Every student’s paper included the same topic sentence, and four
subsequent sentences that started with “First,” “Next,” “Then,” and “Last.” Once students
finished their final draft, she asked them to have a peer look over their paper one last time before
handing it to the teacher. Teacher 2 initially provided a whole-group lesson in which she
modeled how students should structure their narrative piece. Each student shared the same topic
sentence and also copied the four sentences that started with “First,” “Next,” “Then,” and “Last.”
Teachers 3 and 4, second grade teachers, focused on a different writing genre and
allowed for more student contribution. Teacher 3 asked students for input to develop the topic
sentence each student would write. Once the topic sentence was finalized, Teacher 3 wrote it on
the board and students copied it onto their papers. She then guided students’ subsequent
sentences by telling them what they should include. Teacher 4 briefly modeled the writing task,
explained the prompt, and allowed students to write independently. Her writing lesson was
consistent with research literature asserting this model as an effective approach to writing
instruction (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). Furthermore, she walked around to offer feedback to
students, but her interactions with students tended to be brief, teacher-dominated, and critical.
The encounters did not allow for dialogue between the teacher and the students in which the
students had an opportunity to reflect on their work (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2010).
Teacher Feedback on Written Assignments
The writing samples that will be discussed in this section correspond to the first
observations of writing instruction. The researcher used African American student writing
samples and assessed students’ AAL spelling or grammatical patterns. All four teachers aligned
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 88
their writing assignments to a Common Core State Standard (CCSS). Teacher 1 and Teacher 2,
first grade teachers, focused on writing narratives that aligned with CCSS Writing Standard 1.3.
Their assignment prompts were clear, and they provided a structured outline, but did not
explicitly state that students were expected to write in SAE, and did not provide a rubric. Teacher
1 was the only teacher who sat with each student as he or she reworked the rough draft into a
final draft and guided students toward peer editing. Her instructional approach may be attributed
to her 15 years of teaching and not necessarily to the courses and trainings she attended, as
Teachers 2 and 4 had similar educational and training backgrounds.
Students in Teachers 3 and 4’s second grade classrooms wrote informative/explanatory
texts that aligned with CCSS Writing Standard 2.2. Their assignment prompts were also clear,
provided a structured outline, did not explicitly state students were expected to write in SAE, and
did not provide a rubric.
The matrix below displays teachers’ approaches to written corrective feedback on the
student writing samples.
Table 5
Matrix of Teachers’ Feedback
Teacher
Direct or
Indirect
Positive or
Negative
Focused or
Unfocused
1 Direct Negative Focused
2 Direct Negative Unfocused
3 Direct Negative Focused
4 Indirect Negative Focused

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 89
Teachers 1, 2, and 3 gave “direct” feedback by providing the corrected spelling or word above
the student’s deviation from SAE (Alimohammadi & Nejadansari, 2014; Bitchener & Ferris,
2012; Ferris, 2010). Teacher 4 offered “indirect” feedback by circling the student’s deviations
without providing the correction (Alimohammadi & Nejadansari, 2014; Bitchener & Ferris,
2012; Ferris, 2010). All four teachers’ feedback was also considered “negative” because they
only identified features that were not correct (Ellis, 2009). None of the teachers provided positive
feedback for areas in which the student conformed to conventions of SAE. Teachers 1 and 4
provided “focused” feedback only by targeting a few linguistic features, whereas Teachers 2 and
3 gave “unfocused” feedback by targeting a wide range of deviations (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012;
Ferris, 2010).
The student writing sample from Teacher 1 included the following deviations from SAE,
which were consistent with AAL (see Figure 1):
• consonant clusters written as 1 sound/letter;
• substituted /i/ for /u/ sound; and
• vowel patterns written as one letter.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 90

Figure 1. Teacher 1’s student writing sample.
Teacher 1’s feedback was “direct,” “negative,” and “focused” on details (content) and spelling
(conventions). During the observation, she worked with students in a small group and explicitly
pointed out words the student misspelled and rewrote the word above without crossing out the
student’s deviation. For example, the student wrote, “Next, I pit on my shos,” and Teacher 1
wrote “put” above “pit” and “shoes” above “shos.” According to the literature, Teacher 1
demonstrated an effective strategy by providing “direct” and “focused” corrective feedback to
the student (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008). However, what was missing
was the meta-linguistic explanation for the correction and an opportunity to use the small-group
setting to generate teacher-student dialogue in which the student had an opportunity to express
his/her understanding of the corrections. For instance, in the same writing sample above, the
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 91
student wrote the sentence, “Last, I wok whith my mom to school,” and Teacher 1 wrote “walk”
above “wok” and “with” above “whith,” and then turned to correct another student’s paper
without any dialogue with the student about her changes. According to the research literature,
Teacher 1 could have first pointed out “wok” and asked the student to identify other vowel
combinations that could represent the /o/ sound in “walk.” The student could have been
encouraged to look at the alphabet spelling cards posted in the classroom that included examples
of different spelling patterns. This type of discourse is more effective in improving students’
accuracy than simply copying the teacher’s suggestions, because the discourse would require the
student to think about the language and its spelling patterns (Bitchener 2008; Bitchener &
Knoch, 2008; Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Sheen, 2007; Wheeler, 2008). Teacher 1 also did not
include any “positive” feedback regarding the student’s writing. Providing specific “positive”
feedback is important because it shows support and serves as motivation to students (Ellis,
2009).
The student writing sample from Teacher 2 included the following deviations from SAE,
which were consistent with AAL (see Figure 2):
• consonant clusters written as one sound/letter;
• substituted /i/ for /e/ sound;
• absence of –s inflection; and
• final consonant cluster /nd/ written as “n.”
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 92

Figure 2. Teacher 2’s student writing sample.
The teacher’s feedback was “direct,” “negative,” and “unfocused.” Her “unfocused” feedback
targeted details (content) and punctuation, spelling, and grammar (conventions). According to
the literature, Teacher 2’s feedback was “unfocused” because she commented on content and
three features of conventions, rather than on a few features total, such as one area for content and
one area for conventions. Teacher 2 used editing marks for insertions and punctuations, crossed
out misspelled words, and substituted the student’s deviations with SAE form. For instance, the
student wrote, “Then I cin mi mom rom,” and Teacher 2 crossed off “cin mi” and wrote “cleaned
my,” inserted “’s” next to “mom,” and crossed off “rom” and wrote “room.” Her numerous
corrections and editing marks could be overwhelming for a student and difficult for him/her to
understand the reason behind the corrections.
Although Teacher 2 provided “direct” feedback, she did not provide an explanation for
her corrections or engage the student in dialogue that would help the student reflect on his/her
deviations (Boutte & Johnson, 2013; Wheeler, 2008). For example, in interview question 25,
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 93
Teacher 2 stated that AAL speakers omit helping verbs and “forget the –s.” Teacher 2 was able
to identify AAL features, but in this writing lesson, the researcher did not observe her approach
the student’s grammatical deviation using contrastive analysis. In the student example above,
“Then I cin mi mom rom,” Teacher 2 missed an opportunity to prepare a contrastive analysis
chart or an explanation involving contrastive analysis to guide the student in discovering and
learning the difference between AAL’s pattern, “my mom room,” and SAE’s pattern, “my
mom’s room.” The same instructional approach could have been used for the other AAL features
in the student’s writing, such as the consonant clusters written as one sound/letter, substitution of
/i/ for /e/ sound, and final consonant cluster /nd/ written as “n.” However, pointing out too many
deviations in the same document would be overwhelming. The feedback would need to be
focused. Furthermore, Teacher 2 did not include “positive” feedback and only provided
corrections.
The student writing sample from Teacher 3 included the following deviations from SAE,
which were consistent with AAL (see Figure 3):
• consonant clusters written as one sound/letter;
• absence of –s inflection;
• absence of final consonant sound;
• storytelling approach.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 94

Figure 3. Teacher 3’s student writing sample.
The student’s storytelling approach was evident in his/her constant use of “and” at the beginning
of sentences. This storytelling approach was consistent with narrative patterns specific to AAL
(Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). The teacher provided “direct,” “negative,” and “focused” feedback
that targeted a few linguistic features: pronoun usage, spelling, and grammar. Another example
of her “focused” feedback is not correcting some misspelled words and targeting others. For
example, the student spelled “sencing” for “sensing” and “dener” for “dinner.” Unfortunately,
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 95
the reasons for the words that were targeted are unknown; there is also the possibility that the
teacher over-looked them.
Additionally, Teacher 3 used editing marks to indicate that a word should be omitted or
capitalized, circled misspelled words, and provided the SAE form of the word. For example, the
student wrote “Grasshopper ran juming over 4 talephoe polo and They can see thing coming up
behind It They.” The teacher circled “juming” and wrote “jump,” circled “talephoe polo” and
wrote “telephone poles,” and circled “It They” and wrote “them.”
Similar to Teachers 1 and 2, Teacher 3 provided “direct” feedback, but lacked meta-
linguistic explanations and a discussion with the student. Furthermore, she missed an opportunity
to approach the student’s AAL patterns using contrastive analysis (Wheeler, 2008). Teacher 3
could have addressed the consonant clusters written as one letter by using a contrastive analysis
chart. She also only provided corrections and did not provide “positive” feedback. To address the
student’s storytelling approach to writing, the teacher could have held an individual conference
and explicitly asked the student to identify an appropriate place to stop the sentence and start a
new one.
The writing sample from Teacher 4 included the following deviation from SAE, which
was consistent with AAL (see Figure 4):
• consonant clusters written as one sound/letter.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 96

Figure 4. Teacher 4’s student writing sample.
Teacher 4’s feedback was “indirect,” “negative,” and “focused.” Unlike the other teachers,
Teacher 4 circled the student’s deviations from SAE and did not substitute them with the SAE
form, except for inserting the pronoun “They.” For instance, the student wrote, “Bats makes calls
and wate for it to hit an ojept.” The teacher circled “Bats” and wrote “They” and circled “wate”
and “ojept.” However, according to some SLA researchers, the “indirect” approach can be
effective because it allows the student to reflect and solve the deviation on his/her own
(Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2010). Teacher 4 also engaged in an effective approach by
providing “focused” feedback on word choice (content) and spelling (conventions). Again,
similar to Teachers 1, 2, and 3, Teacher 4 lacked meta-linguistic explanations, “positive”
feedback, and missed an opportunity to approach the student’s AAL patterns using contrastive
analysis (Wheeler, 2008). For example, the student wrote “ojept” for “object.” Teacher 4 could
have addressed the consonant clusters by using a contrastive analysis chart.

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 97
Summary
The instructional approaches observed mostly in all four classrooms were giving
directives and orally correcting students. Additionally, some of the teachers’ interview responses
were inconsistent with the researcher’s observations regarding instructional practices for
facilitating AAL speakers in acquiring SAE. For instance, Teachers 2, 3, and 4 stated that their
instructional practice included asking students to repeat modeled SAE sentences, but that was
only observed in Teacher 3’s classroom. Teachers 1 and 2 also stated they would acknowledge a
student’s answer in AAL and then model SAE structure, but that was not observed in either
classroom. Teachers 3 and 4, however, stated that they would correct the student’s response,
which was observed in both classrooms. However, the observation of Teacher 1 was mostly
teacher-dominated without teacher-student dialogue, which was consistent with her response for
interview question 33 (“As long as I can get across the information I need for them to perform
well”).
Analysis and observations of teachers’ feedback on student writing samples led to two
important findings. First, most of the teachers in this study seemed to view writing as a skill that
is learned by following a prescribed format. Teachers 1, 2, and 3 applied a formulaic writing
instructional approach for the entire class. Instruction and topics were determined by the teacher
and provided for the students regardless of their cultural background or background knowledge
(Moje et al., 2004). Their approach to writing instruction led the researcher to two conclusions
about their beliefs about writing instruction. One conclusion was that teachers used a structured
format with little room for students to use language to control their environment or their own
behavior. It can be argued that the teachers stifled students’ creativity because they did not see
writing as a way of communicating or expressing ideas. Rather, writing was viewed as a series of
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 98
skills defined by the teacher emphasizing grammar and conventions (McCarthey & Ro, 2011).
However, according to the literature, language should be used as a tool to bring a sense of
purpose and meaning to writing and for communicating new skills and knowledge (Boutte &
Johnson, 2013; Gutierrez et al., 1997; McCarthey & Ro, 2011).
The second finding is that teachers’ written corrective feedback reflected their classroom
discourse. The researcher considered their written corrective feedback to be “negative” in that
they only identified students’ deviations and did not provide feedback on features that were
correct or already written in SAE form. This corrective feedback mirrored their classrooms, as
most of the classroom discourse observed was teacher-driven and corrective. Their written
corrective feedback also provided some evidence that they recognize features of AAL. However,
if teachers viewed African American students’ AAL patterns as deviations instead of errors, their
feedback would be less corrective and more targeted at guiding AAL speakers toward acquiring
SAE structures by using instructional approaches, such as contrastive analysis lessons.
Summary
This chapter provided data analysis of the case study at Hillcrest Elementary School.
Triangulation of data showed that teachers, first of all, did not have strong background
knowledge of AAL and its features; Teacher 1 was also not able to express an understanding of
the role of language in learning. All four teachers agreed that schools should teach African
American students to have an appreciation of their home language. However, such appreciation
did not include inviting students to speak using either AAE or SAE in the classroom. The culture
of the classroom did not encourage meaningful dialogue and collaboration among students
whereby African American students could feel comfortable enough to speak AAL. The way
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 99
teachers communicated (written and verbal) with African American students and where they
positioned them in the classroom afforded important insights about the culture of the classroom.
All students need to feel that they have a meaningful role in the classroom and that
discourse is a natural part of the environment. However, teachers were unable to express and
demonstrate how students could use discourse to coconstruct learning and/or make meaning as a
process for acquiring SAE. Students’ discourse and writing were formulaic and scripted by their
teachers. There was little opportunity for students to express their own concepts and ideas in both
the classroom discourses and writing assignments. Even in situations in which students shared
answers with their partners, their interactions were highly controlled in that they turned to the
same partner every time. It was also difficult to determine whether second grade African
American students were more proficient in SAE than first grade African American students
because teachers spoke most of the time.
The common SAE deviations found in student writing samples that were corrected most
often were consonant clusters written as 1 sound/letter; /i/ sound substituted for /e/ or /u/ sounds;
and absence of –s inflection. All of the teachers’ written corrective feedback focused mostly on
grammar and conventions with limited feedback regarding content. Bitchener and Ferris (2012)
have argued that form-before-content corrections should be discouraged. The goal should not be
to help student writers produce perfect, error-free texts, but to help them build knowledge,
awareness and strategies so they can develop skills to monitor their own writing (Bitchener &
Ferris, 2012).
Furthermore, teachers’ background (coursework and training/professional development)
in language, African American culture, AAL speakers, or Standard English Language learners
did not make a difference in teachers’ expressed knowledge of AAL and attitudes and
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 100
perceptions of AAL use in the classroom. For example, Teachers 1, 2, and 4 took
courses/trainings in language development in children, AAL speakers (Teachers 1 and 2 only),
Black history/culture, and speakers of nonstandard languages; however, they still could not
provide an accurate definition of AAL, believed that AAL did not belong in classrooms.
Consequently their classroom instruction lacked culturally responsive practices and meaningful
discourses in which students could use language to coconstruct meaning from their learning
(Heineke, 2013; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Smagorinsky, 2013; van Lier & Walqui, 2013). An
explanation for this issue could be that—as Teachers 1, 2, and 4 mentioned—they only attended
a maximum of one to three classes/trainings of each of the above categories. This finding may
suggest the importance of ongoing, embedded professional developments that occur more than
three times in one’s professional career (Guskey, 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 present a
summary of the study, implications for practice, limitations, noted items for future research, and
a conclusion.

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 101
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
African American students historically score lower in reading and math on standardized
tests as compared to Hispanics, Asians, and Whites (The Nation’s Report Card, 2013). Several
researchers have concurred that one explanation for the achievement gap is schools’ responses to
the language African American students bring to school (Boutte & Johnson, 2013; Green, 2002;
Hollie, 2001; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Teachers with limited knowledge of AAL’s linguistic
structures are unable to target the source of students’ deviations from SAE and mark them as
errors or over-correct them (Craig et al., 2004; Green, 2002). Furthermore, teachers who lack
knowledge of AAL are unable to provide learning experiences whereby AAL is used to guide
African American students into constructing new knowledge: SAE (Harris & Schroeder, 2013;
Ogbu, 1999; Sligh & Conners, 2003). Teachers would benefit from understanding that students’
first language helps form their identity (Gee, 2001; Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011;
Ogbu, 1988). Therefore, when teachers convey negative attitudes toward AAL, students can feel
devalued, inferior, and rejected (Hilliard, 1983). As a result, they feel they have no place in
formal education, and suffer academically (Boutte & Johnson, 2013; Foster, 1992; Green, 2002;
Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Williams, 2010).
The research literature makes a strong case that teachers can maximize AAL speakers’
academic achievement if they understand the relationship of language and learning, know how to
respond to students’ use of AAL, and apply instructional practices that support African American
students’ language background (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Sligh &
Conners, 2003). Furthermore, it is important for teachers to examine their own perceptions,
knowledge, and beliefs, as they can inadvertently impact the academic achievement of African
American students (Hollie, 2001; Okoye-Johnson, 2011). Using sociocultural theory and
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 102
language theories, the conceptual framework in this study examined classrooms for practices that
reflected an acknowledgement and respect for the language and culture of African American
students who speak AAL.
Purpose of the Study
The study’s primary purpose was to explore first and second grade teachers’ knowledge
and perceptions of AAL and its speakers as well as instructional practices they perceived and
implemented to support AAL speakers in acquiring proficiency in SAE. The researcher also
examined formal and informal interactions between teachers and their AAL speakers and the
differences in African American students’ use of SAE between first and second grade. Finally,
the researcher examined student writing samples for teacher feedback as a source of support for
African American students to acquire proficiency in SAE. The following three research
questions framed this study:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions and knowledge about African American Language, a
form of Ebonics?
2. What is the nature of first and second grade classroom discourses between the teacher
and African American students when students speak African American Language?
3. What are some structured pedagogical practices used by some teachers for guiding
speakers of African American Language into become proficient writers and speakers
of SAE?
Methodology
The study utilized a qualitative case study approach to collect data in one urban
elementary school that served a large concentration of Hispanic and African American students.
The unit of analysis in this study was first and second grade teachers in classrooms with the
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 103
highest numbers of African American students as compared to other classrooms; each
participating teacher had five to eight African American students. The researcher was cleared
through an Institutional Review Board process, and data were triangulated using multiple sources
of data: teacher interviews, two classroom observations of each teacher, and student writing
samples including teacher feedback. Interviews and observation data were transcribed, coded and
organized to reflect patterns and themes. Sociocultural theory and language theories were used to
frame interpretation of the data.
Discussion of Findings
The section that follows presents a summary and analysis of findings using the prior
literature as a lens through which to interpret the data.
Research Question 1
An analysis of the data informed the following key findings regarding teachers’
perceptions and knowledge of AAL:
1. The teachers in this study could identify some features of AAL, but did not express a
firm understanding and knowledge of AAL.
2. The teachers believed proficiency in SAE was important for academic success, but
expressed or exhibited only a few instructional practices that were found in the
research literature for supporting African American students’ acquisition of SAE.
3. Teachers’ responses regarding settings in which AAL use is appropriate indicated a
deficit view of AAL.
The teachers in this study did not express a firm understanding and knowledge of AAL
and its linguistic features. The literature has discussed the effects when teachers have limited
knowledge of—or negative attitudes toward—AAL, and the impact on students’ identity
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 104
development (Green, 2002; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Kretzschmar, 2008). Teachers’ limited
knowledge of AAL can lead to misperceptions and misunderstandings of the language and its
cultural significance for students’ learning (Green, 2002). Additionally, teachers’ limited
knowledge can prevent them from recognizing AAL patterns and rules, which is essential for
being able to guide students through contrastive analysis and providing targeted instruction to
AAL speakers. Further, limited knowledge of AAL results in teachers overlooking instructional
opportunities that validate AAL’s linguistic and rhetorical traditions (Haddix, 2012; Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011). Furthermore, previous research has shown that when teachers are not familiar
and cannot identify with the students’ language and culture, their behavior toward that child is
different, as compared to their behavior toward children with whose language they can identify
(Hilliard, 2002; Smitherman, 1999/2001; Volk & Long, 2005).
Teachers 2, 3, and 4 expressed a firm understanding of the relationship between language
and learning. However, the classroom observations demonstrated that they did not know how to
use language activities in the classroom to help students acquire new knowledge (Gutierrez et al.
1997; Harris & Schroeder, 2013). All four teachers expressed that SAE was important for
academic success, but their instructional strategies fell short of allowing students to use language
to mediate the learning process (Heineke, 2013; Lantolf & Appel, 1994). Educators can
negatively impact students’ academic performance, identity, and further language development if
they do not understand that language, including students’ home language, is essential to learning
(Au, 1998; Gay, 2002; Green, 2002; Foster, 1995; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Smagorinsky,
2013).
All four teachers stated that schools should convey to African American students an
appreciation of their home language, but contrarily, stated that AAL did not belong in classroom
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 105
settings. Teachers who reject African American students’ language in the classroom are rejecting
AAL speakers’ identities and excluding them from full participation in classroom discourses in
which knowledge is constructed (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson,
2011). These teachers also do not understand the importance of building on students’ home
language to assist them in acquiring a second language (Au, 1998; Green, 2002; Haddix, 2012;
Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Wheeler, 2008). These gaps in learning experiences can lead to
African American students feeling unaccepted, disconnected from the classroom and
discouraged from continuing their education (Boutte & Johnson, 2013; Foster, 1992; Green,
2002; Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Williams, 2010).
Research Question 2
The aforementioned findings address teachers’ knowledge gaps of AAL and the
importance of using language to coconstruct learning. The following findings are salient as they
lend insight to the classroom discourses, which may be a result of teachers’ knowledge gaps and
perceptions of AAL:
1. African American students were not observed using student generated dialogue with
AAL or SAE because their interactions and responses in classes were overwhelmingly
scripted or teacher-dominated.
2. Teachers’ negative reactions and approaches to African American students shut down
students’ cultural ways of expressing themselves.
Teachers inhibit students’ learning if they do not provide opportunities for students to use
language to regulate their own learning processes. Furthermore, students will never acquire a
second language (in this case, SAE) if teachers do not require them to use language to express
thought or construct meaning (Gee, 2001; Haddix, 2012). In the case of all four teachers, they
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 106
were observed providing scripted responses for student-to-student and student-teacher
interactions and not creating a setting in which students had to use language to express or convey
information. Moreover, in response to interview question 23, only Teachers 1 and 2 replied that
SAE should not replace AAL; Teachers 3 and 4 agreed that SAE should replace AAL. In any
case, the researcher did not observe African American students using AAL or student-generated
dialogue in any classrooms. Teachers 1 and 2’s responses contradicted their observations,
thereby raising the question: How can teachers send the message that SAE will not replace their
home language if African American students are not even provided opportunities to speak (using
AAL or SAE) in the classroom? According to the literature, it is important to explicitly
communicate to AAL speakers that SAE will not replace their home language, as it is a source of
their identity and self-esteem (Hilliard, 1983; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Ogbu, 1988).
Furthermore, AAL should be supported in formal settings, such as the classroom, in which
educators should use AAL to build SAE (Au, 1998; Green, 2002; Haddix, 2012; Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011; Wheeler, 2008). These are missed opportunities for the teacher to provide
targeted contrastive analysis instruction.
Negative reactions and approaches to African American students’ cultural ways of
expressing themselves also negatively impact their identities (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Ivy &
Masterson, 2011). All four teachers corrected African American students in negative ways and/or
criticized them. Some of the student behaviors that initiated negative reactions from the teacher
were: talking to other students during instruction, responding with an incorrect answer, walking
around the classroom, not sitting in their seat correctly, not following the teacher’s directions,
and making noises. However, if African American students had more opportunities to express
themselves through language—more specifically, in AAL—and were more deeply engaged in
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 107
meaningful discussions, they may be less apt to engage in disruptive behavior (Hudley &
Mallinson, 2011). Additionally, teachers provided positive reinforcement and praise when
students finished an assignment, sat with their hands folded, sat quietly, sat properly, and
answered questions correctly; however, this praise to be mostly for compliance and not for
thinking and participating in academic dialogue.
Research Question 3
Analysis of data informed the following key findings regarding teachers’ pedagogical
practices for guiding speakers of AAL into acquiring SAE:
1. The instructional activities lacked students’ input and there was little evidence of
teachers accessing students’ prior knowledge or background.
2. Instruction and feedback related to students’ writing activities were missing dialogue,
discussion, and social interaction.
3. Teachers’ limited knowledge of instructional practices to address AAL in writing led
to over-correction on students’ written work.
Teachers’ and directive instructional approaches to classroom discourse and writing
followed a “banking” model of instruction that researchers have warned educators against
(Freire, 1993; Souto-Manning, 2009). The “banking” model views students’ brains as a bank in
which the educator deposits knowledge (Freire, 1993). Furthermore, the “banking” model does
not allow learning to take place through social interactions (Au, 2003). The students in this study
were not seen using language, schema, or cultural background to develop their discussions or
writing. Students were not asked to deliver thoughtful and valuable contributions, nor were they
engaged in meaningful discourses that connected their personal life to school (Orellana,
Reynolds, Dorner, & Meza, 2003; van Lier & Walqui, 2013). As a result, students were not
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 108
active agents in their learning (Freire, 1993). Ownership of one’s literacy should be the
overarching goal of instruction (Au, 2003). Otherwise, students cannot value literacy for making
meaning of their own lives and use reading and writing with purposes they set for themselves
(Au, 2003).
Unfortunately, in three of the four classrooms, the writing lessons were so scripted that
African American students did not have an opportunity to use language, which might have
included AAL. Furthermore, writing was not embedded in meaningful and authentic social
activities (Au, 1998, 2003; Smagorinsky, 2013; Sperling & Freedman, 2001). According to
sociocultural theory, language and thought is key to the task of writing, and in order for students
to develop as writers, they need to be engaged in social interactions (Sperling & Freedman,
2001; Vygotsky, 1978b). Furthermore, these interactions should occur within the student’s ZPD
in order to aid learning and development (Sperling & Freedman, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978b). The
role of the teacher is to assist students in bridging their current language or background
knowledge with the new language or skills the student will acquire (Moje et al., 2004).
Therefore, it is particularly important for teachers to have a firm understanding of AAL
and its linguistic features so they can identify its patterns in African American students’ writing.
Once teachers can identify AAL features, the next step is to explicitly teach contrastive analysis
strategies so students can acquire SAE and recognize that their AAL features are not “errors” or
something to be corrected (Connor & Craig, 2006; Green, 2002; Townsend, 2000; Wheeler,
2008). However, in fairness, the researcher does not know whether the teachers formed explicit
instruction at a later time to address the patterns in writing they saw among students.

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 109
Limitations
A limitation was presented when three teachers stated that they did not see any
differences between an African American students’ writing and the writing of students who were
proficient in SAE. The school’s demographic had a high English learner population, which could
explain that teachers at this site did not have many proficient SAE learners with whom to
compare African American students. Moreover, the Hispanic and African American students
who live in the same community may be using the same expressions, which may also explain
why teachers do not see any differences.
Implications for Practice
This study produced findings and considerations that may provide insights for
educational researchers, leaders, and practitioners. Based on the findings of this study, in
conjunction with prior research on teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of AAL, there are
implications for teacher preparatory programs and schools.
One approach to developing classroom educators is providing on-going professional
development (Desimone, 2009). The first goal of the professional development model would be
to develop teachers’ knowledge base of the role of language and learning by incorporating
elements of sociocultural theory and language theories. The role of language in constructing the
psychological systems liberates the student from “instinctive” urges and provides him with new
motives and a direction that is socially rooted (Vygotsky, 1978b). Teachers need to understand
that language is essential to students’ ability to understand and manage their environment and to
regulate their behavior (Vygotsky, 1978b). The language they bring from home is the language
they have to use to engage in this learning activity (Vygotsky, 1978b).

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 110
The second goal would be to develop teachers’ knowledge of AAL’s cultural and
linguistic features and about second language acquisition in ways that are tailored to educational
contexts (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). When a child uses AAL, teachers need to be able to
recognize its origins and that it is a rule-based language—rather than relegating it as “error” or
slang. Doing so will prevent teachers from over-correcting and over-identifying AAL speakers
for speech pathology and help gain a greater respect for the language these students come with
(Foster, 1992; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Williams, 2010). The professional development
process should also address teachers’ knowledge gaps and perceptions so that they can address
them (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teachers may need “expert” coaches to provide support by working
with them inside their classrooms and explicitly identifying teachers’ approaches to students
(Guskey, 2000). Experiences should also include ongoing opportunities to dialogue about
changes and beliefs and providing scaffolds to encourage self-reflection (Desimone, 2009;
Guskey, 2000; Loughran, 2006; Lynn & Maddox, 2007; Putnam & Borko, 2000).
Furthermore, African Americans have a unique history with regard to the United States
and formal schooling, which warrants some special training for teachers in teacher preparatory
programs. Most teacher preparatory programs include little recognition of AAL and its
implications for instruction. Teacher preparatory courses need to be more explicit in helping
candidates recognize features of AAL, as well as provide specific instructional practices to help
speakers of AAL learn and acquire proficiency in SAE. Further, teacher preparatory programs
need to address the sociocultural implications of AAL in delivering equitable opportunities for
African American students to learn.

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 111
Future Research
Analysis of the data led to both findings and more questions, thus suggesting the need for
further research. Recommendations for future research are to conduct a study that involves a
larger sample of teachers and follow-up interviews after classroom observations. This study’s
limitation to one elementary school and its time constraints made follow-up interviews after the
observations difficult. With more time it could have provided more background and explanation
to teachers’ approaches and reactions to students. For example, asking teachers about seating
arrangement and reasons for their instructional approaches after the observations would have
allowed for more in-depth research. Also, asking teachers whether class size was a factor in their
limited engagement with students about their writing would be an important question for future
findings. It would also be valuable to know whether over-regulation of teaching in response to
high stakes testing causes excessive scripting in instruction and prevents classroom dialogue that
allows students to use language to regulate their own learning.
Conclusions
This case study describes how teachers’ limited knowledge of AAL and the use of
language in classroom can affect the quality of discourses and instructional practices that occur
in first and second grade classrooms. Knowledgeable and effective teachers build on children’s
home language skills while communicating respect for their language and culture. This research
contributes to the body of knowledge that addresses the need for schools to reconsider policies
and practices that limit learning opportunities for African American students. It also contributes
to the ongoing call for funding that supports research-based resources, including professional
development and classroom coaches, to ensure effective implementation of instruction that
recognizes and respects the unique linguistic and cultural attributes of African American
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 112
students. The goal for teachers should be to pursue and honor African American students’
linguistic fluency in AAL and SAE (Boutte & Johnson, 2013). Once teachers understand AAL,
identify their own misperceptions, and learn culturally responsive instructional practices, they
can promote learning and cognitive development and start to bridge the disconnection between
home and school language differences (Boutte & Johnson, 2013).

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 113
References
Alimohammadi, B., & Nejadansari, D. (2014). Written corrective feedback: Focused and
unfocused. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4, 581–587.
Au, K. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse
backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 297–319.
Au, K. (2003). Balanced literacy instruction: Implications for students of diverse backgrounds. In
J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the
English language arts (pp. 955–966). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ball, A. (1996). Expository writing patterns of African American students. English Journal, 85,
27–36.
Baratz, J., & Shuy, R. (Eds.). (1969). Teaching Black children to read. Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics.
Baron, D. (2000). Ebonics and the politics of English. World Englishes, 19, 5–19.
Bateman, B., & Wilkinson, S. (2010). Spanish for heritage speakers: A statewide survey of
secondary school teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 324–353.
Baugh, J. (1998). Linguistics, education and the law: Educational reform for African American
language minority students. In S. Mufwene, J. Rickford, G. Bailey, & J. Baugh (Eds.),
African-American English (pp. 282–301). London: Routledge.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition
and writing. New York: Routledge.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 114
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and
international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.
Black People’s Progressive Association and Redbridge Community Relations Council. (1978).
Cause for concern: West Indian pupils in Redbridge. Ilford: Black People’s Progressive
Association and Redbridge Community Relations Council.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.) (pp. 82–112). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Boutte, G., & Johnson, G. (2013). Do educators see and honor biliteracy and bidialectalism in
African American language speakers? Apprehensions and reflections of two
grandparents/professional educators. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41, 133–141.
Brittan, E. (1976). Multicultural education. Educational Research, 18, 96–107.
Brock, C., Boyd, F., & Moore, J. (2003). Variation in language and the use of language across
contexts: Implications for literacy learning. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jensen
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 446–458).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brock, C., Moore, D., & Parks, L. (2006). Exploring pre-service teachers’ literacy practices with
children from diverse backgrounds: Implications for teacher educators. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23, 898–915.
Byrnes, J., & Wasik, B. (2009). Language and literacy development: What educators need to
know. New York: Guilford Press.
California Department of Education (2014). What are the Common Core standards? Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/tl/whatareccss.asp
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 115
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Coard, B. (1971). How the West Indian child is made educationally subnormal in the British
school system. London: New Beacon.
Colombi, M. (2009). A systemic functional approach to teaching Spanish for heritage speakers in
the United States. Linguistics and Education, 20, 39–49.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014a). College and career readiness anchor
standards for language. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-
Literacy/CCRA/L/
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014b). English language arts standards-reading:
Literature-kindergarten. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-
Literacy/RL/K/
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014c). English language arts standards-reading:
Literature-grade 1. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RL/1/
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014d). English language arts standards-reading:
Literature-grade 2. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RL/2/
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014e). English language arts standards-writing-grade
2. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/2/
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014f). English language arts standards-introduction-
students who are college and career ready in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and
language. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/
students-who-are-college-and-career-ready-in-reading-writing-speaking-listening-
language/
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 116
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014g). Key shift in English language arts. Retrieved
from http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/key-shifts-in-english-language-arts/
Connor, C., & Craig, H. (2006). African American preschoolers' language, emergent literacy
skills, and use of African American English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 49, 771–792.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Craig, H., Kolenic, G., & Hensel, S. (2014). African American English speaking students: A
longitudinal examination of style shifting from kindergarten through second grade.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 143–157.
Craig, H., Thompson, C., Washington, J., & Potter, S. (2004). Performance of elementary-grade
African American students on the Gray Oral Reading Tests. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 141–154.
Craig, H., & Washington, J. (2004). Grade-related changes in the production of African
American English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 450–463.
Craig, H., Zhang, L., Hensel, S., & Quinn, E. (2009). African American English-speaking
students: An examination of the relationship between dialect shifting and reading
outcomes. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 839–855.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard
Educational Review, 56, 18–36.
Cummins, J. (1994). From coercive to collaborative relations of power in the teaching of literacy.
In B. M. Ferdman, R. Weber, & A. G. Ramirez (Eds.), Literacy across languages and
cultures (pp. 295–331). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 117
Datnow, A., & Yonezawa, S. (2004). Observing school restructuring in multilingual,
multicultural classrooms: Balancing ethnographic and evaluative approaches. In H.
Waxman, R. Tharp, & R. Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms:
New approach for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity (pp.174–204).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Delpit, L. (1998). What should teachers do? Ebonics and culturally responsive instruction. In T.
Perry & L. Delpit (Eds.), The real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the education
of African American children (pp. 17–28). Boston: Beacon Press.
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children. (2nd ed.). New York: The New Press.
Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward
better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
Dillard, J. (1972). Black English: Its history and usage in the United States. New York: Random
House.
Dunbar, P. (1893). Sympathy. Poetry Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.poetryfoundation.
org/bio/paul-laurence-dunbar
Dunbar, P. (1913). Opportunity. Lyrics of sunshine and shadow (Lit2Go Edition). Retrieved
from http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/188/lyrics-of-sunshine-and-shadow/3631/opportunity/
Echevarria, J., & Short, D. (2004). Using multiple perspectives in observations of diverse
classrooms: The sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP). In H. Waxman, R.
Tharp & R. Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. Classrooms: New approach
for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity (pp. 21–46). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 118
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. Journal for Foreign and Second
Language Educators, 1, 3–18.
Farrison, W. E. (1970). Dialectology versus Negro dialect. CLA Journal, 13, 21–27.
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA:
Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32,
181–201.
Fogel, H., & Ehri, L. (2006). Teaching African American English forms to Standard American
English-speaking teachers: Effects on acquisition, attitudes, and responses to student use.
Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 464–480.
Foster, M. (1992). Sociolinguistics and the African-American community: Implications for
literacy. Theory into Practice, 31, 303–311.
Foster, M. (1995). African American teachers and culturally relevant pedagogy. In J. A. Banks &
C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 570–581).
New York: Macmillan.
Fought, C. (2003). Chicano English in context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fox, S. (1997). The controversy over Ebonics. The Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 237–240.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2004). Essential linguistics: What you need to know to teach
reading, ESL, spelling, phonics, grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Company.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53,
106–116.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 119
Gee, J. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York: Bergin &
Garvey.
Gee, J. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 714–725.
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: Routledge.
Green, L. (2002). African American English: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gutierrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Turner, M. (1997). Putting language back into language
arts: When the radical middle meets the third space. Language Arts, 74, 368_378.
Haddix, M. (2012). Reclaiming and rebuilding the writer identities of Black adolescent males. In
D. E. Alvermann & K. A. Hinchman (Eds), Reconceptualizing the literacies in
adolescents’ lives: Bridging the everyday/academic divide (pp. 112–131). New York:
Routledge.
Harper, F., Braithwaite, K., & LaGrange, R. (1998). Ebonics and academic achievement: The
role of the counselor. Journal of Negro Education, 67, 25–33.
Harris, Y., & Schroeder, V. (2013). Language deficits or differences: What we know about
African American Vernacular English in the 21st century. International Education
Studies, 6,194–204.
Heath, S. (1984). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr,
M. Kamil, R. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. 3,
pp. 3–25). White Plains, NY: Longman.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 120
Heineke, S. (2013). Coaching discourse: Supporting teachers’ professional learning. The
Elementary School Journal, 113, 409–433.
Henfield, M., & Washington, A. (2012). “I want to do the right thing but what is it?”: White
teachers’ experiences with African American students. The Journal of Negro Education,
81, 148–161.
Hill, D. (2013). Three mentor texts that support code-switching pedagogies. Voices from the
Middle, 20, 10–15.
Hilliard, A. (1983). Psychological factors associated with language in the education of the
African-American child. Journal of Negro Education, 52, 24–34.
Hilliard, A. (2002). Language, culture, and the assessment of African American children. In L.
Delpit & J. K. Dowdy (Eds.), The skin we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in
the classroom (pp.87–105). New York: The New Press.
Hollie, S. (2001). Acknowledging the language of African American students: Instructional
strategies and language for all. English Journal, 90, 54–59.
Hudley, A., & Mallinson, C. (2011). Understanding English language variation in U.S. schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Hutchinson, E. (1997). The fallacy of Ebonics. The Black Scholar, 27, 36–37.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language
Teaching, 39, 83–101.
Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university
diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 586–611.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 121
Ivy, L., & Masterson, J. (2011). A comparison of oral and written English styles in African
American students at different stages of writing development. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 31–40.
Johnston, K. (2011). Instructional strategies perceived by elementary school principals and
fourth-grade teachers that substantially support the development of Standard English
language skills and reading proficiency in African American students (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI No. 3502223)
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kretzschmar, W. (2008). Public and academic understandings about language: The intellectual
history of Ebonics. English World Wide, 29, 70–95.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.
Labov, W. (1982). Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science: The case of the Black
English trial in Ann Arbor. Language in Society, 11, 165–201.
Labov, W. (1995). Can reading failure be reversed: A linguistic approach to the question. In V.
Gadsden & D. Wagner (Eds.), Literacy among African-American youth: Issues in
learning, teaching, and schooling (pp. 39–68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491.
Lantolf, J., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 122
Lee, C. (1993). Signifying as a scaffold for literary interpretation: The pedagogical implications
of an African American discourse genre. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Lee, C. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high
school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 608–
630.
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46,
108–119.
Lemoine, N. (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. (UMI No. 3103935)
Linguistic Society of America (1997). LSA resolution on the Oakland “Ebonics” issue.
Retrieved from http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/lsa-resolution-oakland-ebonics-
issue
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. New York: Routledge.
Lynn, M., & Maddox, R. S. (2007). Preservice teacher inquiry: Creating a space to dialogue
about becoming a social justice educator. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 94–105.
Matsumura, L., Patthey-Chavez, G., Valdes, R., & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing
assignment quality, and third-grade students’ revision in lower- and higher-achieving
urban schools. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 3–25.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 123
McCarthey, S., & Ro, Y. (2011). Approaches to writing instruction. Pedagogies: An
International Journal, 6, 273–295.
Merriam, S. B. (2009).Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moje, E., Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working
toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of
knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 38–70.
Monroe, C. (2005). Why are “bad boys” always Black? Causes of disproportionality in school
discipline and recommendations for change. The Clearing House, 79, 45–50.
Morris, E. (2005). “Tuck in that shirt!” Race, class, gender and discipline in an urban school.
Sociological Perspectives, 48, 25–48.
Murray, C., & Zvoch, K. (2011). Teacher-student relationships among behaviorally at-risk
African American youth from low-income backgrounds: Student perceptions, teacher
perceptions and socioemotional adjustment correlates. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral, 19, 41–54.
Nasir, N., & Hand, V. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and learning.
Review of Educational Research, 76, 449–475.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010, July). Status and trends in the education of
racial and ethnic minorities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010
/2010015/indicator3_11.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012, July). NAEP achievement levels. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/achievement.aspx#table
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 124
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014a, February). NAEP overview. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014b, February). Welcome to NCES. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Ogbu, J. (1988). Cultural diversity and human development. New Directions for Child
Development, 42, 11–28.
Ogbu, J. (1999). Beyond language: Ebonics, proper English, and identity in Black-American
speech community. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 147–184.
Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological
theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 29, 155–188.
Okoye-Johnson, O. (2011). Intangible heritage of Standard English Learners: The “invisible”
subgroup in the United States of America? Implications for closing the achievement gap.
Sage Open, 1, 1–7.
Orellana, M., Reynolds, J., Dorner, L., & Meza, M. (2003). In other words: Translating or “para-
phrasing” as a family literacy practice in immigrant households. Reading Research
Quarterly, 38, 12–34.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 125
Paris, S. G., Calfee, R. C., Filby, N., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, D. P., Valencia, S. W., & Wolf, K.
P. (2010). A framework for authentic literacy assessment. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.),
Essential readings on assessment (pp. 46–57) International Reading Association.
Pearson, B., Conner, T., & Jackson, J. (2013). Removing obstacles for African American
English-speaking children through greater understanding of language difference.
Developmental Psychology, 49, 31–44.
Perry, T., & Delpit, L. (Eds.). (1998). The real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the
education of African-American children. Boston: Beacon.
Peterson, S. & Portier, C. (2014). Grade one peer and teacher feedback on student writing.
Education, 42, 237–257.
Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176–186.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Richman, C., Bovelsky, S., Kroovand, N., Vacca, J., & West, T. (1997). Racism 102: The
classroom. Journal of Black Psychology, 23, 378–387.
Rickford, J. (1999). African American Vernacular English. Malden, MA: Oxford/Blackwell.
Rickford, J. (2000). Linguistics, education, and the Ebonics firestorm. In J. E. Alatis, H. E.
Hamilton, & A. H. Tan (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and
linguistics: linguistics, language, and the professions (pp. 25–45). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Rickford, J. (2012). What is Ebonics (African American Vernacular English)? Retrieved from
http://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/what-ebonics-african-american-english
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 126
Rickford, J., & Rickford, R. (2000). Spoken soul: The story of Black English. New York: Wiley.
Rocque, M. (2010). Office discipline and student behavior: Does race matter? American Journal
of Education, 116, 557–581.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard
Educational Review, 72, 230–253.
Ruddell, R. & Unrau, N. (1997). The role of responsive teaching in focusing reader intention and
developing reading motivation. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading. (5
th
ed., pp. 954–978). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional
Science, 18, 119–144.
Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities:
Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for
research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). New York: Guilford.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2003). Sociocultural theory. Education.com. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/Sociocultural-theory/
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on
ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
Sherwood, M. (1999). Engendering racism: History and history teachers in English schools.
Research in African Literatures, 30, 184–203.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 127
Sligh, A., & Conners, F. (2003). Relation of dialect to phonological processing: African
American Vernacular English vs. Standard American English. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 28, 205–228.
Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st-century language arts teacher?
Language Arts, 90, 192–204.
Smith, E. (1994). Historical origin and development of African American speech: The Pidgin-
Creolist theory. Los Angeles, CA: Watts College Press.
Smith, E. (1998). What is black English? What is Ebonics? In T. Perry & L. Delpit (Eds.), The
real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the education of African-American children
(pp. 49–58). Boston: Beacon Press.
Smith, E., & Crozier, K. (1998). Ebonics is not Black English. Western Journal of Black Studies,
22, 109–116.
Smitherman, G. (1999/2001). Talkin that talk: Language, culture and education in African
America. London: Routledge.
Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Souto-Manning, M. (2009). Negotiating culturally responsive pedagogy through multicultural
children’s literature: Towards critical democratic literacy practices in a first grade
classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9, 50–74.
Sperling, M., & Freedman, S. (2001). Research on writing. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (pp. 370–389). American Educational Research Association:
Washington, DC.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 128
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–40.
Steele, C. (1992). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. The Atlantic Monthly, 269, 68–
78.
Tate, W. (1995). Returning to the root: A culturally relevant approach to mathematics pedagogy.
Theory into Practice, 34, 166–173.
The Nation’s Report Card. (2014). 2013 mathematics and reading. Retrieved from
http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups
Townsend, B. (2000). The disproportionate discipline of African American learners: Reducing
school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66, 381–391.
Tyler, K., Boykin, A., & Walton, T. (2006). Cultural considerations in teachers’ perceptions of
student classroom behavior and achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 998–
1005.
van Lier, L., & Walqui, A. (2013). Language and the Common Core State Standards.
Understanding language: Language, literacy and learning in the content areas.
Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academic- papers/04-
Van%20Lier%20Walqui%20Language%20and%20CCSS%20FINAL.pdf
Vavrus, F., & Cole, K. (2002). “I didn’t do nothing’”: The discursive construction of school
suspension. The Urban Review, 34, 87–111.
Volk, D., & Long, S. (2005). Challenging myths of the deficit perspective: Honoring children’s
literacy resources. Young Children, 60, 12–19.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978a). Mind and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 129
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978b). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber & A. Carlton (Eds.), The collected
works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York: Plenum Press.
Wang, L. (1995). Lau v. Nichols: History of a struggle for equal and quality education. In D.
Nakanishi & T. Nishida (Eds.), The Asian American educational experience: A source
book for teachers and students (pp. 58–91). New York: Routledge.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Interviewing (Ch. 4) and Issues in interviewing (Ch. 5). Learning from
Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies (pp. 61–81, 141–150).
New York: The Free Press.
Wheeler, R. (2008). Becoming adept at code-switching. Educational Leadership, 65, 54–58.
Williams, C. (2010). "You gotta reach ‘em”: An African American teacher’s multiple literacies
approach. Theory into Practice, 45, 346–351.
Williams, R. (1975). Ebonics: The true language of Black folks. St. Louis, MO: Institute of
Black Studies.

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 130
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Interviewee: _____________________ Date:_____________

Grade Level:_____________________

Start Time:____________ End Time: _____________

Introduction:
Hi. My name is Rita Suh and I am an Ed.D. Rossier student at USC. My dissertation explores
African American Language use in the classroom. During this conversation, I am hoping to learn
more about your interactions, perceptions and knowledge of AAL and any instructional practices
and/or strategies you know or use to support students in developing Standardized Academic
English.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. I will not identify you by
name or use other identifying attributes. I would like to tape record this interview in order to
have an accurate record of our conversation. Would that be okay? The interview should take
approximately 45 minutes. Do you have any questions before we begin?
Before I ask you specific questions about AAL, I would like to start by asking you some
background questions about yourself.
1. Are you a credentialed teacher (Lemoine, 2003)?
2. Your highest level of education completed is:
BA or BS MA or MS PhD or EdD
3. Gender: Male Female
4. Ethnic Identity: ____________
5. How many years of teaching experience do you have (Lemoine, 2003)? _______
6. Is English your first language (Lemoine, 2003)? _____
7. Do you speak any other languages (Lemoine, 2003)? _____
8. If you speak other languages were they acquired in school or elsewhere (Lemoine, 2003)?
____________
9. Have you taken any courses related to bilingual education or 2
nd
language acquisition
(Lemoine, 2003)? _____
How many? ______
10. Have you taken any courses in “language development in children” (Lemoine, 2003)? _____
How many? ______
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 131
11. Have you taken any courses in sociolinguistics or dialectology (Lemoine, 2003)? _____
How many? ______
12. Do you have any of the following credentials (Lemoine, 2003)?
CLAD BCLAD
13. Have you participated in any staff development or training related to African American
speakers of AAL (Lemoine, 2003)? _____
If yes, how many days? _____
14. Have you taken any courses/seminars related to Black History and/or Culture (Lemoine,
2003)? _____
15. Have you participated in trainings related to speakers of non-standard languages or Standard
English Language Learners (Lemoine, 2003)? _____
16. What is your own definition of African American Language (Lemoine, 2003)?
17. Are you a speaker of AAL (Lemoine, 2003)? _____
KNOWLEDGE
18. To what degree do you understand someone speaking AAL (Lemoine, 2003)?
NEVER BARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS
19. Which of the following sentences is AAL (Lemoine, 2003)?
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.
20. Of the sentences above, what about them characterized them as AAL?
21. On a scale of 1-5, state your agreement with this statement with 1 being strongly disagree &
5 being strongly agree: Language plays an essential role in enabling students to learn
(Williams, 2010)?
22. On a scale of 1-5 state your agreement with this statement with 1 being strongly disagree & 5
being strongly agree: Language proficiency is essential towards promoting literacy.
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 132
23. On a scale of 1-5 state your agreement with this statement with 1 being strongly disagree & 5
being strongly agree: AAL is a form of slang used by most African Americans (Lemoine,
2003).
24. On a scale of 1-5 state your agreement with this statement with 1 being strongly disagree & 5
being strongly agree: Those who speak AAL are largely uneducated African Americans
(Lemoine, 2003).
25. On a scale of 1-5 state your agreement with this statement with 1 being strongly disagree & 5
being strongly agree: All African American people have a distinctive speech pattern
(Lemoine, 2003).
26. On a scale of 1-5 state your agreement with this statement with 1 being strongly disagree & 5
being strongly agree: Academic performance is hindered if AAL is the student’s primary
language.
27. On a scale of 1-5 state your agreement with this statement with 1 being strongly disagree & 5
being strongly agree: AAL uses incorrect and poor grammar (Lemoine, 2003).
28. On a scale of 1-5 state your agreement with this statement with 1 being strongly disagree & 5
being strongly agree: AAL has regular grammatical rules like other languages (Lemoine,
2003).
PERCEPTIONS
29. On a scale of 1-5 state your agreement with this statement with 1 being strongly disagree & 5
being strongly agree: AAL should not be used in schools.
30. On a scale of 1-5 state your agreement with this statement with 1 being not essential at all &
5 being very essential: How essential is it for students to become proficient in SAE to be
academically successful?
Why? _______________
31. The goal of school for African American students should be to do the following (circle all
that apply) (Lemoine, 2003):
teach them AAL
provide instruction through AAL
help them acquire SAE in addition to AAL
help them acquire SAE in place of AAL
give children an appreciation of their home language
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 133
32. In what situations do you feel the use of AAL is appropriate, if any (Perry & Delpit, 1998)?
33. 1
st
grade teacher: What phonological features of Ebonics do you notice are common among
speakers of AAL?
2
nd
grade teacher: What grammatical features of Ebonics do you notice are common among
speakers of AAL?
34. Now, I’m going to describe a situation you might have found yourself in and I want to ask
you some questions about it. You’re in the middle of a lesson, and an African American
student raises his hand and gives you the answer you were looking for, but it’s stated in non-
SAE language that you have come to recognize as AAL. How would you approach the
situation/respond to the student’s answer?
35. In addition to language differences, what other distinguishing ways of participation do you
note among African American students (Johnston, 2011)? Can you describe those
behaviors?
36. How do you respond to those behaviors?
37. On a scale of 1-5, how different is the writing of an African American student compared to
the writing of a student in the same grade whose work you consider to be proficient in SAE?
Give examples: _____________
38. Can you give me specific examples of what you do to assist African American students
acquire SAE when they use AAL in their writing?
39. What types of practices have you implemented in the classroom that successfully facilitated
the development of SAE (Johnston, 2011)?
40. What was your evidence these practices were successful in facilitating the acquisition of
SAE?
41. Are there any other comments or observations you would like to make about African
American students’ development of SAE?

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 134
Appendix B: Observation Protocol
I. Overview
Date: Reminders/Checklist:
RQs: 1. What are teachers’ perceptions and knowledge about African American
Language, a form of Ebonics?
2. What is the nature of first and second grade classroom discourses between the teacher
and African American students when students speak African American Language?
3. What are some structured pedagogical practices used by some teachers for guiding
speakers of African American Language into become proficient writers and speakers of
SAE?

(O) over-correcting, (D) dismissing, (IG) ignoring, (P) punishing, (C) criticizing, (Y)
yelling, (I) interrupting, (E) embarrassing African American Ebonics speakers, (A)
authoritarian/directive teacher-student interaction, (SC) scripted student-student
responses/discussion
(CDI) incorporating cultural diversity in instruction, (HE) explicitly promoting high
expectations, (SS) student/student interaction, (TS) teacher/student interaction
(individual or small group), (CR) choral reading, (T) allowing students to use text to
model SAE sentence formation, (RD) requiring students to repeat directions, (RT)
presenting a respectful tone and response to African American students, (PR) providing
positive reinforcement/praise, (ACK) acknowledging a student without reprimanding
him/her
Start Time: End Time:
Location:
Participants: Grade: ____

Ethnicities & #: _________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

Teacher’s Ethnicity: _____________________________

Lesson:

SUMMARY

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 135
Minutes TEACHER STUDENT Observer Comments

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 136
1. General Classroom Structure and Culture
a) What languages were used during instruction? If more than one, what was the dominant language? (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
b) What evidence was there that the classroom reflected the cultural and linguistic diversity of the students in the class? (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
c) Was there evidence that a tone of decency (fairness, generosity, & tolerance) existed among the students and between the teacher and students?
(Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
d) Did this tone of decency vary by the ethnic or linguistic make-up of the students and/or teacher? (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
e) Was there any evidence of teachers conveying unanxious high expectations to their students? How? (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
f) Were these high expectations conveyed equally to other non-African American students? (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
2. Curriculum and Instruction
a) What evidence was there that the curriculum had a multicultural focus? (Describe what parts of it were multicultural.) (Datnow & Yonezawa,
2004)
b) What evidence was there that the curriculum was personalized for each student? (e.g., students working on different tasks, at different paces?)
(Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
c) What evidence was there that this “personalization” took into consideration the students’ cultural or linguistic backgrounds? (Datnow &
Yonezawa, 2004)
d) Did the curriculum as planned and presented allow for the development of students’ native linguistic talents? If not, were there times when such
opportunities would have been appropriate? Explain. (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
e) Did the curriculum foster a sense of personal and cultural identity? If so, how? (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
f) Was there evidence of meaningful activities that integrated lesson concepts with language practice opportunities for reading, writing, listening,
and/or speaking? (Echevarria & Short, 2004)
g) Was there evidence that the concepts explicitly linked to students’ background experiences? (Echevarria & Short, 2004)
h) Was there evidence that the teacher provided activities to apply content and language knowledge in the classroom? (Echevarria & Short, 2004)
i) Was there evidence that students used activities that integrated all language skills (i.e., reading, writing, listening, and speaking)? (Echevarria &
Short, 2004)
3. Pedagogy
a) Were there any pedagogical adjustments made to accommodate culturally or linguistically diverse student groups? (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
b) Were there frequent opportunities for interactions and discussion between teacher-student and among students, which encourage elaborated
responses about lesson concepts? (Echevarria & Short, 2004)
c) How would you characterize the teacher-student interactions you witnessed (e.g., frequent, nonexistent, friendly, consistent, etc.) (Datnow &
Yonezawa, 2004)
d) Were the teacher-student interactions you witnessed similar in quantity and quality across linguistic and cultural groups? (Datnow & Yonezawa,
2004)
e) Did the teacher employ a pedagogy that motivated students to use language (either home or SAE) to generate their own understandings? (Datnow
& Yonezawa, 2004)
f) Did the teacher consistently use scaffolding techniques throughout the lesson, assisting and supporting student understanding such as think-alouds?
(Echevarria & Short, 2004)
g) Did grouping configurations support language and content objectives of the lesson? (Echevarria & Short, 2004)
h) Did the curriculum and pedagogy employed promote confidence in students’ ability to learn? (Datnow & Yonezawa, 2004)
AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 137
Appendix C: Writing Analysis Protocol
Grade level: _______ Teacher (pseudonym): _______________ Years of Experience: _____ CCSS (if applicable): ________
Title of Writing Assignment: ____________________________________________________________ Genre: ____________________
Assignment Information Yes/
No
Student’s deviations from
SAE
(Hudley & Mallinson, 2011)
Tallied
deviations
Teacher’s Feedback
1. Is assignment aligned with
CCSS?
2. Are instructions/prompts clear?
3. Is assignment based on standard
that’s taught?
4. Does teacher explicitly state
that students were expected to
write in SAE?
5. Does teacher guide students
toward peer editing/peer support?
RUBRIC
6. Did teacher have or students
create a rubric?
7. Did students see rubric before
writing?
8. Does rubric include language
requirements or criteria?
9. Does rubric make a distinction
between content and language
use?
10. Is the rubric consistent with
what was taught?
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Phonology/Spelling
o /r/ is missing
o /th/ written as f or d
o /b/ written as p
o /d/ written as t
o /g/ written as k
o uses i e
o consonant clusters
written as 1 sound/letter
o ask written as ax, axe,
aks
Grammatical
o uses ain’t
o multiple negatives
o absence of –s inflection
o invariant forms of be
o existential it
o Direct (explicit feedback above or near students’
deviation of SAE), indirect (indicates student’s
deviation of SAE, but does not provide a correction or
meta-linguistic information), or both (Bitchener &
Ferris, 2012)
o Positive (response that it is correct), negative
(response that it is not correct), or both (Alimohammadi
& Nejadansari, 2014)
o Focused (feedback on limited number of targeted
types) or unfocused (feedback on wide range of
categories) (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012)
o Red edit mark
o Crossed out or circled
o Substituted with SAE form
o Meta-linguistic explanation (teacher provides extra
information on the correction) (Bitchener & Ferris,
2012)
o Explanatory end note (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012)
o Designates any next steps
o Feedback regarding content (details, ideas, topic,
ideas, quantity, word choice) (Peterson & Portier,
2014)
o Feedback regarding conventions (spacing, neatness,
punctuation, spelling, letter formation, grammar,
sentence structure) (Peterson & Portier, 2014)
o Comments reflect a tone of decency (Datnow &
Yonezawa, 2004)

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS 138
Teacher’s Comments:
1. Is there anything that indicates teacher’s tone? _____________________________________________________________________________
2. Are comments explanatory, supportive, and/or critical? _________________________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this case study was to explore first and second grade teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of African American Language (AAL) and its speakers, as well as implementation of instructional practices for supporting African American students whose first language is AAL, a form of Ebonics, in acquiring proficiency in SAE and accessing the school curriculum. Using sociocultural theory and language theories as the conceptual framework, the researcher examined classrooms for discourses and practices that reflected an acknowledgement and respect for the role of language and culture in African American students’ opportunities to learn. ❧ This qualitative study used interviews, observations, and analysis of teachers’ feedback on African American students’ writing from first and second grade teachers. Triangulating these forms of data informed the researcher about teachers’ perspectives, knowledge, and interactions with speakers of AAL. Data analysis revealed that teachers in this study did not have a firm understanding of AAL and its cultural and linguistic features. Additionally, classroom discourses did not allow opportunities for African American students to use AAL or for students, in general, to use language to construct knowledge. Teachers’ instructional practices and their responses to interview questions demonstrated limited knowledge of AAL and few instances of building on African American students’ home language as a tool for learning. ❧ The study identified important implications for educators and educational leaders. There is a need for on-going professional development about AAL and instructional practices that enable educators to meet the needs of AAL speakers. Educators who have an understanding and knowledge of AAL and its cultural features are better equipped to instruct students in ways that validate and support the culture and language of speakers of AAL for positive learning outcomes.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Perceptions about and strategies for African American speakers of Ebonics

PDF

Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom

PDF

The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

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

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

Arts integration for standard English learners: implications for learning academic language

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

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

PDF

Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice

PDF

"Thinking in the middle" what instructional approaches are employed by urban middle school teachers to effect changes in African American students' learning outcomes and performances?

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Suh, Rita (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/16/2015

Defense Date 03/02/2015

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

Tag African American language,African American students,discourse,elementary,instructional practices,OAI-PMH Harvest,teachers' knowledge and perceptions

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee chair)

Creator Email ritasuh@usc.edu,ritasuh@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-551428

Unique identifier UC11298598

Identifier etd-SuhRita-3317.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-551428 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SuhRita-3317.pdf

Dmrecord 551428

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Suh, Rita

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