Weinraub 1-5 FINAL

Running head: EXCLUSION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS 1

INFLUENCES OF AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE

EXCLUSION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS FROM ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

by

Clarece D.C. Weinraub

A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2015

Copyright 2015 Clarece D.C. Weinraub

EXCLUSION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS 2

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to the light of my life, Ms. Lillian Rose Weinraub; the woman

she was named after Lillie Mae Campbell, may she rest in peace; and also my parents and my

husband, Simeon Weinraub for their unwavering support.


Acknowledgements

I would like to first thank God for granting me the ability to participate in this program. It

has been a blessing and I have met lifelong friends along the way. I would like to thank Dr.

Sylvia Rousseau, for first, taking a phone call from a random girl in Oklahoma who found her

and emailed her to find out more about the USC Ed.D. Program and then for her patience when I

needed it and the opposite when I needed it too. I would also like to thank our thematic

dissertation group; Rita Suh, April Parker, Yulonn Harris, Topekia Jones, Marianne Geronimo,

Dan Osterman, and Deborah Albin for their encouragement and the memories that we made

while trying to get this thing done.

I have to acknowledge the other great students and friends that have helped me

throughout the program, the first being Josephine Jones. Josephine, who has maintained a

positive outlook even when most people would have given up. I am so proud to know you and I

look forward to watching the contributions you make to the world of education. Then Luciana

Lang, Muteti Mutie, and Catherine Kawaguchi for all of your support and friendship. For my

work friends and colleagues, who really let me vent but still pushed me to finish and hold things

together at work, Noel Scott, Dr. Shanley Rhodes, Dr. Brant Choate, Steve Good, Elyse Graham,

and Michelle Renteria. Finally, I would like to thank my family, Simeon who encouraged me and

helped me keep my sanity when life still happened while I was trying to complete the program.

To my mom and dad for being a sounding board and for doing everything they could to support

me from afar and then traveling here when I really needed the additional assistance. To my sister,

Andria and my Aunt Starla who let me call and cry or scream and never lost their patience with

me. I know that I could not have completed this feat alone and there are countless others who

gave me a hug, smile, or ‘atta girl’ when I needed it, I love you all!


Table of Contents

Dedication 2Acknowledgements 3List of Tables 6List of Figures 7Abstract 8Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9

Background of the Problem 9Statement of the Problem 11Purpose of the Study 13Significance of the Study 14Limitations and Delimitations 14Definition of Terms 14Organization of the Study 15

Chapter Two: Literature Review 16Background 16

Language Variations 17Language and Power 21Issues Surrounding Use of AAE 25

Denial of Existence of AAE 30Strategies that Promote AAE-Speaking Student Learning 34Conclusion 37

Chapter Three: Methodology 39Study Design 39Research Questions 39Sample and Population 40Sampling Procedure 41Instrumentation 41Data Collection 42

Data Collection Instruments 43Data Analysis 43Validity and Reliability 44

Chapter Four: Results 45Results for Research Question 1 49

Teachers’ had Basic Understanding of AAE 49Recognizing Language and/or Cultural Differences Among Students 51

Summary 53Results for Research Question 2 54

Teacher 1: Ms. Mitchell 56Summary 60Teacher 2: Ms. Scott 61Summary 65Teacher 3: Ms. Campbell 65

Summary 70Results for Research Question 3 71


No Consideration of Language in Lesson design for AAE Speaker 72Classroom Distractions 75Summary 78

Analysis of Results 78Schoolwide Focus on Instructional Practices 78Inaccurate Tracking of Students Sent out of Class 79Cooperative Learning 82Vocabulary Instruction 83Call to Orders 87Family Involvement 88Clear Routine and Procedures 90Contrastive Analysis 90

Summary 91Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 93

Methodology 93Discussion of Findings Pertaining to Research Question 1 93

Overall Findings 94Differences in Outcomes among Teachers 94

Discussion of Findings Pertaining to Research Question 2 95Overall Findings 95Differences in Findings among Teachers 96Student Responses to Teachers 96

Discussion of Findings Pertaining to Research Question 3 97Overall Findings 97Differences in Findings Among Teachers 98

Implications for Practice 98Recommendations 101Future Research 102Limitations 102Conclusion 102

References 104Appendix A: Survey Instrument 113Appendix B: Observation of Classroom Instruction 123Appendix C: Artifact Analysis Sheet 128


List of Tables

Table 1: Research Questions and Instrumentation 44

Table 2: Description of Teacher Participants and Subject Area Observed 48


List of Figures

Figure 1: Langston Middle School Demographics 46

Figure 2: API Score Comparison 47

Figure 3: African American API Scores 47


Abstract

This qualitative study explored how the teacher’s knowledge of African American

English (AAE) influenced the interactions and perceptions teachers had about AAE speaking

students. African American English is a rule based language system spoken by over 80 percent

of African Americans (Charity Hudley & Mallison, 2011; Smitherman, 1977). Despite this

statistic AAE is not classified as a second language and is generally not recognized in most U.S.

Schools. Programs such as the Academic English Mastery Program (AEMP) classify those

speakers of AAE and other languages that are generally referred to as English Only (EO) as

Standard English Learner (SEL). This study looked at knowledge of AAE, perceptions

demonstrated through interactions with students and strategies teachers used while working with

primarily African American middle school students. The researcher observed classrooms,

attempted to analyze lesson plans, and conducted teacher interviews. Findings showed that

teachers may have known about AAE but most did not explore learning about the language or

strategies to work with AAE speaking students despite having classes that were attended by

mostly AAE- speaking students. This research also showed that even when teachers felt

competent in using AEMP strategies lack of respect for students and understanding of African

American culture stifled the teacher’s effectiveness.


CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

The American Dream promises a better life to a person who is willing to work hard to

overcome obstacles. America’s promises are based on the principles of meritocracy: that

individual will and effort will lead to success and wealth regardless of race, national origin,

gender, or religion. Education is the cornerstone of the American dream. In theory, education is

the great equalizer that prepares citizens for opportunities to continue past high school and

acquire the skills they need to enter the workforce (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003; Kozol,

1991).

It has been more than a century since the abolition of slavery and nearly 60 years since

the Brown vs. Board of Education decision mandated desegregated schools, refuting “separate

but equal” as a principle. The Supreme Court decision ruled that all students, including African

Americans, Latinos, and students of any other racial or ethnic group should have access to the

same educational opportunities as those of their White peers. However, the promise of that

decision has not been fulfilled. American schools are still failing the students who were intended

to benefit from the ruling. African American students lead the nation in a number of categories

that statistically predict dropping out of high school, leading to a cycle of poverty,

unemployment, and, often, incarceration.

Background of the Problem

Because high school dropouts earn a lower wage and frequently need government

assistance to meet their living expenses, Locher and Moretti (2004) concluded that a 1% decline

in dropout rates would save the United States citizens $1.4 billion or about $2,100 per additional

male high school graduate. Unfortunately, only 47% of African American males graduate high

school annually compared to a 78% of non-Hispanic White students (Schott Report, 2010). In


addition, poverty and minimal work skills make African American males more susceptible to

committing crimes and being incarcerated (Western, Schiraldi, & Ziedenberg, 2003). Given

these numbers, schools are actually reproducing the social order that places African Americans,

as a group, at the bottom (Bourdieu & Passerson, 1990; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).

When asked about the inability of schools to effectively teach African American students

and ensure they are as successful as their peers, many teachers cite African American students’

lack of motivation and a belief that education is not important within the African American

community as reasons for the consistent failure of African American youth (Ladson-Billings,

2009). These views are problematic because they inform teachers’ perceptions about the ability

of the students in their classroom. Their perceptions, either conscious or subconscious, damage

the relationship between teachers and African American students and impede educational

process (Conner, Zurer, & Jackson, 2013).

Dropping out of high school is a significant barrier to employment, but nearly half of all

African American students will not finish (Schott Foundation for Public Education, 2010).

Contributing to the problem is that one of the primary difficulties teachers have in relating to

African American students is language (Alim & Smitherman, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009;

Tatum, 2009). Many African American students enter school speaking a variation of English that

is different from the Standardized English that is the basis for the academic language of the

classroom. Because African American English (AAE) is not recognized as a separate language,

students do not receive the structured support that comes to students recognized as English

learners. They struggle through school without the help they need to acquire academic English

(Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Schleppegrell, 2012). According to Delpit (2006), students, instead,

learn that their language is not valued and begin to believe they have little to contribute to the


classroom. They have limited access to the curriculum based on their language differences, and

they fall further and further behind.

Statement of the Problem

American schools have maintained inequalities of access to quality education since its

inception (Ladson Billings, 2006; Kozol, 1991). African American students lead all other groups

in categories that statistically lead to their not being able to complete high school. Research

suggests that one important reason African Americans have not been able to make significant

gains in traditional education is that they lack the academic language they need to engage in the

educational process (Charity Hudley & Mallinson, 2010; Okoye-Johnson, 2011). Students who

speak primarily AAE are left out of classroom discourses in which students and teachers

construct knowledge.

Many African American students come to school speaking a variation of English called

AAE, which carries with it a different culture and style from the language of the classroom,

which is based in Standardized English (Hollie, 2001). Once they are in school, these students

learn that their language is not respected and is, therefore, not a welcomed part of the classroom

discourses (Freeman & Freeman, 2004). However, students need to be engaged in the classroom

discourse to reach higher levels of cognition and understanding (Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson,

1995). In order to be a part of the community, students must be given permission to make and

express the meaning in their own words (Gutierrez, 2008).

As students participate in their classroom community, they begin to form sociocultural

rules and values of the classroom. These rules also communicate what is valued and not valued

in the classroom as well as who has the power (Gutierrez et al., 1995). If teachers are not careful

or aware of the importance of what Gee (2001) calls Discourses with a capital D, students are not


given an opportunity to learn new content. Students and teachers cannot enter the process of

dialogue unless they can reach a place of mutual respect (Freire, 1970). Therefore, it is

impossible for students to engage in classroom discourse if their language and their culture, is

not valued (Gee, 2001; Gutierrez, 2008; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).

White middle class students typically speak the language of the classroom and are,

therefore, admitted more readily to classroom Discourses (Charity Hudley & Mallison, 2011;

Greene & Walker, 2004). They are three times more likely than are African American students to

be referred to a program for gifted learners while African American students experience the

opposite. African American students are more likely to be referred to special education

programs, receive harsher punishment including suspension or expulsion for similar offenses,

and score lower on standardized reading and math tests (Hollie, 2001; Schott Foundation for

Public Education, 2010).

African American students are two times more likely to be referred to special education

classes than is any other population of students, and research suggests that, once placed in these

classes, their likely exit paths will be to leave school or receive a certificate of attendance rather

than a diploma (Blanchett, 2006). The disabilities for which African American are referred to

special education are more likely to be behavior disorders or emotional disturbance which are

considered “soft” placements because they are largely subjective (Lorsen & Orfield, 2002).

Placement in these classes excludes African American students from general education and,

instead, places them in restrictive environments with substandard curriculum that does not

adequately prepare them for high school completion – let alone higher education (Blanchett,

Mumford, & Beachum, 2005).Schools’ practices of isolating large numbers of African American

students in remedial or special education classes further limited African American students’


opportunities to learn, as these placements are proven unlikely to increase students’ opportunities

to learn (Heubert, 2002).

African American students are also excluded from the educational process by being

removed from the school setting through suspension and expulsion. Students of color often face

tougher punishment when disciplined in school (Gonzalez, 2012). In 2008, 45% of Los Angeles

Unified School District’s suspensions were meted out to African American students, and this

figure is more than twice the ratio of African American students enrolled in the district.

Furthermore, zero-tolerance policies and harsher punishments for minor instances such as

tardiness or perceived disrespect led to an increase in school-based referrals to juvenile courts

and student dropouts (Gonzalez, 2012). African American students experience exclusion instead

of inclusion in equitable opportunities to learn.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to recognize places where the needs of African American

students are not met. In addition, this study seeks to identify effective practices to eliminate

exclusion of African American students from the classroom discourses and to heighten their

inclusion in learning opportunities. Exclusion has been implemented in the form of special

education referrals, suspensions, and other forms of isolation. This study will examine the

practices and knowledge of teachers in their interactions with African American students. The

research questions are as follows:

1. What is that knowledge that teachers have about African American English (AAE)?

2. What attitudes and perceptions about speakers of AAE do teachers demonstrate in their

interactions with AAE speaking students?


3. What strategies do teachers use to assist speakers of African American English in

participating in classroom discourses and acquiring proficiency in

Standardized/Academic English?

Significance of the Study

Numerous studies that suggest that teachers need to acknowledge the cultural and

language differences among African American students in order to effectively teach them.

However, this research failed to permeate teacher education programs and school level or district

level professional development for teachers. Providing opportunities for teachers to gain

knowledge about African American students’ language and culture can lead to more effective

learning for African American students. The outcomes will be higher academic achievement and

preparation for postsecondary opportunities.

Limitations and Delimitations

Researching exclusionary practices in schools can be difficult because most schools and

teachers will not admit or believe that they exclude students from a quality education.

Additionally, there is a time limit for the collection of data.

Definition of Terms

African American English (AAE): African American English, which can be defined as one of

many variations of English, primarily spoken by African Americans. This is also known as AAE,

and can be described as a unique language (Green, 2002).

Academic/ Standardized English: A variation of English, otherwise known as Standardized

Academic English (SAE) which is the dominant language spoken in most classrooms, written in

most textbooks, and valued in mainstream American society (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).


Academic English Mastery Program (AEMP): A research based program designed to meet the

needs of Standard English Learner students that arrive to school speaking a language variety that

is not classified as Standardized Academic English. This program uses strategies that promote

the acquisition of standardized English (notebook.lausd.net, 2015).

Overrepresentation: When a group of students are at least two times more likely to be a

member of a particular group.

Organization of the Study

This study will be completed in five chapters. The first chapter provides an overview of

the study as well as an explanation of why the study is needed and what can be expected in

subsequent chapters. Chapter Two examines the current research leading to the focus of the

study and helps inform the research questions. Chapter Three presents the methodology of the

study, complete with the questions and statement of the problem. Chapter Four will present the

results of the study. The final chapter will provide and evaluation of the data collected and will

discuss the implications findings on the current field of education.


CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

There is a rich body of literature examining the perceptions that educators, schools and

society have about the academic ability and intelligence level of speakers of AAE. Research

further examines the effect these perceptions and stereotypes can have on the academic

achievement of African American students. The present study examines the risk of negative

perceptions and strategies to increase awareness of language varieties and inclusion of all

students in the learning process.

Background

Most citizens believe the goal of public education systems is to produce citizens who are

literate and who can participate in meaningful postsecondary opportunities (Adams, 2010).

However, the academic achievement of large numbers of African American students

demonstrates that they are less likely to achieve their American dream through education. Nearly

half of all African American students fail to graduate from high school, and only 40% have

scored proficiently in reading as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Historically, African American students have

been concentrated in schools considered high poverty and plagued by low student learning

outcomes (Ferguson, 2000; Rodriguez, 2008; Schott Foundation, 2010). Not only are African

American students the lowest performing group in schools considered to be low performing, but

African American students are also the lowest scoring demographic group in reading scores in

schools that are considered high performing (Ogbu, 2003). African American students in the

more affluent schools are typically described by their teachers as lazy, or not exhibiting any

interest in school (Ogbu, 2003; Tatum, 2003) These low expectations manifest in fewer African

American students’ being placed in gifted or advanced placement classes and lower overall


student achievement outcomes (Ferguson, 2000; Ogbu, 2003; Tatum, 2003). African American

students are two and a half times less likely to be enrolled in gifted and talented classes, and

White students are four times more likely to take advanced placement tests (NEA, 2011; Schott

Report, 2010).

African Americans have historically been characterized as less intelligent and subordinate

to Whites and have been denied an education, from the denial of schooling during the era of

slavery to the Jim Crow laws that placed African American students in inadequate segregated

schools (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Tatum, 2003). The intent of Brown v. Board of Education and

the subsequent desegregation of schools was to ensure students of color equal access to quality

schools and to better outcomes (Tatum, 2003). However, soon after African American students

were allowed to enter mostly White schools, White parents with money and influence began

moving their students out of their neighborhood schools to private schools. Soon after

desegregation, southern schools began publishing gaps in African American and White student

test scores to try to prove that African American students did not belong in integrated classrooms

(Ogbu, 2009). Even after schools were forced to accept African American students into their

classrooms, many of these students were placed in special education classes and separated from

the general classroom again (Ogbu, 2009).

Language Variations

Many scholars and researchers linked African American students’ low academic

performance to the language that many bring to school. Children learn their first language in the

midst of activity with their family or from their surrounding environment, and the average child

begins speaking at around 18 months of age (Vygotsky, 1978; Freeman &Freeman, 2004). This

means that students come to school with a language and culture that form a part of who they are.


They learn vocabulary and the rules of language before they typically start school at the age of 5

years (Freeman& Freeman, 2004; Labov, 2012; LeMoine, 2001). At the time when children

learn their first language, their cognitive abilities for learning a language are at a maximum, and

the ability to learn a new language begins to decline as they age into adolescence (Labov, 2010).

The first acquired language is considered to be the student’s home language because it is the

language that students bring to school from their home environment. This is a language that is

frequently ignored or is not valued by the institution of American schools.

Some students’ home language more closely resembles that of Standardized English, the

language that has been most commonly accepted as the appropriate language for mainstream

American settings, such as school, work, and government buildings and proceedings (Ogbu,

2003). Many African American and minority children will not begin school speaking

Standardized English but will, instead, report to school using a different rule-based vernacular

that their teachers may not be familiar with (Charity Hadley & Mallison, 2011; Godley &

Escher, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 2014). The language that a large number of African American

students come to school speaking has been identified by a number of labels, most notably AAE

and/or Ebonics (Charity Hadley& Mallison, 2011).

AAE vs. Ebonics. The origins of AAE can be traced as far back as the forced migration

of Africans in the United States through the institutions of slavery. A majority of Africans who

were sold into slavery were taken from the Western region of Africa and, though they spoke

different languages, they mostly spoke a form of Niger-Congo languages. Upon arrival into the

United States, these languages were infused with the English vocabulary they spoke and

understood while they were working on plantations (LeMoine, 2003; Rickford &Rickford; 2000,

Smitherman, 1977).


According to Labov (2012), AAE is one of the most closely studied varieties in the

world. In the study of language diversity, Labov refers to AAE as a dialect of English rather than

a separate Creole language. However, many linguists disagree that AAE is not its own language:

they contend that the language has its own rules and does not share grammatical structure with

Standardized English (Smith, 1998). Smith (1998) refers to Black English as an African

language system that is a continuation of Africa in America. In 1973, Dr. Robert Williams

developed the term “Ebonics” to refer to the language previously referred to as Black English

and AAE. Williams (1997) stated that he created this term because he had grown weary of other

linguistics describing the language negatively by using terms such as “substandard speech” or

“non-standard English.” The term Ebonics was a combination of two words: “ebony “and

“phonics, “and, together, they mean Black sound (Smith, 1998). The goal was to define the

language in a way that represents the culture and the people who use it (Williams, 1997).

Arguments over the status of AAE as a language or a dialect have to do with its overall

degree of English influence (Green, 2002). There is no dispute that AAE or Ebonics has origins

that can be traced to West Africa. For the purposes of this paper, AAE will be used to define the

language that about 98% of African American children speak (Smitherman, 1986). Further, both

groups – those who argue that AAE is a separate language and those who refer to it as a dialect

admit that AAE is distinguishable from that of Standardized English and should be recognized

by educators of African American children (Smitherman, 2000). Despite this extensive research,

strategies proven to help AAE speakers acquire command of Standardized English have not

permeated most American classrooms (Ladson-Billings, 2009). The American teacher labor

market is dominated by primarily White, middleclass women, and many of these teachers only

recognize Standardized English as a valid form of English (Ladson-Billings, 2009). The


differences described above in language and the limited knowledge that teachers have about

AAE results in a cultural mismatch for African American children.

Characteristics of AAE. Because there are a number of differences between AAE and

the more commonly accepted language of Standardized English, characteristics of AAE cannot

be coded in a checklist fashion. However, some of the most commonly recognized features will

be discussed here to provide a basic context of the language.

One of the key features of AAE is the stress on the first syllable of a word as in the

pronunciation of “police” as PO-lice and “hotel” as HO-tel or the deletion of the first syllable in

words like (a)bout, (be)cause, and (a)fraid. AAE also is marked by a reduction of consonant

clusters, which is a feature of many languages, but occurs more frequently in AAE. Examples

include words such as “ask” pronounced as “aks” or “axe”, “desk” pronounced as “des” and

“test” pronounced as “tes” (Charity Hudley & Mallison, 2011; Green, 2002; Rickford &

Rickford, 2000).

Syntax refers to the structure of the sentence in a language. AAE differs from

Standardized English thorough syntax, and this section highlights a select few that appear in the

literature most frequently. Speakers of AAE use the verb “be” to indicate the habitual nature of

an event: when something happens consistently or repeatedly. This can be seen in the example

“My sister be talking on the phone,” to indicate that one’s sister is consistently on the phone

(Charity Hudley & Mallison, 2011; Green, 2002; Rickford & Rickford, 2000). Another feature of

AAE is the absences of “is” or “are “which usually connect a subject to the rest of the sentence.

Examples of the absence of the copula can be found in statements such as “You right “instead of

“You are right” and “She crazy” instead of She is crazy (Charity Hudley & Mallison, 2011;

Green, 2002, & Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Smitherman, 2000;).


The stressed “been” is the final feature of AAE that will be highlighted, and it is

equivalent to the Standardized English use of “have been” and “has been.” The stressed “been” is

used to emphasize that the subject has been in its present state for a long time. Examples can be

seen in statements such as “They been gone” instead of the “They left a long time ago” in

Standardized English or “They been married” instead of “They have been married a long time”

(Charity Hudley & Mallison, 2011; Green, 2002; Smitherman, 2000; Rickford & Rickford,

2000).

Language and Power

There is a long history of racism embedded in American culture beginning with the

importing of African people as chattel during the height of the slave trade in the 17th century.

Once Africans were in the United States, slave-owners and government officials justified their

enslavement by citing their intellectual inferiority and their inability to take care of themselves.

After slavery was abolished, Jim Crow laws were quickly developed to ensure that African

Americans still had little to no power in the voting process, workforce, or in education. African

Americans lived in largely segregated communities, attended segregated schools, and worked in

segregated jobs (Alexander, 2010). In recent times, racism is seen in subtler practices such as

harsher punishments for offenses more prevalent in African American or poor communities,

leading to higher incarceration rates among African Americans (Alexander, 2010); exclusionary

practices in education that lead to overrepresentation of African American students in special

education, dropout rates, and suspensions (Ladson-Billings, 2009); and stereotypes of African

Americans as poor, uneducated, or deviant through mass media (Alim & Smitherman, 2012;

Rickford &Rickford, 2000).


The long history of enduring stereotypes of and biases against African American citizens

as an inferior race or second-class citizens is prominently displayed in the way AAE is received

in American schools (Alim & Smitherman, 2012; Ferguson, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Ogbu,

2003; Perry & Delpit, 1998; Tatum, 1997). Many believe that AAE is “broken English” or the

language of the uneducated; therefore, even acknowledging AAE and the culture associated with

this language is an embarrassment to many African Americans themselves (Alim & Smitherman,

2012; Perry & Delpit, 1998; Rickford &Rickford, 2000).

Though AAE can be traced to the times of slavery and African Americans have been

speaking the language for decades, issues of dealing with AAE in the classroom became more

prevalent after desegregation of American schools following the Brown v. Board of Education

ruling (Greene & Walker, 2004). In desegregated schools, teachers viewed AAE negatively and

looked for ways to teach students to abandon the language they were most familiar with in

exchange for Standardized English (Greene & Walker, 2004). Speakers of AAE became subject

to the hegemony of White culture in which each minority group is measured by how closely their

language, behaviors, and dress imitate that of White Americans (Alim & Smitherman, 2012;

Ogbu, 1998). Teachers and school officials attempt to enforce the norms of dominant culture

through correcting student grammar and speech while students are in the process of expressing

an idea or sending students to the office when student tone is interpreted as disrespectful (Alim

& Smitherman, 2012; Filmore & Snow, 2000; Tatum, 2003). These encounters have had a highly

negative impact on students because their language and culture are intertwined with their identity

(Alim & Smitherman, 2012; Delpit, 2006; Ogbu & Simons, 1998).

Ogbu (1999) applied the Cultural-Ecological Theory to explain the negative impact on

African American students of having their language and culture rejected in their schooling


experience. Ogbu separates minority groups into two categories, involuntary and voluntary

immigrants, to represent the different receptions or treatment mainstream American imposed on

the two groups. Ogbu considers African Americans to be involuntary immigrants whose origins

in this nation were not of their choosing. Involuntary minorities view White culture and the

language of the White culture as being forced on them. Voluntary immigrants, on the other hand,

come to America in search of a new and better life than they had in their native land. They

expect to have to learn the mainstream culture and are more willing to accept having to learn

Standardized English and adopt White culture to be successful in school. Ogbu attributes the low

academic performance of speakers of AAE to the reception they receive when they enter school.

In this theory, he explains that there are at least two factors that influence minority student

academic performance. The first is how society at large and schools treat minority groups and

how those minority groups respond to these treatments. The second factor is the response of

African American communities to the way schools treat their children in school. Ogbu stated

that their community forces largely influence the difference in how immigrant and nonimmigrant

minorities perform. For the purposes of this study, the term African Americans will be used to

describe American citizens of African descent as in voluntary immigrants whose ancestors, in a

majority of instances, were brought to the United States to work as slaves (Ogbu & Simons,

1998).

Voluntary minorities see assimilation through actions such as learning Standardized

English as necessary for their integration into the United States and for continued success.

Voluntary minorities came to the United States expecting to have to learn a new language and do

not see this requirement as a replacement of their current language or culture but as an additive

feature (Ogbu, 1994; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). On the other hand, involuntary minorities view the


requirement to learn Standardized English and assimilation into mainstream culture as forced and

subtractive of their culture (Charity Hudley & Mallison, 2011; Ogbu, 1994; Ogbu & Simons,

1998).

As a result of feeling forced to learn the language and culture of mainstream US culture,

African American students can develop an oppositional attitude toward school (Alim &

Smitherman, 2012; Ferguson, 2000; Tatum, 1997; Ogbu, 1994; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). This

attitude will often appear as aggression or indifference toward school and education. Students

will often refuse to speak in the way that teachers request or ask for clarification to understand

why a rule is implemented. This stance is more likely to happen as a student becomes an

adolescent and feels the need to protect her or his identity (Alim & Smitherman, 2012; Ferguson,

2000; Tatum, 1997; Ogbu, 1994; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). However, because African American

students’ culture and language is often not the dominant culture of the school, students will find

that this stance leads to more referrals to the office for disciplinary action and/or referral to

special education. African American students are 1.82 times more likely to be diagnosed as

emotionally disturbed and 2.88 times more likely to be classified as mentally retarded when

compared to White American students.

Construct of Race in Schools. Critical Race theory posits that racism is not abnormal but

is rather an accepted fact in American society. Research shows that most people are able to

easily point out individual racism but they are less clear on how this racism turns into structural

racism and social inequality. Additionally, belief that racism is no longer a problem in American

society at large, is referred to as colorblind racism. Colorblindness limits the ability to have

discussions with teachers and pre-service teachers about strategies that they should use when

working with their diverse student populations. It also promotes an idea that racism is a personal


problem instead of systematic or structural (Lopez, 2003; Alim & Smitherman, 2009; Ladson-

Billings & Tate, 2005).

Schools are often a place where students are rewarded for their compliance and

acceptance by the dominant culture (Freire, 1985; Ogbu 2003). The dominant culture is

embedded in the institution of school and, without realizing it, teachers often reinforce the idea

of cultural and language hegemony for all students in their classes (Alim &Smitherman, 2012,

Freire, 1985; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Tatum, 2003). In a study conducted by Alim and

Smitherman (2012), when a teacher was asked why she felt it was important that students of

color speak only Standardized English in class, the teacher responded that she did not know, but

she knew that her students needed to “play the game.” “The game,” in this context, is having the

ability to participate in job and college interviews (Alim & Smitherman, 2012). Though the

teachers are often well intended, this demonstrates they are not sure how Standardized English

became the language of power they believe students must learn to get a job (Alim &

Smitherman, 2012; Ogbu, 2003; Smitherman, 1977).

Issues Surrounding Use of AAE

Roughly 80% of African American children come to school speaking a variation of AAE,

yet most teachers are not trained to recognize this English variation as a valid language (Hollie,

2001; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Smitherman, 1977).The message to African American students

either directly or indirectly is that their use of AAE is not acceptable in the classroom. Further,

teachers are trained in colleges that teach Standardized English only methods for learning

(Ladson-Billings, 2009, Godley & Escher, 2012).

Teachers’ negative perceptions of AAE in classrooms. According to Ogbu (1999), in

the language community, “proper English” or, in the case of this paper, Standardized English is


seen as the high dialect acceptable in most mainstream American realms of employment,

education, and interactions with people “outside” of their community. Many teachers interpret

use of AAE as a sign that a student lacks intelligence or is using slang (Alim & Smitherman,

2012; Charity Hadley & Mallison, 2009; Ogbu, 1999, 2012; Perry & Delpit, 1998). African

American students, and most teachers, are not aware that the language they speak has an

academic term, and they refer to their use of AAE as slang because they know it is a language

different from what their teachers speak (Charity Hadley & Mallison, 2009; Ogbu, 1999).

However, slang is not the same as AAE. It is typically a faddish language used primarily by

adolescents that eventually fades away (Rickford& Rickford, 2000; Smitherman, 1977).

Conversely, the language of AAE speakers and its origins can be traced back to African

languages slaves brought with them to the United States (Smitherman, 1977; Rickford&

Rickford, 2000; Ogbu, 1999).

Students who speak AAE can feel that their opinion and their culture is not valued in

their school communities (Alim & Smitherman, 2012; Charity Hadley & Mallison, 2009; Ogbu,

2012; Perry & Delpit, 1998). Teachers often project a view of students who speak AAE as being

less intelligent and in some cases in need of speech or remedial classes (Godley & Escher, 2012).

Teachers often see no place for the use of AAE in the classroom and view students who use it as

lazy and, in some cases, disrespectful (Godley & Escher, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Spears,

2001). One practice that contributes to this feeling is teachers’ overcorrection of students’ use of

AAE while the student tries to engage in classroom discourse (Fillmore & Snow, 2000).

Constant correction can lead to what is called an affective filter in which students will exercise

increased cognitive monitoring of their speech, resulting in difficulty talking in class (Delpit,

2005). These students often become self-conscious about being judged for their language use in


classroom discussions (Labov, 2012, Perry & Delpit, 1998,). Because the content of the

classroom is typically presented in Standardized English, students who are not proficient in it

will have limited access to the discourses, readings, or activities of the classroom, leaving AAE

speakers with unequal opportunities to learn (Labov, 2012).

Effects of teachers’ perceptions on African American students. Teachers’

misperceptions about language differences cause them to be twice as likely to diagnose African

American students who speak AAE with cognitive delays when compared to their European

American students (Champion, Cobb-Roberts, & Bland-Steward, 2012). Further, African

American male students are more likely to be referred to soft and hard to diagnose special

education categories such as emotional disturbances and Mild Mental Retardation (Blanchett,

2006).

Segregation through overrepresentation in special education. Students diagnosed as

having emotional disturbances or Mild Mental Retardation typically receive their education in

segregated classrooms (Patton, 1998). Referral to special education and the subsequent testing

and response to intervention are highly subjective, and the outcome is largely based on teacher

perception of the student’s ability and family history (Harry, Klingner, Sturges, & Moore, 2002).

While African American students make up only about 15% of a typical California school’s

population, they statistically make up 38% of the special education population (Blanchett, 2006;

Heubert, 2002).

Teachers tend to have lower expectations for students in special education classes. As a

result, these students are more likely to have weaker instruction and less access to grade-level

content in special education classrooms (Huebert, 2002). These negative factors decrease the

likelihood these students will improve their classroom performance and increase the risk of


having to repeat a grade level or dropping out of school (Eitle, 2002; Huebert, 2002). African

American students in special education experience fewer positive outcomes than their White

peers. They show limited academic gains on state tests and lower graduation rates (Blanchett,

2006). African American students are also more likely to leave special education by dropping out

or with only a certificate of high school completion instead of a high school diploma (Blanchett,

2006).

The most important danger of overrepresentation of African American students in special

education classes is the risk of missing the traditional or regular education classroom discourse

(Ferri & Conner, 2005; Losen &Welner, 2002). Many special education advocates argue that

special education legislation being used to segregate children from traditional classrooms is

enforced in a way that resembles segregation struck down in Brown vs. Board of Education

(Ferri & Conner, 2005). These restrictive classrooms do not promote engagement in classroom

discourse that AAE students need to access content and strengthen their literacy (Fillmore &

Snow, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2009).

AAE and teacher perception effects on school discipline. Another factor that impedes

African American student achievement is the disproportionate amount of school suspensions.

These are important to monitor because students who are suspended are more likely to be

suspended again, to fail to complete high school, and they face an increased likelihood of

incarceration (Wilson, 2013). African American students are three times more likely to be

suspended than is any other racial group and also face tougher punishment when disciplined in

school. (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008). In 2008, 45% of Los Angeles Unified School District’s

suspensions were of African American students and represent more than twice the ratio of

African American students enrolled in the district.


Furthermore, African American students are more likely to be referred to the office for

offenses that can be classified as subjective, such as disrespect and loitering (Gonzalez, 2012;

Skiba et al., 2011). Several studies attribute the high number of referrals to cultural mismatch

between African American students and the teachers who are likely to teach in their schools

(Ferguson, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Skiba et al., 2011). Further study into the

disproportionate amount of school punishments or suspensions by Ferguson (2000), found that

schools often enforce the idea of cultural hegemony wherein the dominant culture is that defined

by middle class, mostly White teachers and serves as the standard by which most behavior is

judged. Schools then enforce rules through “symbolic violence” which can be described as the

“painful, damaging, mental wounds inflicted by the wielding of words, symbols and standards”

where school officials, although well intentioned, replicate historical systems of oppression

through classroom and school practices (Ferguson, 2000, p. 51). The study further explained that

rules of the school serve as a tool of “normalization” and, above all else, schools and school

adults value conformity to the rules.

Teachers who have low expectations of students are less likely to work with students to

understand their culture and schooling. Behaviors associated with African American culture,

such as language, walking style and dress, were also factors that influenced student behavior

referrals to the office (Ferguson, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Neal et al., 2003). Additionally,

African American children’s behavior is often viewed as the action of an adult. For instance, in

Ferguson’s (2000) study, instead of receiving the benefit of the doubt when they forgot to return

colored pencils, African American students were referred to as looters. African American

children are also often seen as being older than they are and are seen as a less protected group


than other children, leaving them more likely to be targeted as child predators, murderers, and

thieves (Goff, Jackson, DiLeone, Culotta, & DiTomasso, 2014).

Research on schools with high minority suspension and dropout rates found that one

quarter of teachers were responsible for nearly two thirds or more of the office referrals (Dow et

al., 2003). Closer examination of school suspension trends found that more than the final act or

official referral went into suspensions. In order for teachers to send students to the office, they

had to believe that it was a matter that could not be handled at the classroom level. Principals

then, in some cases, take into account the teacher who refers the student and the student’s own

personal history and family background. The research showed that, in many instances, students

of color were treated more harshly even for minor infractions (Dow et al., 2003).In schools

where there was a gap between White and African American suspension rates, teachers believed

that this was because African American students tended to commit more offenses and that their

families placed little value on education (Ferguson, 2000).

Denial of Existence of AAE

Debate about the legitimacy of AAE as a language barrier that influences the academic

achievement gap between African American and White students can be traced to the publication

of Teaching Black Children to Read in 1969 (Rickford & Rickford, 2000). Much like subsequent

attempts to teach AAE-speaking children Standardized English through public or school policy,

there were a number of misconceptions about AAE and public defamation of the language

(Rickford & Rickford, 2000). Two of the largest debates about language in schools are referred

to as the Ann Arbor Case and the Ebonics debate.

AAE research was the basis of a lawsuit that African American parents in Michigan

brought to the courts in 1977. The parents of children in Martin Luther King Junior Elementary


School brought up a case against the Ann Arbor School District arguing that their students were

not able to learn how to read because the teachers were not knowledgeable of ways to work with

students who spoke AAE. Specifically, the parents claimed that school placed students in special

education classes, speech pathology classes, or had suspended the students, denying them an

education and access to the classroom. The judge in this case, Judge Joiner, brought in several

linguistic experts and determined the students did, indeed, speak a form of AAE and that the

school did demonstrate a negative view of the students’ use of AAE when making decisions

about their education. Judge Joiner, who had heard the arguments of an expert witness brought

forth by the plaintiffs, agreed that the school district had failed to recognize the legitimacy of

AAE and subsequently failed the African American students. In 1979, he ruled that the Ann

Arbor School District was to educate African American students and also educate their teachers

in more effective strategies to accomplish this (Smitherman, 1998). The ruling did not set legal

precedent to recognize AAE as a second language, and it was what most advocates would

characterize as a “conservative ruling” that had little impact on the American school system

(Rickford &Rickford, 2000; Smitherman, 1998).

Nearly two decades later, the language of AAE was at the center of another controversial

attempt to help African American students close the academic achievement gap. This time, it was

the school district looking for techniques to help students learn Standardized English. The

Ebonics debate of the Oakland School Board in 1996 is one of the most notorious examples of

the negative views held by society at large regarding AAE use (Labov, 2012). In response to the

persistent achievement gap between African American and White students in the Oakland school

district, the school board passed what came to be known as the Ebonics resolution. The

resolution pulled from decades of research to find the best practices to increase African


American student literacy. Instead of being reported accurately as a resolution to teach African

American students Standardized English by valuing their current language, the media reported

that the school district would begin teaching students to speak in Ebonics or what many believed

to be slang (Labov, 2012; Delpit, 1998). The resolution was later abandoned after public outcries

from both African American and White public figures, and the community protested the idea of

teaching students Ebonics.

Current practices still maintain an achievement that leaves the average African American

student four reading levels lower than his or her White peers. This gap is not as wide for Latino

American students. The difference may be credited to the academic language instruction that is

often provided to Latino American students (Fryer & Levit, 2004) who are more likely to be

categorized as English Language Learners and receive additional assistance to acquire

Standardized English, such as instruction in English as a second language and teachers who are

trained or specialized in helping students acquire Standardized English. Not all Latino children

qualify for these programs, however some Hispanic students can be classified as Standard

English Learners (SELs). Ethnic native speakers of English who may not arrive to school

speaking the language of the classroom (Standardized/Academic English) in part because of their

belonging to an ethnic group are SELs (Okoye-Johnson, 2011). Latino children who may not

speak Spanish as their first language are classified as English only speakers. These students often

speak a dialect that is a blend of Spanish syntax and English vocabulary. These students may

retain many of the structures, phonology, and grammar of their parent’s language. Researchers

refer to their language as Mexican American or Chicano English. Typically, these students have

mastery of neither Academic Spanish nor Academic English, and, after 12 or 13 years of

schooling in America, they still do not achieve proficiency in English. These students will face


many of the same issues in school as AAE-speaking students (Fought, 2003). Other SEL students

can be American Indian and Hawaiian American. These students were born in the United States

and were raised speaking English only which separates them from the English Learner

population of students (Okoye-Johnson, 2011).

The ability to speak and understand Standardized English directly affects a student’s

ability to learn to read texts written in Standardized English, to form positive social relations in

school and to adapt to the demands of school (Gee, 2001; Delpit, 1992). In many of the texts

they are required to read for class, students are expected to read and understand the nuances of

language in different contexts: dialogue between characters in narrative texts, comprehension of

metaphors, and other literary devices as well as complex scientific language (Byrnes & Wasick,

2009). Unless they receive structure and research-based support in acquiring Standardized

English, speakers of unacknowledged languages like AAE or Mexican American English are at a

distinct disadvantage. This disadvantage may contribute to the achievement gap (Charity Hudley

& Mallison, 2011; Godley & Escher, 2012).

Valuing students’language helps create a sociolinguist classroom that encourages

dialogue. Linguistic research shows that teachers who create classrooms that are additive to

students’ home language, instead of attempting to subtract it, generate more success for minority

students (Hill, 2009; Hollie, 2001). Candidates in teacher preparation programs and pre-service

teachers are not taught how to use strategies that teach Standardized English Learners or when it

is appropriate to all these learners to use the variations that they already know. The ability to

switch language use and body movements, depending on the environment, is frequently referred

to as code-switching (Hill, 2009), which is the ability to successfully use Standardized English


and their home language and to read a situation to decide which language is appropriate for the

setting (Fought, 2003; Hill, 2009).

Strategies that Promote AAE-Speaking Student Learning

African Americans generally lead all other ethnic groups in negative school outcomes.

These negative outcomes include high dropout and suspension rates, low test and reading scores

and exclusion from classroom discourse (Ogbu, 2003; Tatum, 2003; NEA, 2011; Schott Report,

2010). One reason for the difference in results for African American students when compared to

the results of white students is the difference in language. Nearly 90 percent of African

Americans speak some form of AAE. Research suggests (Hollie, 2012, Gay, 2002, LeMoine,

2001, Ladson-Billings 2009, Hudley & Mallison, 2011) educators can work to close this gap by

providing culturally responsive classrooms and working with students to acquire Standard

English/Academic English. In culturally responsive classrooms, teachers are actively seeking to

engage all students by including culturally relevant materials in the classroom planning (Ladson-

Billings, 2009; Hollie, 2012; Gay, 2002). Often, school environments reward compliance and

behavior closely related to the dominant culture (Ogbu, 2003, Ladson-Billings, 2009). Culturally

responsive language programs help schools train all school stakeholders to appreciate and utilize

student backgrounds to increase academic performance.

Research suggests that the goal of education should be to teach all students Standardized

English while still respecting the language that represents the students’ home and culture

(Charity Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). In addition to respecting a student’s home language,

teachers should also validate the language without letting their view of the language determine

their perception of the student’s academic ability (Delpit, 1992; Fecho, Davis & Moore, 2012).

Teachers who are aware and know more about the variations of languages are more likely to


respond in helpful ways, such as focusing on the student’s meaning instead of his/her language

differences (Schleppegrell, 2012). Additionally, teachers have to understand the political nature

of language and the common response of the dominant culture to look at language variations

from a deficit perspective (Fisher & Lapp, 2013; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Tatum, 2003).

Understanding language variations and the power of language is the first step for teachers

to see themselves as a political force in the classroom (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Gutierrez et al.,

1995). When teachers recognize the cultural diversity of their students and incorporate

culturally-relevant pedagogy, they have positive influence on their students’ learning (Ladson-

Billings, 1995; Greene & Walker, 2004). According to Delpit (2003)and Greene and

Walker(2004), teachers’ relationship with students will determine if they are able to teach

Standardized English without threatening the home language of their students. Furthermore,

Ladson-Billings (2009) finds that students learn better when they have relationships with their

teachers based on mutual respect that extends beyond the classroom and not limited to formal

classroom rules.

Children acquire language through practicing and using language to facilitate activity and

discussion with others (Gutierrez et al., 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Whitney, 2005). According

to Greene and Walker (2004), teachers should have classrooms that are rich in dialogue and

language. The authors suggest there are some ways teachers can incorporate multicultural

discourse into their classrooms that are successful in helping students acquire Standardized

English, but teachers need to also make sure they communicate clear language expectations,

allowing students to critically discuss language functions in America, and allowing time in class

to share goals with students.


In addition to creating supportive and diverse classroom, teachers need to also employ

pedagogy that explicitly teaches students the differences between Standardized English and AAE

so that students understand when it is acceptable to use each language. This skill has been

referred to as code-switching (Charity Hudley & Mallison, 2011; Delpit, 2003; Greene &

Walker, 2004: Ladson-Billings, 2009). Whitney (2005) found that, using this strategy, teachers

decide not to correct students when they deviate from Standardized English and instead should

create opportunities for students to use both languages. In addition, Hill (2009) states that

modeling code-switching for students by using different varieties while interacting with students

also demonstrates to students the power of being able to switch between varieties.

Using the technique of teaching academic literacy by letting students compare languages

and note differences in their home language and the Standardized English of the classroom is

called contrastive analysis (Godley, Sweetland, Wheeler, Minnici, & Carpenter, 2006). Charity

Hudley and Mallison (2011) suggest that teachers only focus on one or two language patterns at

a time when they compare languages or correct papers so that students are not overwhelmed with

the information presented. The authors state it is also helpful if teachers talk about language

differences while reading texts that are rich with cultural and language variations and references.

These practices help develop a classroom of language learners who will begin to understand the

value in respecting the language and culture of others (Greene & Walker, 2004). A study of the

benefit of contrastive analysis also yielded positive results of increased test score for students

and demonstrated positive effects on teachers’ view of AAE (Godley et al., 2006).

There are additional steps that administrators can take to help teachers develop language

diverse classrooms. One of them is to seek research-based programs designed to help teachers

develop culturally-relevant and responsive pedagogy. An example is the Linguistic Affirmation


Program (LAP) that features six instructional strategies: build teachers’ knowledge,

understanding, and positive attitudes toward non-standard languages and the students use them;

integrate linguistic knowledge about non-standard language into instruction; utilize second

language acquisition methodologies to support the acquisition of school language; employ a

balanced approach to literacy acquisition that incorporates phonics and language experience;

design instruction around the learning styles and strengths of Standard English language learners;

and infuse the history and culture of Standard English language learners into the instructional

curriculum. A study of Los Angeles Unified School District used two strategies: introducing

students to Standard Academic English (SAE) vocabulary and providing opportunities SAE in

authentic situations. Teachers struggled in using the similarities and differences between the

languages because they did not know enough about AAE. LAUSD saw positive results on the

posttests of students who participated in the study when compared to students who did not

receive the same instruction (Hollie, 2001).

Conclusion

African American students struggle to achieve the same academic achievement as their

White peers and are increasingly surpassed by their Latino peers (Hollie, 2001). Research

indicated that these students are unable to understand and feel included in school due to their

home language or AAE (Delpit, 2003). Schools respond negatively to the use of AAE by

overcorrecting AAE-speaking students and forcing students to learn what is considered White

mainstream culture while neglecting the historical relevance of African American culture

(Delpit, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Rickford &Rickford, 2000). The difference between the

two cultures led African American students to be over-identified in special education classes and

in suspension rates (Huebert, 2002).


However, some studies identified ways that teachers can effectively work with AAE-

speaking African American students (Delpit, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2009). The first step is

recognizing the significance of a student’s home language and respecting that this language is a

part of the student’s culture. According to the research, when a teacher respects a student, s/he

will likely approach teaching Standardized English differently and will see the learning of it as

an addition to the language they already speak instead of trying to force African American

students to abandon their home language (Delpit, 2003; Fecho et al., 2012; Ladson-Billings,

2009). Toward that end, this study examined the danger of failing to recognize student language

and the consequences that African American students have endured as a result of their language.


CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the methodology that was used for this study and includes an

overview of the study, sampling and site selection, data collection procedures, data analysis

procedures and ethical considerations. This study focused on a teacher interactions and practices

with speakers of AAE. The intent of this study is to add to the body of research that on the role

of language in African American academic achievement.

Identifying practices and failures in schools working with a significant number of African

American students is important because these can affect school practices in multiple districts

with disproportionate numbers of failing African American students in their schools.

Study Design

Qualitative study involves the views and feelings of teachers and students under study.

Qualitative methods allow the researcher to construct and reconstruct the study based on where

the research leads (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative research also allows the researcher to capture in-

depth data in a naturally occurring setting (Merriam, 2008) and to explore the how and why of a

specific problem (Maxwell, 2013).

Research Questions

Research questions enable the researcher to pose questions that are not necessarily

answered in the literature review, and they provide insight to the problem (Maxwell, 2013). The

research questions were designed after an extensive literature review and by taking into account

questions that were left unanswered (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher will answer the research

questions through interviews with teachers and administrators, observations of classrooms, and

analysis of school data and artifacts. Three research questions guide this study:

1. What are the perceptions and knowledge teachers have about AAE?


2. What attitudes and perceptions about speakers of AAE do teachers demonstrate in their

interactions with AAE-speaking students?

3. What are the strategies that teachers use to assist speakers of African American English

students in acquiring proficiency Standardized Academic English?

Sample and Population

The researcher chose a middle school with a population of at least 50%African American,

non-Hispanic students. The researcher observed classrooms with a significant population of

African American students so that observations and interviews were descriptive and relevant. For

this case study, purposeful sampling will be used to select the right participants. The researcher

selected three middle school teachers of whom two teachers taught English Language Arts

during the period of research; the other teacher was an Eighth grade history teacher. The teachers

selected were middle school teachers who have a minimum of five African American students

who are not Hispanic in at least one of their classes. The group will include at least one teacher

who has been teaching three or fewer years and at least one who has been teaching five years or

more. Purposeful sampling is used when a particular setting is purposefully selected to provide

information that is relevant to a study’s goals or questions (Maxwell, 2013).

The researcher has selected a semi-structured interview protocol with questions that were

developed after reviewing the current literature regarding teaching AAE-speaking students. Each

participant was interviewed one time after at least one classroom observation. The interviews

ranged between 45 minutes and one and a half hour in time.

The researcher also observed the classrooms of the selected participants three times. Each

observation lasted about an hour and, in addition to classrooms. The researcher looked for

practices that facilitate learning using students’ prior knowledge while encouraging discussion


among students and the teacher. This revealed the kind of classroom power negotiated by the

teacher (Gutierrez et al., 1995). The researcher also looked for the use of code-switching

pedagogies, multicultural lessons, and whether various language varieties were allowed in the

classroom or if language differences were corrected by the teacher (Delpit, 2003; Greene &

Walker, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 2009).

Sampling Procedure

Following a comprehensive search of the data on the California Department of Education

website, one high school will be chosen that fits the selection criteria listed below.

1. At least 15% of students enrolled in the school during the 2013-2014 school year were

labeled as African American

2. An API score below 800 for the African American subgroup with lower test scores for

African American students than for any other ethnic group

Instrumentation

In order to establish validity, there will be three sources of data for triangulation

(Merriam, 2008). Interviews, observations, and the compilation and examination of artifacts will

be the primary methods of data collection.

Interviews were used to identify the perceptions of teachers about African American

students and the language they bring into the classroom as well as the instructional and

disciplinary practices at work in the school as applied toward African American students.

Observations of classroom interactions among teachers and students also will be used to answer

the research questions. It will also be important to observe teacher and student interactions in the

hallways and common areas of the school as classes are changing, during lunch periods and

before and after school to provide more insight into the overall culture of the school.


Observations were non-participant and direct, naturalistic observations occurring in the field or

the natural setting of the teachers (Patton, 2002). It will also be important to be a complete

observer in the hallways and in the common areas of the school, as this will also help the

observer see interactions among the students and teachers and how rules are enforced. Reviewing

artifacts and data that the school collects were executed by reviewing student-graded work with

feedback. Documents will not only help the observer learn more about the school from what is

there, but it might also inform the researcher on additional paths to pursue for the interviews and

observations (Patton, 2002).

Data Collection

This section describes the data collection instruments and the procedures utilized to

collect data for analysis.


Data Collection Instruments

The following instruments were designed by the researcher and are included as

appendixes of this document:

Instrument 1: Teacher interview Protocol

Instrument 2: Classroom Observation Protocol

Instrument 3: Introduction Letter for Teachers and Administrator

School leadership received a general letter to be distributed to all teachers and

administrators to introduce the study and the researcher. The school principal directed the

researcher to contact teacher leaders who helped the researcher talk to willing teacher

participants.

Interviews happened after classroom observations so that the researcher was able to ask

specific questions about events in class and probe further on some research questions. The

researcher also made sure the participants were willing to be interviewed again for a shorter

amount of time during data analysis.

Data Analysis

Once data was collected, it was immediately organized, and interviews were transcoded

for coding. Coding was done through a program called Atlas TI that helped the researcher

organize themes that appear in the data. The following instruments were used to answer each

research question:


Table 1

Research Questions and Instrumentation

Validity and Reliability

Validity and reliability refers to credibility and consistency of the study (Maxwell, 2013).

A threat to the validity of this study is that the researcher is the primary instrument of data

collection in this study (Merriam, 2008). Because of this design, there is a probability of

researcher bias, to limit this the data collection tools were developed using research based

questions and data collection methods. Triangulation of data was also imperative to establish

validity of the study (Merriam, 2008).

Research Questions Observation

Interview

Docum

ent A

nalysis

What is the knowledge that teachers have about African American English (AAE)?

�x �x �

What attitudes and perceptions about speakers of AAE do teachers demonstrate in their interactions with AAE speaking students?

�x �x �x

What strategies do teachers use to assist speakers of African American English in acquiring proficiency Standardized Academic English?

�x x� x


CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to identify ways to increase AAE-speaking students’

participation in classroom discourse. This study examines teachers’ stated knowledge and

perceptions of AAE, as well as teacher’s interactions with students who speak it. Further, the

study includes interviews with three middle school teachers, as well as observation of these

teachers classroom instructions, examines the effectiveness of strategies three different teachers

use to engage students in classroom discourse. Research posits that students learn and acquire

language in the midst of activity and meaningful discourse (Hudley & Mallison, 2011; Vygotsky,

1978). However, many African American students come to school from a culture and speaking a

language other than those of the average classroom (Ladson Billings, 2009; Alim & Smitherman,

2012).

A case study was used to provide descriptions of ways in which teachers and schools

include AAE-speaking students in classroom discourse. This study focused on a middle school

within a large school district in southern California to compare teachers’ knowledge and

perceptions to their actual practices and interactions with students.

The school selected is located in a middle class residential neighborhood between two

major intersections. Because it is a magnet school, students within the district have to apply for

admission. If they are accepted and they live outside of a five-mile radius from the school, they

are eligible to receive transportation. The student population has been majority African

American for at least the five school years prior to this study.


Figure 1. Langston Middle School Demographics

The school focuses on creating opportunities for students to learn about the STEAM

areas. This theme is expected to be woven through the assignments and unit plans teachers create

in their core grade level teams. In the 2015-2016 school year, this school will implement a school

wide professional development program that includes research-based strategies to help SEL

students acquire Standardized English and attain academic success. The AEMP provides

professional development and support for teachers to increase their knowledge of AAE and helps

teachers develop skills that will support students’ acquiring SAE while maintaining their home

language. Acquiring proficiency in SAE is assumed to be a means for increasing students’

participation in academic discourses and their access to school curriculum. In preparation for this

new program, teachers are offered opportunities to attend voluntary professional development

about culturally relevant teaching. Additionally, as part of the program Standard English Learner

coordinators will be visiting classrooms and meeting teachers.

In the 2012-2013 school year (the last year the California Standards test was

administered) Langston Middle School (pseudonym) showed a decrease in its API score among

African American students: the API score was 737, which is 37 points lower than it was the

previous year.


Figure 2. API Score Comparison

Although the API of African American students dropped in the 2012-2013 term, it still

outranked both the district and the state in this area for the last two years the CST was

administered.

Figure 3. African American API Scores

After speaking with the principal of the school about the goal of this study, she assisted

in identifying teachers to participate. The principal elected two leaders of the school to assist in

finding teachers to participate in the study. These two teachers would become participants. The

principal selected Ms. Scott, who was herein assigned a pseudonym, because of her position as

the 8th grade team leader. Ms. Campbell, who was also assigned a pseudonym, was selected

because she is the EL coordinator and because she was participating in the school’s first AEMP

training. Ms. Campbell and Ms. Scott conducted their regular team meetings and asked teachers


if they would be willing to participate. The first teacher selected is a new teacher with relatively

no knowledge of AAE or culturally relevant learning strategies: she will be referred to as Ms.

Mitchell within this study. Ms. Scott is an eighth grade social studies teacher who has worked in

a school that provided trainings for working with SEL students but worked primarily with

Hispanic students before transferring to the middle school. The final teacher selected, Ms.

Campbell, coordinates both the EL and the Gifted and Talented Education programs and is a

seventh-grade English Language Arts teacher. She arranged and recruited teachers to attend the

first AEMP training. Her classroom was the site for this training.

Table 2

Description of Teacher Participants and Subject Area Observed

Numbers Teacher Gender Ethnicity First Language

Teaching Experience

Grade Level

Observed

Subject Observed

Subjects Taught

1 Mitchell Female White English 1 year 6,7,8 Honors English, Drama

Honors English, Drama

2 Scott Female White English 8 years 8 8th grade US

History

8th grade US

History 3 Campbell Female White English 11 years 7 English

& Honors

English &

Honors

This study will contribute to the existing research about strategies in classrooms proven

effective for AAE-speaking students and to further examine the role of this language in

classroom culture and school discipline. The following research questions guided the selection of

participants in the study and the design of the study described in Chapter Three.

1. What is the knowledge that teachers have about African American English (AAE)?

2. What attitudes and perceptions about speakers of AAE do teachers demonstrate in

their interactions with AAE-speaking students?


3. What strategies do teachers use to assist speakers of African American English in

participating in classroom discourses and acquiring proficiency in Standard/Academic

English?

Results for Research Question 1

The first research question asked, “What is the knowledge teachers have of African

American English and culture?”

An analysis of the data collected during this case study led to two findings. First, teachers

had varying, but limited, knowledge of AAE. Second, teachers demonstrated minimal

recognition of strategies that build upon the language and/or cultural differences among their

students.

Teachers’ had Basic Understanding of AAE

All three teachers gained degrees of knowledge about language variations while working

to obtain their credentials. Ms. Mitchell admitted to having limited knowledge of AAE. She

thought that the language that many of her students speak might have its own grammar, but she

was unsure. Recently, her mentor teacher directed her to the District AEMP website to search for

resources to work with her students, and she used the website to learn more about Chicano

English. She stated,

Just this last week, she showed me a section on (the AEMP website) that had like two

different graphic organizers that showed like Spanish-speaking students and common

misunderstandings with specific words like “pen” and “pin.” Then there was also a

resource page for AAE ... so I feel very compelled to check that out as well.

Although the teacher works in a school that serves primarily African American students,

she first used the website for help her work with her Spanish-speaking students. However, she


also stated that she wished that she had more resources to help AAE-speaking students and, after

the interview, asked the interviewer where she could find more resources.

Ms. Scott had worked in an AEMP school before Langston Middle School. Her previous

served primarily Latino students. She admitted to not knowing much about AAE or learning

much about the language or strategies during her time at the AEMP middle school. She said that

the extent of her knowledge about AAE or Ebonics came after her father, who was also a

teacher, attended training about AAE or what she referred to as “Ebonic Lessons.” She said that

he taught her that AAE was mostly about “dem, deez, and doze.”

Ms. Campbell, the third teacher, rated herself as very knowledgeable about AAE. She

participated in over 30 trainings related to it or Ebonics. Ms. Campbell is the EL coordinator for

the school; she facilitated a professional development training session to which she invited

teachers and the researcher. She was the only teacher familiar with the SEL resolution. She

stated that resources that came with the resolution affected the way she thinks about

communicating with her students and the style of learning that she enacts in her classroom.

During one observation, while Ms. Campbell was giving feedback to students, she

noticed a student used what she recognized as AAE in the writing assignment. She asked the

researcher to look at the student’s writing because this was what she believed a perfect example

of AAE. The students had been asked to write questions and answers for a quiz that would be

given later in class. The student had written “Q: The Plague Docter wear a black overcoat to

minimize skin exposure. Then, he provided the answer. The teacher asked the student how to

spell doctor and then approved the question for use in the assignment. The student’s sentence had

a definite marker for AAE in the subject verb structure, where the subject is singular but the

student uses a plural verb form (minus the “s” inflection in Standard English). However, that is


not what the teacher called attention to. It is not clear if she did not recognize whether spelling

or subject-verb use was what reflected AAE (Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallison, 2011).

Recognizing Language and/or Cultural Differences Among Students

Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Scott both stated they were not sure whether their students were

speakers of AAE. Ms. Mitchell commented that she sometimes has trouble hearing her students

because she has loss of hearing in one ear, but she did not think that this impairment kept her

from understanding them. She said that her hearing loss only affected her class because it forced

her to ask students to repeat themselves. She did not think there were any language differences

between her students and herself. However, the observations revealed that AAE was prominent

in Ms. Mitchell’s class and could be heard in her interactions with students. For example, in

preparation for the reader’s theater of A Raisin in the Sun, students asked if they could play the

roles of certain characters. The teacher mistakenly thought the characters “Karl Linder” and

“Moving Man” were the same, and assigned only one student to both parts. Another student

argued that these are actually two characters. In the argument, the student used another subject-

verb combination frequently found in AAE.

Student: In the front, in the very front, it say the characters and then it say, “Carl.” Why

did you change the spelling of the name here? Linder and Moving Man.

T1: Ok, so they are separate characters. So (student name) you’re going to read Man, and

(student name) you’re going to read Linder.

These examples represent some of the kinds of statements that verified at least some of

the students speak AAE. However, the teacher claimed in her interview that she did not

recognize its use. The implications are not that the teacher should have “corrected” the students

at the time. Rather, the implications are that, because she did not recognize the students’ use of


it, she is not intentionally using instructional strategies to help them recognize distinctions

between their first language and SAE in order to help them become proficient in both. Her lack

of knowledge about AAE can prove harmful to her students’ progress (Gay, 2002; Hollie, 2012;

Smitherman, 2002).

Ms. Scott stated several times that she did not think there were any SELs in her

classroom or that there were any major language differences among her students. Although she

had worked in an AEMP school for 5 years, she stated this was her second year working

primarily with African American students, and she did not think there was a need for AEMP

training at this school. In a follow-up interview, this teacher also said she felt that the SEL

coordinators who worked at her school talked about her students “like they can’t be understood,

but I don’t think there is a strong need. I don’t feel like there is a high language issue with

students.”

Additionally, Ms. Scott stated the only language difference she noticed was that her

students sometimes talked too fast. She was observed in her classroom, on two different days,

telling students that they needed to slow down because she was having a hard time understanding

them. On one occasion, while she gave instructions using a document camera, a student asked if

she could move the paper she was writing on. Ms. Scott responded, “Excuse me, I can’t

understand you. You guys talk too fast. You need to slow down.” Another student tried to

explain, “She said…” Ms. Scott interrupted and said, “Two of you are talking to me at once, very

quickly, and I can’t hear you.” The students did not try to continue explaining the other student’s

request. Correction of speech or interruption while students try to convey a message can lead to

their feeling shame or to a decrease in self-esteem; this could have been why the students

stopped talking (Greene & Walker, 2004; Hill, 2009; Sword & Wheeler, 2004). The more


important point here is that, because the teacher cannot hear well, she may miss numerous

opportunities to enter into meaningful dialogue with them and to build on their home language as

a means to help them acquire proficiency in SAE.

Although Ms. Scott claimed she did not think there was AAE in the school, the observer

heard students frequently using it. For instance, one student tried to get another group of students

to stop talking while the teacher waited for them to do so. The student said, “She (Ms. Scott)

literally looking at you. You still gon’ talk?” This is another example of AAE because of the

absence of the auxiliary verb. In SAE, the phrase would have been “is literally looking at you.”

This, too, is a verbal marker in AAE (Green, 2002). Additionally, the classroom was chaotic with

several students talking at once and, most of the time, not about the lesson. The teacher’s

response was that they talked too fast for her to understand. It can only be concluded that the

teacher was having difficulty communicating with the students overall, and recognizing forms of

language was not a priority or, perhaps, within her capability. The teacher seemed overwhelmed.

Regardless, language as a mediating tool and facilitator for constructing knowledge has been

severely hampered, thus limiting students’ access to knowledge. The situation is further

compounded by the teacher’s inability to establish a culture of learning (Gay, 2002; Hollie, 2010;

Smitherman, 2002).

Summary

In this case study, teachers lacked in-depth knowledge of AAE and its importance to

students’ academic growth. Although two of the teachers received training on working with

SELs, there were still misunderstandings in directions or expectations that could be accounted

for, at least in part, by language and culture differences. The teachers did not recognize the role

language played, nor did they see their students were speakers of a different language. Teachers


acknowledged a language difference among Hispanic students because of the assumption that

many of them are Spanish-speakers, but there was less acknowledgement that African American

students have a viable culture or language that differs from the language of their teachers. They,

like many other teachers, are unaware that AAE has a long history (Rickford & Rickford, 2000;

Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallison, 2011; LeMoine, 2001). The teachers’ lack of knowledge about

AAE had a negative effect on their ability to recognize AAE when their students used it.

Instead, they seemed to treat AAE as errors they corrected while the students spoke, rather than

offering explicit instruction in a process known as contrastive analysis, a separate context to help

students understand the differences between their home language and SAE(Hollie, 2010; Gay,

2002; Greene & Walker, 2004; Smitherman, 2002, Sword & Wheeler, 2004).


Research Question 2 asked, “What attitudes and perceptions about speakers of AAE do

teachers demonstrate in their interactions with AAE speaking students?” Teachers’ perceptions

about the students and the origins of their language influence teachers’ confidence in students’

ability to learn(Gay, 2002; Hudley & Malison, 2011Labov, 2012).Teachers’ attitudes and

perceptions also affect the classroom culture and his/her own effectiveness. These perceptions

can have an impact on the interactions between the teacher and the students, and, ultimately, the

perceptions affect how the student feels about his or her own ability (Delpit & Perry, 1998;

Labov, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009).Implementing culturally relevant pedagogy requires

teachers to view students’ language as an asset that can facilitate learning a second language.

(Gay, 2010; Hollie, 2012). It also requires teachers to understand that AAE (a form of Ebonics)

is a language recognized the American Linguistic Society. It is not just slang or a flawed version

of SAE (Alim & Smitherman, 2012; Green, 2002; Hudley & Mallison, 2011; LeMoine, 2001).


Teachers who employ culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy also demonstrate respect for

their students, allowing for a classroom where students feel comfortable expressing their

opinions and applying prior knowledge in their home language, as well as SAE, to develop new

meaning (Gutierrez, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 2009).There was an absence of the third space, in

which a teacher in a classroom that is culturally responsive allows students to engage in

discussion in their home language in meaningful ways with their teacher and classmates

(Gutierrez, 2008). This process is necessary to ensure that students feel comfortable in the

classroom.

In a culturally relevant classroom, the teacher recognizes her role as a political conduit,

providing a way for students to access their own background knowledge and apply it to develop

new understandings and their view of the world. In order to do this, the teacher must recognize

there is hidden racism engrained in American culture: bias and assumptions about minority

student’s abilities that are generally accepted in American society. Teachers have to be

knowledgeable to recognize this inequality and work actively to create opportunities for students

to progress (Ladson-Billings, 2009; King, 1991).

Additionally, the teacher understands that he/she may also have internalized stereotypes

of non-white students that promote inferiority regarding students of color when compared to

White students (Warren, 2012). Failing to recognize the fact that students encounter racism and

fear that the teacher him/herself will appear racist if s/he discusses race, has limited

conversations regarding institutional and systemic inequity (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).

Analyzing the data with this question in mind resulted in the following findings. Though

teachers did not state they had low expectations of students, their actions during observations and

some of the underlying tone of their interview answers indicated limited knowledge about how to


receive and affirm AAE in the classroom while also explicitly guiding students in acquiring SAE

as a second language. First, teachers were uncomfortable making distinctions between

themselves and their students on the basis of race. Second, students’ interactions with one

another mirrored the teacher-to-student interactions, which were often neither dialectic nor

constructive.

Teacher 1: Ms. Mitchell

Ms. Mitchell seemed very nervous during her interview especially around questions

dealing with AAE and culture. She apologized for not knowing more about AAE and asked how

to find information about it. She chose not to answer several questions that would require her to

select sentences that were examples of AAE. She seemed very concerned with not giving what

might be considered a wrong answer:

I guess it's hard for me to differentiate because I’m not really sure exactly what, how you

would classify Ebonics. I mean, I feel like some of these phrases are common mistakes

that a lot of students make grammatically. So, I’m just kind of like, “ooh.” It's hard to

check something that you don’t completely know the definition to.

Her statement seems to demonstrate that she has a deficit perspective, not a view that

AAE is a language. Instead, she views language differences as errors. This view comes from not

knowing much about origins of Ebonics (Gay, 2002; Greene & Walker, 2004).

Ms. Mitchell stated that she had some familiarity with AAE and rated herself a 3 on a

scale on which 5 would mean “very familiar.” Based on her answers, she stated that she

believed students should be allowed to speak AAE in class and that teachers should focus on the

intent of the message that students are trying to convey instead of correcting their language use.

She agreed that AAE had a set of grammatical syntax, as all languages do then contradicted this


answer when she stated that AAE was a form of slang used by African Americans, and that AAE

uses incorrect or poor grammar (Labov, 2012).

When answering questions about her use of strategies with speakers of AAE, she stated

that she shows students to use SAE when they want to make their statement “stronger” in a

persuasive argument. Her perception of SAE is that it allowed students to get straight to the point

and make their language more concise. She did not state that this kind of feedback on a paper

communicated to students that their language was substandard (Christensen, 2011; Gay, 2002). It

is not clear whether she recognized that this statement suggested she did not believe the language

students typically use also had attributes leading to clear and concise expression. In the

classroom, Ms. Mitchell demonstrated respect for her students, and she seemed to value their

contributions to class. Students were able to talk to her and ask questions without any observable

signs of fear of retaliation or over correction. She appeared open and willing to hear students’

perspectives. She asked questions and admitted when she was wrong. It was clear that she built a

relationship with her students, especially after she had unexpectedly missed two days of classes.

She came back to class and announced the reason for her absence: her father had injured himself,

had surgery and was in the hospital for two days. She shared an appropriate amount of details

about his hospital stay with her students. She related her experience to her students by asking

them if they ever had a similar experience:

If any of you guys have ever experienced having someone in the hospital or sick. It’s

very nerve-wracking. How many people have ever experienced that before? (pause)

Yeah, it doesn’t feel good. You feel very nervous and scared. I missed you guys.

In many ways, she demonstrated a respect for her students and their access to quality

learning (Gay, 2002; Hollie, 2011; Nasir & Hand, 2006). Ms. Mitchell also smiled and walked


around the room while students were working or while she was giving instructions. She seemed

to not want to embarrass students by calling them out in front of others. She often mouthed

“don’t hit” or “sit down” to students and making motions for students to go back to their seats.

Contrary to her expressed belief that all students were expected to participate in class,

there were also several instances of students who were not fully engaged in the lesson. In the

classroom observations, there were several African American students who were out of their

seats and talking to other students during instruction and during the time they were supposed to

work on an assignment. Students were frequently out of their seat and hitting each other.

In one class with Ms. Mitchell, one African American male student spent most of the

class out of his chair, talking to other students, taking things off other students’ desks. The

teacher ignored his behavior for approximately five minutes before she called him into the

hallway to talk. Once Ms. Mitchell was able to get the rest of the class started on the next

assignment, she attempted to assign a reading role to this student, but he decided not to read.

Instead, he spent the time that he was supposed to be at his desk listening to other students read

scenes from the front of the classroom and removing things from the desks of students who were

reading. At some point during class, at least two other African American students got out of their

seats during instruction and went to another student’s desk to talk. In contrast to this leniency

extended to the African American students, one student who appeared to be Hispanic got out of

his seat to talk to the student next to him, Ms. Mitchell immediately asked him to sit down, and

he complied. Ignoring African American student behavior can be seen as an indication that the

teacher believes that African American students should be given more chances because they do

not know any better (Ladson-Billings, 2009). This leniency can be interpreted as low

expectations of African American students.


During another observation, the mother of a student named Yolanda (pseudonym), came

into class to observe. Yolanda had been sitting with a group of girls spending their class time

combing one another’s hair and talking about outside topics instead of doing the assignment.

There were members of other groups who were up and walking around to talk to different groups

while Ms. Mitchell walked around and worked with groups individually. Yolanda’s group did

not get on task when her mother came into the room. Ms. Mitchell greeted the parent and

continued to walk around the classroom. Yolanda approached the table where her mother was

sitting and then returned to her group and watched as one of her group members brushed the

other member’s hair into a ponytail. They talked about outside issues as they finished styling

each other’s hair. When asked about these particular students, Ms. Mitchell admitted that one of

the students seemed especially hyperactive on the day the class was observed. She stated that the

one student who was repeatedly out of his seat had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit and

Hyperactivity Disorder, but that his behavior was actually improving. She indicated that he and

other students were much more active while the class was being observed than they normally

were. She said she asked the student “what was going on” but that the male student had actually

“mellowed out” more recently.

Ms. Mitchell’s other explanation for the students’ behavior was that the classroom was

noisy during the observation, but that this was typical type of noisy that she expected to occur

during group activity. She stated this as if she did not notice that students were not on topic and

appeared to be completing little classroom work. This ignoring of African American students’

behavior indicated either a perception of African American students that did not communicate to

high academic standards or a lack of culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy that facilitated


their engagement in academic learning (Greene & Walker, 2004; Labov, 2012; Ladson-Billings,

2009; Hudley & Mallison, 2011).

The environment indicated a lack culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy to

facilitate student engagement in academic learning. Although students used language freely

among themselves, there was little purposeful use of language in relation to the class content.

Also there was little academic discourse between the students and the teacher.

Ms. Mitchell’s classroom had culturally relevant displays in the form of African

American images displayed, posters with inspirational quotes from African American figures

(Gay, 2002). Classroom projects with diverse characters were also hung along with pictures from

a field trip to the California African American Museum. There were also artifacts displayed that

were features of Hispanic culture and important Latino American culture. These are all features

of Culturally Responsive classrooms (Hollie, 2010, Gay, 2002). However, the teacher’s

pedagogy lacked the attributes of culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy.

Summary

Ms. Mitchell appears to respect students at a social level; however, she does not display

the knowledge for building on their assets, namely oral language, to create a dialogic classroom

environment in which students use oral language to build content knowledge or to create a

positive socio-cultural environment. The groups appear to lack definition and clarity; as a result

the students are using the classroom space to promote their own agenda. The teacher’s presence

does not appear to have significant influence on the socio-cultural context of the classroom.

The teacher showed a positive attitude toward the students that led her to share with them

her personal reason for being absent from school, but her perception of their capabilities is

reflected in classroom environment in which expectations for academic rigor appear to be low.


One explanation might be a lack of knowledge about how to build on the students’ cultural and

linguistic assets to promote learning (Gay, 2000; Labov, 2012; Wheeler & Sword, 2006).

Teacher 2: Ms. Scott

Ms. Scott rated her knowledge and familiarity with AAE as a 3, which stands for “some

familiarity.” When answering questions about AAE, she stated that the reason she considered

AAE use incorrect or poor grammar is because, “it’s not academic”. She stated that AAE

“probably” had regular language rules. Her answers also revealed she did not think the use of

AAE was slang or that it demonstrated that students lack cognitive ability. However, in a

conversation after a classroom observation, Ms. Scott demonstrated that she might feel that

students who speak AAE were not educated. Ms. Scott asked for more information about the

research topic, and talked about which one of her classes might have more use of AAE. Ms.

Scott stated that her honors class was less likely to use AAE because they were more “at grade

level” or reading at a higher level than her other classes, while her fifth period class was more

likely to use AAE.

My fifth period group on the other hand will tell you, like, “You sound white. You’re

white; that’s white people language, right?” And that is how they kind of can be. But then

the other kids’ll be “no, that’s educated, that’s how you sound when you speak

academically.” So that particular group has that dynamic.

Ms. Scott’ choice to describe this dialogue among her students, whom she said are

performing better academically than another class, appears to indicate her agreement with the

statement that academic English is the “educated” language. She seemed to agree when the

students told each other that they sound white. Her interpretation was that they were actually

saying persons who used SAE were acting, as they were “educated.” Again, this perception


communicates to students that if they speak using AAE, they are presenting themselves as

uneducated.

Further, Ms. Scott indicated a deficit view of her students’ capabilities when she states

that the students in her class are incapable of participating in groups. Without knowledge of

students’ culture and language, teachers often misinterpret what they see or hear. Further, when

teachers lack knowledge of culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy, they lack the skill to

construct a classroom culture in which students can use their language to co-construct and share

knowledge (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Gay, 2002). This is the kind of scapegoating that frequently

occurs when teachers are not able to create appropriate learning environments.

During one observation, Ms. Scott announced to her class that they had moved their seats

out of groups because the students were not capable of not talking to their partners at appropriate

times. Further Ms. Scott stated that the school requires teachers have students do group work, but

that she much rather have them in rows so that she can lecture. She felt that the lecture style

classroom was necessary because students were too immature for group work. In this belief, Ms.

Scott’s teaching lacks awareness of the socio-cultural context for learning in which the use of

language in academic discourses leads to knowledge and language acquisition (Delpit, 1992;

Gee; 2001; Hill, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978) Ms. Scott appeared generally annoyed with most student

requests and classroom discourse. She frequently yelled at the students, and students yelled at

one another. Displays of respect were infrequent. Ms. Scott frequently repeated parts of

instruction as she walked around class motioning to students what she wanted them to do. For

example “Get out your homework log, get out your homework log,” without acknowledging

what students were trying to say to her. While students were asking questions, instead of

responding to the questions, she repeated the same instruction:


Students: But we didn’t have homework, Ms.

Ms. Scott: Get out your homework log.

Students: Oh, we are going to have homework tonight?

Ms. Scott: Get out your homework log.

Ms. Scott seemed to have expected to be disrespected and not listened to, so she

proactively solicited that behavior from her students. She started the class with a tone that could

be classified as irritated and gave directions to students in the same manner.

Rather than address the students’ questions, she repeated the same statement as if the

students were not speaking to her. In classroom 2, with the same teacher, the students came into

class on all three occasions taking things from each other and demanding them back while

calling each other names. Ms. Scott was frequently yelling, telling students that she “didn’t have

time for their games.”

Students in Ms. Scott’s classroom demonstrated a lack of respect for the classroom

through inappropriate behavior. Lack of respect was evident in Ms. Scott’s classrooms in that she

frequently seemed to ignore student misbehavior. She did not protect the learning environment.

Respect for students’ right to learn did not seem a high enough priority for the teacher to address

misbehavior. Students begged other students to leave them alone so that they would not get in

trouble. In Ms. Scott’s class, students yelled out “shut up!” to each other in frustration at various

times during the lesson, in multiple classes. Other students then yelled back at them that they

should “shut up!” In both classes, students seemed to not expect that the teacher would be able

to control the classroom. This also seemed to stem from some students’ desire to learn and

frustration that they were denied access to instruction. Students were often eating in class and

giving food to each other although the classroom rules and the teacher stated several times that


food was not allowed. Students were out of their seats and hitting each other or calling each other

names during their assigned activities. This would sometimes lead to a rise in tensions among

students and additional disrespectful conversations. While trying to prepare students for a group

activity, one student make a demand of another across the classroom.

Student 1: Stop throwing sh*t

Student 2: I didn’t throw sh*t

Student 1: You stay throwing sh*t

Student 2: Why am I even talking to you?

Class: OHHHH!

Ms. Scott did not address these students or stop the conversation. She attempted to

continue with the lesson, while students continued with off-topic conversations. Students

demonstrated disrespect for one another, the teacher, and the learning process.

Despite this kind of interaction between Ms. Scott and her students as well as among her

students and despite, Ms. Scott having some training in AEMP strategies, her interaction with

her students reflected an environment in which students were disrespecting her and each other.

Their behavior indicates they do not see the classroom as a place to learn and a place where their

intellect is valued. Much of the disruption came from the African American students in the class

and many of them were heard to be AAE speakers.

Despite the environment of the class, evidence of attempts to demonstrate respect were

present. The classroom had posters of African American figures and, in spite of inappropriate

behavior at points, students did work in groups at other times. However, when students were

engaged in the lesson, they were frequently confused asking each other what they were supposed

to be doing, after the teacher had given instructions. The confusion could be seen as


understandable given that often Ms. Scott gave instructions while some students were talking

about other topics or playing music from their laptops without headphones. Allowing these

distractions constituted disrespect for the learning process.

Summary

Even though Ms. Scott has had some exposure to Culturally Responsive Teaching

professional development, she appeared to not see the connection of these trainings to her

classroom instruction. Ms. Scott insisted that there is no language difference between her and her

students except that her students may occasionally talk too fast. However, Ms. Scott appeared to

yell over students on a routine basis and become frustrated by their communication style.

Students routinely participated in conversation with each other while she was talking, and there

was no sign that there was routine in her classroom. In order to ensure instructional quality under

the culturally relevant domains that the district outlines, teachers have to be knowledgeable of

the culture and language needs of their students. Despite the training that she received and the

number of students speaking AAE in her classroom, Ms. Scott does not believe that the training

directly affects her classroom instruction. It appears that Ms. Scott might believe that

acknowledging the AAE use of her students is racist because she has a negative view of AAE

use (Baugh, 2001; King, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Maddahian & Bird, 2003).

Teacher 3: Ms. Campbell

Ms. Campbell was the most knowledgeable of the three teachers about AAE. Her

interview answers indicated that she understood the language is rule-based and should be

respected and used as a resource to help African American students access the curriculum as they

acquired SAE as a second language. According to Ms. Campbell, she received a large amount


training on AAE. Her answers also indicated that she respected the learners who speak AAE and

understood the importance of approaching AEMP from an additive perspective.

Ms. Campbell’s classroom demonstrates evidence that students have done contrastive

analysis work and students are culturally represented in the posters that are displayed in her

classroom. Ms. Campbell has laid the groundwork for what research says is needed for a

culturally responsive classroom, but her treatment of students does not align with her expressed

beliefs and other actions that demonstrate respect.

As students walked into the classroom, Ms. Campbell joked with them, using sarcasm to

talk to students about assignments and to introduce lessons to the class. During one class, she

threatened students that the assignment for the day would be homework if they did not finish the

assignment.

She explained to her honors class,

I am your English teacher. I teach the writing process. I could not believe this [referring

to a question a student had asked] ... Is there such a thing as a stupid question? I know my

whole life I’ve been told no but, you guys know me better than this. So this is a question I

got today. “When is it due, Ms. (….)?” But I did say this twice: It’s due tomorrow and

she asked me twice and I said, “It’s due tomorrow. It’s on the board, duh!” It says due

tomorrow, due Tuesday. So I had to write specifically Tuesday, ’cause for some reason

there was a misunderstanding. This is the second question folks have been asking me

today, “All of it is due?” No, just the part you feel like turning in. Yes, all of it!

There were a number of incidents similar to the one described. The students were

continually shown that Ms. Campbell would not hesitate to embarrass them if they made a

mistake. Students’ anxieties about Ms. Campbell’s expectations were manifested in peer pressure


to find the right answer. Students sarcastically [like their teacher] stressed to each other that they

needed to take their time and stop writing “sloppy.” This banter soon turned to the students

calling each other “stupid” and “dumb.”

In addition to using sarcasm in class, Ms. Campbell often met students with shaming.

During two observations of the same class, one student seemed to be disciplined more than any

other student. During the second observation, this student, who will be called Jake, was met at

the door with the teacher’s expression of frustration. After appearing to ask a question at the start

of class, Ms. Campbell responded with a loud,

Oh my God, Jake, you and your little self-righteous entitlement need to chill out, ’cause I

am not in the mood for you today…. That’s right. He thinks that he has Godly powers

and he gets to do whatever he wants.

Later in that class period, the teacher modeled what participation in a classroom game

would look like. While demonstrating, the teacher went to shake a student’s hand to indicate that

they were starting the game. At that point, the teacher suddenly moved her hand just as her hand

was about to touch that of the demonstrators and jokingly said, “I don’t know where your hands

have been” and offered her elbow instead. The rest of the students began to laugh, and there was

a loud “OOOHHHH” from the group. Jake also laughed and then said “Oh ...she called you a

(inaudible)” At that point, Ms. Campbell, looked at Jake and said, “You’re done.” She sent him

to another teacher’s classroom and said she would be calling his father. One student said, above

the laughter, “I knew it before you even said it!” He meant that he knew that Jake was going to

be kicked out of class. During the remainder of the class, students used the phrase “you’re done”

repeatedly as they joked with each other.


Later in the class, the student teacher, Ms. Rhodes (pseudonym),told Ms. Campbell that

another student was laughing and not on task with the assignment while Ms. Campbell was out

of the classroom. Ms. Campbell said to the laughing student, “I have been spending the last five

minutes trying to locate Jake’s father, and now I’m talking to him. Now, that I am wasting any

time on him is driving me nuts. Please don’t fall into that category.” These actions did not

demonstrated attributes of culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy intended to inspire trust

and mutual respect between teacher and students. They contributed to an adversarial

environment. Though Ms. Campbell is knowledgeable about the principles of culturally

responsive teaching, she did not implement the strategies in her treatment of students (Gay,

2002; Ladson-Billings, 2009)

One of the 10 guiding principles established by the Coalition of Essential Schools (2015),

is the importance of a tone of decency which is described to “explicitly and self-consciously

stress value of unanxious expectation (“I won’t threaten you, but I expect much of you”), of trust

until abused, and of decency (the values of fairness, generosity, and tolerance)”. The researcher

looked for evidence of a tone of decency in observations by examining interactions between

teacher and students and interactions students had among one another. Directions and classroom

standards were posted on the walls of the classrooms, and the tone was also heard to a limited

extent in interviews. Nonetheless, Ms. Campbell continued to call out and embarrass students in

front of their peers.

Lack of Mutual Respect. Active learning requires classrooms in which students are

challenged at their levels of actual development and challenged through peer discussions and

problem solving with adult facilitation (Gutierrez, 2013; Vygotsky, 1978 ;). Classroom

management is at the core of any effective classroom (Marzano, 2009). Hollie (2012) theorizes


that responsive classroom management has to be established before there can be a responsive

classroom. Classroom management helps students learn expectations regarding how to respond,

how to discuss, how to pay attention to signals from the teacher, and how to structure classroom

movement. The three Rs are three parts of responsive classroom management: Respect, Rapport,

and Relationship, assessing classroom management systems, and the three Ps, Positive,

Proactive, and Preventive. Based on their answers during interviews, teachers believe they use

strategies that engage students in their classrooms. Though these strategies, when implemented

in accordance with research, would encourage students to participate, Ms. Scott and Ms.

Campbell’s classrooms have not established environments that demonstrate respect between

students and the teacher. Therefore, consistent with earlier research findings about the behavior

of students whose classrooms do not exhibit these attributes, the students did not participate in

the manner that students do when there is an environment of respect.

In Ms. Campbell’s classroom, students were greeted with sarcasm and encouraged to

engage in shaming each other. Each incident was done in a manner intended to be a joke. During

one classroom session, while students filled out bingo boards with answers in preparation for a

game, Ms. Campbell noticed that one student was filling out his board in a way that made it hard

for the teacher to see the answers. She stopped talking to the class and asked the student, “If I let

you finish, how am I going to see the answers?” The student became obviously nervous and said

“Yea, I know, I was just thinking that.” Ms. Campbell looked to the class and asked that they

join her in saying the student’s name to express disappointment in the student’s actions by saying

“Everyone say, ‘Oh, Dennis’” in an condescending tone. The students then joined her and recited

“Oh, Dennis” with laughter. In another classroom visit, student’s names were written on the

board when they misbehaved to keep track of who was supposed to come back during lunch.


When one student pointed out that another student had erased his name from the board, Ms.

Campbell asked her student teacher to put the student’s name back on the board. The student

teacher asked Ms. Campbell how to spell the student’s name and Ms. Campbell replied that it did

not matter. This action of not caring to spell a student’s name correctly can also be seen as a sign

of disrespect.

Summary

Based on their interview responses, all three teachers perceived all of their students to be

capable of learning, regardless of any language differences, but all of them displayed actions

associated with disrespect for the students and/or the language that they brought to the

classroom. The teachers believed that they created opportunities for all students to participate in

class; two of the teachers stated that they created these opportunities by not treating students

differently in class based on race or language. However, ignoring the language that students

bring to class is ineffective (Delpit, 1992; Fisher & Lapp, 2013; Greene& Walker, 2004). Ms.

Campbell stated in her interview that she was able to teach students using culturally relevant

strategies, and both Ms. Scott and Ms. Campbell had been exposed to the principles of culturally

relevant teaching strategies. However, Ms. Scott seemed to not use any AEMP strategies in her

classroom during any of the three observations with the exception of group work. Ms. Campbell

did have structured lesson plans that would help students acquire academic language and

participate in classroom discourse; however she seemed to lack strategies that would draw

students and invite them to participate in class. From the observation of classes and interviews

the teachers would not be able to fully implement culturally relevant teaching strategies until

they have also been taught that language is embedded in a student’s culture and differences may

not be easily recognized (Gay, 2002; Delpit, 2003; Maddahian & Bird, 2003). To be effective in


implementing AEMP teachers have to make conscious effort to learn about their students’

culture and language and not make unfounded assumptions.


Research Question 3 was designed to look for strategies that were used by the teachers to

facilitate participation in classroom discourse and assist SAE learners with academic language

acquisition. As a magnet school, Langston Middle School states on their school website some

common strategies that all classrooms are expected to employ. The website states that the school

will provide “inspiring, challenging, and engaging environment that creates opportunities for

research and exploration through project based learning”. The school website states that

curriculum will be interdisciplinary and focus on incorporating the STEAM disciplines. The

curriculum is also designed to align with common core standards through “problem-solving,

collaboration, and academic excellence”.

These practices are taught to teachers through professional development the school

provides. In the interviews, teachers were asked about their strategies, asked to provide lesson

plans, and their answers were recorded. There are nine domains listed in the district’s culturally

relevant and responsive education program: (1) knowledge and experience (2) social and

emotional elements domain (3) Equitable and relevant educational opportunities and resources

domain (4) Instructional quality and curriculum domain (5) Instructional strategies domain (6)

Diagnosis and assessment domain (8) parent and community involvement domain (9) Policy and

monitoring domain. The components listed under the instructional domain are cooperative

learning, active learning and apprenticeship, instructional conversations, applied learning,

scaffolding, targeted teaching, and holistic development. In addition to the strategies teachers

used that excluded students from participation in knowledge-building discourse, there were also


strategies consistently used by all three teachers as attempts to engage students in learning

activities or that actually engaged them for brief periods.

No Consideration of Language in Lesson design for AAE Speaker

All three teachers stated that they received a number of trainings sessions each year on

working with ELL students. The school provided what they felt was adequate training to teach

EL students. However, when asked about strategies that are needed SELs to acquire SAE, neither

Ms. Mitchell nor Ms. Scott expressed consideration for scaffolding strategies to identify and

address student’s use of AAE. When asked questions intended to find out what strategies

teachers use to work with students with language differences, particularly AAE, both Ms.

Mitchell and Ms. Scott stated they did not make any special considerations for SEL students.

Ms. Mitchell stated that she did not feel she treated any students any differently based on their

language. Ms. Scott laughed when asked this question and stated, “I guess the way that I treat

everyone else.” This statement indicated that she saw no need to treat AAE-speaking students

differently from other students in her classroom.

Neither teacher exhibited awareness of the overall significance of language to learning

for all students (Baugh, 2001; Hudley & Mallison, 2011; Maddahian & Bird, 2003). They did not

exhibit, during the observations, a value for explicit teaching that built upon students’ first

language as a means for helping them learn SAE as a second language. This knowledge about

the significant role of language was particularly absent in the teachers’ approach to teaching

speakers of AAE. Neither could speak to strategies used to help students construct meaning from

language using either AAE or SAE. In contrast, Ms. Campbell stated ways she worked with

students to identify their use of AAE and build upon it to help them acquire SAE proficiency.

Her wall had student work that demonstrated contrastive analysis projects.


Ms. Campbell expressed a unique perspective when asked about the connection between

acceptance of students’ home language and their self-confidence. She did not think students

knew they had language differences if teachers did not tell them. Ms. Campbell stated, “If they

don’t know that they are speaking anything other than mainstream American English, they don’t

recognize that there’s some kind of perceived deficit. So, I don’t think it would influence their

ability to participate with confidence.” She did not appear to recognize that the language

difference that students have is something that students notice on their own. Perhaps they do not

recognize that the difficulties they have with reading and writing are based in language

differences. However, they are aware of differences in their test scores and the grades they

receive, but they may not recognize that these challenges may be related to the differences

between their language and culture and that used by their teachers and textbooks.

Ms. Scott said something similar; she did not believe students’ confidence was affected

by differences between the language of the classroom and the language they bring to school. The

teacher may have been correct that the students did not fully understand that language

differences are the source of some of their academic challenges. They need explicit instruction to

understand syntactical and grammatical differences between their home language and the

language of academic texts. These differences affect reading comprehension and academic

writing (Hollie, 2012; Maddahian & Bird, 2006; Sword & Wheeler, 2006).

Ms. Mitchell responded to the question by stating,

I really do try to champion and encourage…the boldest of the students to the quietest of

students to make their voices heard … but, to me, what’s more important is the fact that

they are willing to speak. The standardization of English Language isn’t as much of a

concern as their ability and willingness to speak.


Ms. Mitchell believes some students do not participate because they are nervous

speaking, not because of their ability to recognize and use SAE. In the classrooms of both Ms.

Scott and Ms. Campbell, students were interrupted while they spoke to the teacher or asked a

question. For instance, while a student explained a situation to Ms. Scott, she interrupted and

yelled, “Who is he? Say a name!” to indicate that the student’s story was not clear. During an

observation, Ms. Campbell asked students to have a representative share answers from their

group project. When one student was called on, he responded,

Student: Huh

Ms. Campbell: “Huh” is not an answer

Student: begins to answer

Ms. Campbell: We are moving on

Student: But I…

Ms. Campbell: Moving on!

Interruption of students while speak discourages them from speaking and participating in

class (Delpit, 2005; Fillmore & Snow, 2000; Labov, 2012; Perry & Delpit, 1998). The

perspective that students’ home language should not be a barrier to participation in classroom

discourse is consistent with the literature (Baugh, 2001; Labov, 2012; Hudley & Mallison, 2011);

however, teachers’ practice was to interrupt students’ speech (Delpit, 2005; Fillmore & Snow,

2000; Labov, 2012; Perry & Delpit, 1998)

When asked if she uses any strategies to help make sure speakers of AAE have access to

the curriculum, Ms. Mitchell stated she did not treat students differently based on language. Ms.

Mitchell’s perceived nervousness in talking about the language of her students appeared to be

embarrassment that she did not have more understanding of her students’ language. Her answer


also indicated she saw language differences displayed by African American students as errors or

mistakes:

I don’t feel I specifically … treat any of the students differently on their language. We do

have academic language based on the readings in class … but I don’t really differentiate

in the class in terms of …code switching. Maybe it is something that I should be using

more as a resource.

Ms. Mitchell demonstrated confusion about the difference between use of slang and of

AAE. In not knowing that AAE is a rule-governed language, teachers are not using it is a

resource to facilitate students learning other systems.

Ms. Scott stated several times that she did not feel students had language differences.

Research documents people’s reluctance to acknowledge racial and cultural differences as

attempts to see everyone as equal. This teacher confused equality with equity (Alim &

Smitherman, 2012; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).

Classroom Distractions

In Ms. Mitchell’s classroom, distractions came in the form of students out of their seats

and hitting or bothering other students. For instance, while students listened to those selected to

read parts from the play, one student tried to get his friend’s attention in the back of the room.

Student 1 looked up at his friend and said, “you gon get me in trouble. Stop it.” When Student 2

asked how he was going to get Student 1 in trouble, the first student replied, “We be doing a test

and you be talking, man.” Students were also interrupted in their groups as they worked.

Members from other groups got up and disrupted group assignments frequently. In this

statement, the student confirmed the presence of AAE in the classroom, yet the teacher seemed

unaware of the language’s presence.


There was a number of distractions in Ms. Scott’s classroom. Several times during each

classroom visit, Ms. Scott called the class to order and proceeded to address individual students’

behavior. Students demonstrated little interest in what Ms. Scott was saying and talked before

she gave complete instructions.

Ms. Scott: Clap once. Clap Twice. Clap three times.

Students began to quiet down

Ms. Scott: I…there should be no hood up, and there should be no ear buds. Ok, Bobby,

take your hood off. Don’t interrupt me while I am trying to speak to the class. Paul, turn

back around. Raphael, what are you doing?

Student 3: Take your hood off, Jason!

Student 4: Take your hood off, Charles!

Students begin to chatter back and forth, imitating the teacher.

Almost 3 minutes later, Ms. Scott lamented that they had not started class yet. She started

to give students instructions several times and then trailed off to correct student behavior. Once

students began their classroom assignments, students could be heard asking each other, “What

are we supposed to be doing?” several times.

During another classroom observation, while Ms. Scott gave instructions to start the

assignment for the day a student in the hall knocked at the door. Ms. Scott stopped giving

instructions and yelled across the room to the person knocking:

Ms. Scott: Um, that’s not polite. That’s not polite, that’s not polite.

(Knocking)

Ms. Scott: That’s not polite either; it’s just not a polite thing

(Another student approaches the door)


Students: Just open the door. He’s not going to knock politely ’cause he late. What the

heck?

Ms. Scott: Knock politely. Be polite.

Students: He’s probably going to break the door down.

Teacher: He probably didn’t even notice there was a sign.

Student: (through the door) You need to read the sign on the door!

This scenario continues for around 3 minutes. After the student is let in, class continues, but a

majority of students are engaged in side conversations and singing.

Ms. Campbell’s class has similar experiences, but distraction and confusion happen after

Ms. Campbell’s disciplinary style seems to instigate student response. Students were often

threatened and patronized in attempts to control the classroom. Instead, they engaged in the

discipline of other students or became irritated with each other. For instance, after Ms. Campbell

called a student self-righteous, other students asked her if she called the student “ratchet.”

“Ratchet” is a slang term that has become popular through hip-hop in recent years, meaning that

someone is acting inappropriately in a public setting (NYMag, 2013). After the teacher

responded to the students that she said “righteous” the students repeated the word “ratchet” and

laughed. Instead of getting started on their assignment, students were distracted by the teacher’s

interaction with Jake. .

In both Ms. Campbell and Ms. Scott’s class, a disruption occurred when another school

official came into the room. The students knew the school official and tried to get his attention

by calling him, a “scrub” or a “buster.” It is unclear whom this school official was at the time.


All of these incidents had an adverse effect on the classroom and created several minutes

of continued off-topic banter and conversations. The teachers, then, had to spend time trying to

regain student focus and continue with assignments.

Summary

None of the teachers had formal lesson plans they could produce for the study, so the true

intent of the lesson plans could not be accessed. The events described above demonstrate that

neither the lessons nor classrooms management brought about evidence of an environment of

mutual respect of focus on the content of the lesson (Marzano, 2007). Additionally, the observer

found evidence of instruction in contrastive analysis in only one teacher’s class (Delpit, 2003;

Pearson, Conner, & Jackson, 2013; Greene & Walker, 2004, Hudley & Mallison, 2011).

Analysis of Results

The practices below were observed and are aligned with research-based practices.

Though all teachers may have attempted implementation of some of these strategies at various

times, there were numerous instances when this was not as successful.

Schoolwide Focus on Instructional Practices

According to its website, Langston Middle School provides learning opportunities in

classrooms through project-based learning that encourages problem-solving, collaboration,

creativity and academic excellence. During their interviews, all three teachers stated they work

with their peer teams to develop cross-curricular units and lessons. During classroom

observations, Ms. Campbell and Ms. Scott both referenced the assignments in other classes to

remind students about the connection of their assignments to other classes. Teachers also started

each class by having students complete homework logs and encouraging them to fill out their

logs for their other classes.


Each classroom also had posters that listed descriptions of Kagan structures and what

each strategy required of the students. According to their website, Kagan structures are defined

as strategies proven to increase student engagement and achievement (Kaganonline, 2015).

Although there are more Kagan structures, there were eight featured in the LMS classrooms:

quiz-quiz-trade, timed pair share, mix-pair-share, rally robin, instant star, round robin, rally

coach, and think-write-round robin. Only Ms. Campbell appeared to reference the posters during

classroom activity. Ms. Scott stated she was expected to have students in groups. Each classroom

featured clearly labeled project-based learning activities that featured student work. Ms.

Campbell and Ms. Mitchell, both had posters that included different types of brain maps that

students could use during class. This could be a requirement of ELA classrooms only because

this was not featured in Ms. Scott’s classroom.

Despite the community school’s declaration that each classroom will employ the

strategies listed on their website to engage students in the learning process, observations did not

yield evidence of teachers’ effectively implementing these strategies. Group work lacked the

focus and structure of cooperative learning groups, most of the classroom observations did not

feature Kagan strategies, and the teachers seemed to not understand the purpose of the strategies.

Additionally, lack of classroom management distracted from the execution of the strategies.

Inaccurate Tracking of Students Sent out of Class

Several students were sent out of class during observation of Ms. Campbell and Ms.

Scott’s classrooms; however, these students were not sent to the office. They were sent to other

teachers’ classrooms. According to the California Department of Education, the suspension rate

for Langston Middle School dropped from 13%to zero in one academic school year. Though

students may not be suspended from school, they are still missing vital instruction when they are


sent to other classrooms. However, the drop in suspensions aligns with the adoption of the

discipline policy and discipline bill of rights passed by the district board in 2013. According to

their website, this district policy focuses on decreasing the disruption of student education

through suspensions by training teachers and school officials to develop a positive behavior

intervention program. The district also developed a plan to implement the use of restorative

justice practices to address student misbehavior. The district memo to principals states that LMS

is scheduled to receive initial training in the next school year; however the school is expected to

“honor the school climate bill of rights” in the meantime.

The restorative justice practice is designed to reduce suspensions and expulsions in

schools and to reintegrate students into the learning environment. There are also consequences

for harm done to the classroom and a focus on community building that is lacking from the

current school practices observed (Zehr, 1990). Restorative justice is a concept that focuses on

core values, relationships, and community building. The core values of restorative justice are

interconnectedness, respect, inclusion, responsibility, humility, honesty, mutual care and non-

domination, which is a vast contrast to the system in most institutions. Most definitions,

however, agree that restorative justice focuses on the violation of the interpersonal relationships

that were harmed instead of focusing on the rule that was broken (Reimer, 2011).

In schools that practice restorative justice, officials set up a process to allow those

affected to reflect on the harm that occurred and determine the best option to right the wrong that

was done. Additionally, restorative justice is measured by the outcome of the processes including

whether the offender was accountable for his/her actions and whether the harm was repaired

(Frampton, Silverman, & Sumner, 2010).


In most cases, students were allowed back into the classroom after being sent out, so

students were reintegrated. However, in Ms. Scott and Ms. Mitchell’s class, there was no

immediate or recognizable accountability for misbehavior from students before they were

allowed back into the classroom. Though Ms. Scott did send students out of class, she stated that

she did not send students to the office because she felt that doing so would take away her power

and was not effective. She stated that, usually, if students were sent to the office, they would be

sent back almost immediately, so doing that was a disruption, and she would prefer to have them

in class. She has worked for the district in other schools and stated that she did not want to send

students out for more than 5 minutes because there was a memo sent out within the last “couple

of years” that stated she was not willing to send students to the office or have students removed

from class for longer than 5 minutes because she did not want to get in trouble or be under

investigation. Based on the observation and the expressed student frustration in her classroom,

she may have been causing harm to students and their right to a conducive learning environment

by not taking more decisive action with students who misbehaved.

Ms. Campbell sent students to other classrooms during two separate classroom

observations. One student, who was mentioned earlier in this chapter, Jake, was sent out for

nearly 30 minutes each observation. During another instance, one male student appeared to be

familiar with the procedures for being sent to a particular teacher’s classroom. As Ms. Campbell

told each student which classroom to report to, he asked her for a pass. Ms. Campbell insisted

that he did not need one and commanded him to leave her classroom. A couple of minutes later,

the student reappeared and asked for a pass again because the teacher he was sent to would not

let him in. When asked about sending students out of class, Ms. Campbell stated that she does

this to disrupt student behavior and that she normally follows up with a call home to parents. Ms.


Campbell also stated she does not typically send a student out for longer than 5 minutes;

however, during both observations students were generally gone for more than 30 minutes or

half of the class period.

It could be that, given lack of training on the principles of restorative justice or the

schoolwide positive behavior program, teachers create alternative methods for sending students

out of the classroom despite encouragement from the district not to do so. Teachers, instead,

developed a way that can still decrease office referrals but does not curb interruption to access to

education in a consistent way. Students learn to adapt their behavior or have a deeper

understanding of the reasons they were sent out of class. The positive is that they are allowed to

reintegrate into the classroom quicker than if they were suspended. It is a well-researched

principle that disciplinary policies do not substitute for effective and engaging classroom

teaching and learning.

Cooperative Learning

In each class, students seemed most engaged when they were in groups. Though there

was some off-topic conversation and students were out of their seats, there were more students

engaged in conversation with their peers to complete their assignments while they were in

groups. While this was true in all three classes, in Ms. Scott’s class, students had difficulty

getting started on their group projects because the class seemed to be confused about directions.

Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Campbell both stated that the cooperative learning strategies and graphic

organizers were used to engage students in classroom discourse that will help students gather

their thoughts. Ms. Campbell went on to say that she uses random selectors and Kagan structures

to lower student’s affective filter.


We do a round robin or mix-pair-share, where kids have a lower affective filter because

they’re working in collaborative groups. You don’t feel so stressed out by like being put

under the pressure of like being put under the pressure of like being called on without

preparation.

Ms. Campbell and Ms. Mitchell seemed to value the role of cooperative learning. They

structured the group work so that students had roles and Ms. Campbell timed the activities so

that students were on task.

When Ms. Scott was asked the same question about strategies she uses to engage students

in academic discourse, she stated that she did not need to use strategies because all of the

students wanted to talk.

At this school, I don’t really…..everybody wants to say something … The only kids that

don’t … participate is because they’re shy, not because they … it’s not a language issue.

Strategies that I have used, has been prepping students ahead of time, when I taught

Spanish speakers.

In this narrative, Ms. Scott did not express the value of using evidence- and research-

based strategies to encourage all students’ participation in a structured way. Earlier, she stated

that she only uses cooperative learning in her classroom because the school wants her to. She

lacked commitment to cooperative learning to promote language as a medium to promote

construction of knowledge among students.

Vocabulary Instruction

Culturally responsive classrooms encourage vocabulary instruction that not only teaches

students vocabulary but also promotes acquisition of new words. Students in culturally relevant

classrooms can use learned words in context and can find synonyms of the new words (Hollie,


2012). There was vocabulary instruction in all classrooms, but some teachers encouraged the

memorizing of vocabulary terms of the classroom, which is not effective for true acquisition.

During classroom observations Ms. Mitchell stopped instruction to provide in-context

definitions to words that students needed extra assistance in understanding. Ms. Mitchell also

had a vocabulary word wall, which was made up of words from the play the students read. Each

day, before they started reading, the students had a quiz on one vocabulary word from the wall

which had been defined the previous day. Ms. Mitchell said that students have a vocabulary quiz

every Friday on the words learned during the week. She works with the students to define those

words as they come across them in the reading, using context clues. According to her interview

answers, Ms. Mitchell’s strategies seem to lack the structure to align with culturally responsive

vocabulary instruction. She states that she defines words in real time, she has students attempt to

define words in their own words and that she encourages use of the vocabulary terms. However,

discourse, modeling, and language developed in the midst of activity are proven to be more

effective than vocabulary lists and quizzes. Reading words from a text that is not intended to

provide vocabulary acquisition can lead to students’ being confused about the actual meaning of

the vocabulary word (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2012; Hollie, 2012). An example of Ms.

Mitchell’s providing vocabulary instruction can be seen as the students read “A Raisin in the

Sun” when she helps students define the word “pantomime”:

Ms. Mitchell: What does it mean to pantomime guys?

Class: Mime

Ms. Mitchell: To pantomime. So he’s pantomiming being a surgeon, so who is he

pretending to be?

Student 1: Benita


Ms. Mitchell: Benita in the future, right? When she becomes a doctor. Uh, pantomime

means, uh, to mimic, uh … to act without words. Right?

If Ms. Mitchell had pulled the word “pantomime” from the text and had the students

identify the word before they encountered it in the text, the students might have been able to

apply more meaning to the word (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2012). Instead, students passively

listened to the teacher define the word while only one student responded to her questions about

what the word meant in the context of the story. Ms. Mitchell did not stop to clarify for the rest

of the class what the word meant or to check if all understood. Based on Ms. Mitchell’s

interview, the student’s next exposure to the word could be through a vocabulary quiz.

Ms. Campbell and Ms. Scott both said they also regularly have lessons that include

vocabulary instruction. Ms. Scott said she uses the textbook to identify words for which students

need the definition in order to read with comprehension. Then, she has students look up the

definition of the words in the textbook or dictionary. She stated that she has students create

flashcards and that they have vocabulary quizzes. What Ms. Scott describes as a strategy for

learning vocabulary in her classroom promotes rote learning of the vocabulary words and does

not give the students opportunities to gain command of the new vocabulary terms in Ms. Scott’s

classroom (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2012; Hudley & Mallison, 2011). During an observation

of her class, there was an opportunity to work with students to explicitly teach a recent

vocabulary word by using a fictitious scenario. As a part of their classroom warm up activity,

students were given ten scenarios they were supposed to identify as one of the items in the Bill of

Rights. Ms. Scott helped students remember a word that was part of the Fifth Amendment.

Student 1, reading scenario: The government wants to buy your house to…

Student 2: That’s not what it is!


Ms. Scott: That’s correct. Ok so that’s the Fifth Amendment. Does anyone remember

what that’s called? It’s two words. Starts with an E.

Student 3: Inclement or something like that.

Student 4: It’s like they have to pay you back for your land.

Ms. Scott: It’s eminent

Student 4: Domain

Ms. Scott: Domain. There you go.

By asking students to identify the amendment, Ms. Scott allows them to apply their

knowledge of the word to a possible real-life situation. The students do not have command of the

word “eminent” and are, instead, prompted by her suggestion that the word they are looking for

starts with an “e” to shout out a word that starts with an “e”. This is an example of a weak

vocabulary strategy; it is unplanned and unintentional and provides minimum exposure to the

word (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2012). Based on the answer that Ms. Scott gave about her

vocabulary instruction, it could be that she does not consider this type of exchange to be an

opportunity for explicit vocabulary instruction because it was not the intent of the assignment.

Ms. Campbell stated that she uses a lot of kinesthetics, games, and activities to teach

vocabulary to her students, so that students are not “bored to tears….” She has students identify

vocabulary words they do not understand to use for the games. A specific vocabulary lesson was

not observed, but Ms. Campbell described a recent vocabulary lesson in her interview.

We’re doing a game called, “Kick Me,” where we use athletic vocabulary. So we’re

reading an article about viruses…where we extracted words…of higher difficulty in text

and then put them on little laminated cards. One kid will have the word on their back and

some other kid will have to find the definition and so on.


This statement is an evidence-and-research based strategy that reflects Ms. Campbell’s

deeper knowledge of promoting SAE to promote learning. It is an example of teaching language

in the midst of activity that has meaning for students.

Call to Orders

Part of responsive classroom management involves having procedures in place to get

students attention. All teachers used call to orders to call their class to attention. During

interviews, the teachers specified that they taught their classes these routines at the beginning of

the school year through direct instruction and practice. Students had very different responses in

each of the classrooms. Ms. Mitchell used the call to orders in class but did not wait for students

to stop talking before she continued with instruction. Students who were involved in

conversation did not stop to pay attention to Ms. Mitchell.

In Ms. Scott’s classroom, some students would stop talking and the classroom became

quieter when Ms. Scott called them to attention. Ms. Scott addressed individual student behavior

and the students continued to talk. Sometimes, Ms. Scott expressed frustration when students did

not quiet sown at the call to order. When students do not quiet down, they are supposed to come

back to the teacher’s classroom for lunch detention, but Ms. Scott said that this is hard to

enforce.

In Ms. Campbell’s class, students were engaged in activities and, when the call to order

was made, students were usually attentive and listened to what the teacher said. When students

were not quiet after the call to order, they were required to stay during lunch for the amount of

time it had taken them to quiet down. According to Ms. Campbell, these call to orders are

“embedded in the norms that we do in the beginning of the year.” She stated that this routine was


something that students were familiar with and expect because they do the call to orders in other

classrooms. She stated,

I feel like they caught on to it very quickly, and they’re accustomed to it, and they’re

expecting that kind of interaction with their teacher. So they know how to do that very

well. They’ve always known how to do that.

Ms. Campbell recalled her experience teaching the attention signals. This procedural strategy is a

surface approach to really engaging students in learning. It is more about establishing order than

about deep learning. (Hollie, 2012).

Family Involvement

Part of the importance of infusing culturally responsive pedagogy practices into

classrooms is the need to have the culture of the home integrated into the school environment

(Ladson-Billings, 2009; Gay, 2002). All three teachers had some interaction with the families of

their students while they were observed for this study. Ms. Campbell and Ms. Scott made

reference to speaking to their students’ parents or guardians during class, sometimes as threats.

Ms. Mitchell had a parent come into class to observe her student during class time.

Ms. Mitchell seemed surprised when a parent arrived in her classroom during her second-

period class. She asked the parent if she was there to observe and led her to an empty chair in the

front of the room. The students did not appear to change their behavior based on the adult in the

room or act as if this was abnormal. When asked about this, Ms. Mitchell said she was surprised

to see the parent because the woman’s child is a great student. She said that she likes when

parents come to class normally because students tend to act better in class.

I had, um, one student, Elysha. Her dad came in, and she was like a different person with

her dad in the room. I just thought, “But this isn’t real.” This isn’t way, she was very, she


was listening. She was very engaged. Then, the next day after he was there, it was…back

to the same.

Ms. Mitchell said that, usually, when parents come to visit, it was due to other teachers’

calling and reporting misbehavior, but parents normally do not come for just one class.

While observing Ms. Scott, there was only one interaction between her and the students

that referenced a call home to parents. Ms. Scott said that, when she calls parents, her

expectation is that parents will enforce some sort of consequence on the student. There are times

that she also calls to set up a time for a conference with parents or for parents to shadow their

student. Ms. Scott does not appear to participate in activities to build relationships with parents.

Ms. Campbell makes a number of threats to students that she will call their parents or

guardians if they do not follow rules. During one classroom observation, she called a parent in

front of the class, only stepping outside after the parent had answered the phone. Ms. Campbell

said that she calls parents to try and build a bridge between school and home.

First of all, just that we maintain a rapport in communication because if I didn’t call the

parents, they wouldn’t know otherwise, and they wouldn’t be able to help me connect

with the child on the other side of it. So, mainly (parents are called), just to keep the line

of communication open and going, and hopefully, to elicit some kind of help from them

on their side.

Ms. Campbell seems to attempt to make connections with students outside of the

classroom and build a relationships with their families. She knows the appropriate parent or

guardian to call for most students.


Clear Routine and Procedures

In Ms. Campbell and Ms. Mitchell’s classrooms, students seemed to know what to expect

once they walked in. The students worked to complete their homework logs as soon as they

entered. Ms. Scott’s students had a difficult time starting their assignments and transitioning

between assignments. Ms. Campbell and Ms. Mitchell had clear procedures and routines in place

that made it easy for students to understand what they should expect from class. The assignment

listed on the students’ homework log served as an agenda for the day in both of their classrooms.

Ms. Campbell and Ms. Mitchell both said several times during classroom observations what

assignments would be done during the current class and what would be expected of the students

for the rest of the unit plan. The practice of foreshadowing projects helped students understand

what the final project would be. The procedures in place in both Ms. Campbell’s and Ms.

Mitchell’s classrooms provided a framework for the focus on instruction. Though there were

many distractions in Ms. Mitchell’s class, there was still an evident structure to the lesson

(Ladson-Billings, 2009).

Contrastive Analysis

Though Ms. Campbell is the only teacher who explicitly named contrastive analysis as a

strategy to expand students’ knowledge of SAE and vocabulary. Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Scott

described actions that appeared to be modification of this strategy. Yet, Ms. Campbell’s

approach reflected a deficit view of the language. For instance, Ms. Mitchell mentioned how she

talked to students about when to use certain language in their writing:

This is something that would be used at home, but not necessarily. We’re not going to use

… for evidence in ... a paper. We’re making a claim and we need to support it with

evidence, but we want it to be the strongest evidence possible, so, instead of using


nonacademic language…We want it to be things that are going to be precise in language

and get straight to the point. So, I may use something that, you know… might be

something that the kids use, like a phrase, but then ask them how would we standardize

that and then make it, um, something that we would put in a paper. How do we make the

language concise?

This statement indicated Ms. Mitchell’s mostly respectful response to students’ writing in

AAE. She indicates that she helps them identify alternatives to AAE in their writing without

criticizing their writing (Gay, 2002; Greene & Walker, 2004; Hollie, 2011; Wheeler & Sword,

2006). However, she attempted to implement the practice without full knowledge of how the

strategy works and without a perspective that treats both languages as valuable and valid.

Contrastive analysis requires awareness of the rules governing both distinct languages to be able

to compare the differences and note the similarities (Wheeler & Sword, 2006). Through this

process, students are able to function metacognitively to evaluate situations and decide when and

how to use either AAE or SAE. Without this important strategy, students are dependent upon the

teacher to tell them when to use one language or the other in a framework of “right” and

“wrong”, thereby characterizing AAE as “wrong,” or substandard. Not knowing AAE is a

language deprives students of the opportunity to make conscious use of AAE and/or SAE to

regulate their own behavior, to solve problems, or to construct meaning from text. Simply

highlighting uses of AAE as errors as feedback to students’ writing sends a message that their

language is subpar to SAE (Gay, 2000; Charity Hudley & Mallison, 2011).

Summary

This chapter provided an in-depth analysis of data related to the research questions that

framed this qualitative case study. Interviews, observations, and artifacts collected demonstrated


need for consistent culturally responsive learning training. As described in this chapter, the

school has systems in place to encourage teachers to use research-based practices but lacks the

supports to fully implement these strategies. The recommended strategies did not appear to

include research-based strategies promoted by the district’s program for SELs, although

structured learning plan was introduced to the school to provide the support teachers.


CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Chapter One identified the problem of a consistent achievement gap among African

American students when compared to students of other ethnicities. Chapter Two provided an in-

depth literature review of the underlying systems in education structure that could have led to

this gap as well as research on strategies that could improve opportunities to learn for speakers of

AAE. Chapter Three described the research methodology of this study and outlined the tools

used to find data for answering the research questions. Chapter Four discussed the findings of the

case study. This chapter will provide a summary of the purpose of the study, findings,

implications for practice and research as well as conclusions.

Methodology

The researcher attempted to identify data related to the research questions using the

following methodology. The study utilized a qualitative case study approach to collect data in

one urban middle school that served a large concentration of African American students. The

unit of analysis in this study was classroom teachers. The researcher was cleared through an

institutional review board process, and data were triangulated using multiple resources: teacher

interviews, three classroom observations of each teacher, and document analysis of district and

school memos and website. Interviews and observations were transcribed, coded, and organized

to reflect patterns and themes. Sociocultural theory, Critical Race Theory, and language theories

were used to frame interpretation of the data.

Discussion of Findings Pertaining to Research Question 1

The first research question asked, “What is the knowledge that teachers have about

African American English?” An analysis of the data informed the following key findings

regarding teacher’s knowledge of AAE.


Overall Findings

First, the teachers in this study had some knowledge of AAE and the basics of language

variations. All three teachers had some exposure to these language variations while they were

preparing for their credential. Second, all of the teachers had some exposure to the basics of

understanding AAE. Third, teachers had significant training in working with English Learner

(EL) students but lacked knowledge about implementing appropriate strategies with African

American students who are speakers of AAE and are considered SELs.

Differences in Outcomes among Teachers

The teacher with the most AEMP training experience had the only class with evidence on

the bulletin board that students had completed assignments that asked them to analyze their

language in contrast to SAE. However, this process was not observed while students were

engaged in the activities of the classroom.

Ms. Mitchell, the teacher with the least teaching experience was hesitant to distinguish

AAE from SAE. She did not acknowledge the presence of AAE in the classroom or in students’

writing. She missed an opportunity to point out use of AAE in the play “Raisin in the Sun.”

Even though she read some of the text written in AAE aloud, she did not identify any use of

AAE, nor did she use the opportunity to discuss the language.

Ms. Scott had worked in an AEMP school for 5 years, and, as a result, had could recognize

the use of AAE and help students gain command of SAE. She, however, did not appear to use

any of these strategies during the observations. She also characterized her Honors class as “more

educated” because the students in that used AAE more frequently than did students in her other

classes.


Ms. Campbell rated herself higher than the other teachers on understanding AAE and being

able to identify its use. She could identify AAE in students’ writing, but not in the classroom.


The second research question asked, “What attitudes and perceptions about speakers of

AAE do teachers demonstrate in their interactions with AAE speaking students?” An analysis of

the data informed the following key findings regarding teacher’s interactions with AAE

speakers:

Overall Findings

First, though teachers did not state they had low expectations of students, their

interactions with them and their answers to interview questions demonstrated a belief that

African American students had a harder time learning and behaving in the classroom. Second,

student interaction with one another mirrored the teacher-to-student interactions, which were

typically non dialogic, non-constructivist, and, often, disrespectful. Third, observations of all

three classrooms demonstrated that students spoke AAE while answering questions or during

interactions with their teachers, yet teachers stated they did not think their students spoke AAE

or that their students’ language needed to be addressed because she, as their teacher, understood

what they were saying. Verbal exchanges, most frequently for disciplinary reasons, were often

marked by sarcasm. During the observations, the teacher did not point out students’ language as

an asset that had rule-based distinctions from SAE nor did she use the students’ language to help

them acquire a second language. Fourth, teachers stated they treat all students the same,

regardless of race, and that students should be able to use their home language in classes and

school, but most qualified this and stated that students should use their home language when it is

“appropriate.” There was no evidence of times the teachers considered appropriate for using


AAE nor was there evidence of intentional acceptance of its use. The overall tone between the

teachers and African American students demonstrated minimal acknowledgement of the value in

their statements in any language.

Differences in Findings among Teachers

First, the two teachers who received any AEMP training seemed more concerned about

discipline than constructing knowledge in a sociocultural environment that promoted learning.

Second, when the teacher most knowledgeable of AAE returned student’s work written in AAE,

she did not use the opportunity to point out distinctions between AAE and SAE. Third, both the

teacher with the least amount of AEMP knowledge and the one who was most knowledgeable

stated they do not attempt to correct language while students try to get their message across.

They affirmed a belief that the content of the message is the importance of language use. On the

other hand, the teacher who worked in an AEMP school for 5 years believed that correcting a

student’s language use was appropriate without regard to the effect the interruption in thought

would have on the learning process. This teacher also did not seem to notice when students

stopped asking questions after being asked to repeat themselves when she could not understand

them. Fourth, the two teachers who had AEMP training announced several times that their

students not capable of behaving and issued a number of threats. Students were told they were

moved out of groups because they were incapable of staying on task during class time.

Student Responses to Teachers

Instead of dialogic, constructivist classroom environment inclusive of AAE-speaking

African American students, the classrooms were characterized by unfocused and inappropriate

studentbehavior. The history teacher spent most of the instructional time redirecting individual

students while other students continued or began conversations that were off topic, sometimes


even playing music loudly from their computers. Secondly, as behavior was ignored in Ms.

Mitchell’s classroom, students hit each other, engaged in off-topic banter, and participated in

other activities that did not pertain to their assignment. Thirdly, while the most experienced

teacher, Ms. Campbell, addressed student behavior by sending students out of class, other

students mimicked her while she was outside of the room and during group activities. As this

veteran teacher became sarcastic, students did the same with each other.


The third research question asked, “What strategies do teachers use to assist speakers of

African American English with participating in classroom discourses and acquiring proficiency

in Standardized/Academic English?” Analysis of data informed the following key findings

regarding teachers’ pedagogical practices for guiding speakers of AAE into acquiring SAE:

Overall Findings

Teachers used instructional practices, but not strategically. They displayed culturally

diverse posters on the walls, and the school website lists cooperative learning as an essential part

of the school’s instructional program. The website states that teachers are required to use

cooperative group learning in the classroom. However, based on observations and interviews, the

teachers did not demonstrate an understanding of the purpose of the strategies or ways to fully

implement them. In addition, teachers’ answers indicated limited knowledge about how to

receive and affirm AAE use in the classroom as a process for explicitly guiding students to

acquire proficiency in SAE as a second language and access the curriculum. Also, in each

classroom, parts of the lesson plans included research-based strategies to engage students in

classroom discourse. Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Scott had students in cooperative learning groups, but

they lacked focus and students were mostly off topic. The veteran teacher, Ms. Campbell, had


cooperative learning groups that demonstrated nervousness about the presentation of their

assignment. They spent little time actually discussing the content of the lesson.

Differences in Findings Among Teachers

The history teacher, Ms. Scott, with some AEMP exposure and the teacher who

participated in AEMP training, yet did not demonstrate strategies her students to assist in their

acquisition of academic language. In addition, the teacher with the most AEMP exposure

implemented strategies outlined in the AEMP training, but her classroom didnot reflect the

mutual respect that the practices are intended to promote. Also, teachers seemed to think that

they are doing right by the students by not using strategies that address distinctions in their

language.

The two English teachers, Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Campbell, used more research-based

practices in class, but, in all classes, the lessons lacked the components that made them effective.

Classroom activities lacked the structure needed to effectively in engage students. Instead,

students in Ms. Scott and Ms. Campbell’s classrooms seemed to require attention to disciplinary

actions often.

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 AAE, there are

implications for consistent and focused school-wide professional development that is not

voluntary and is based on the school’s demographics. The school in this study served primarily

African American students, yet two out of three teachers observed had received little to no

training on AAE or specific African American culture. Additionally, the only training that may


have helped teachers understand their students’ language and culture was a voluntary training

held on a weekend. Conversely, all three teachers reported receiving a significant amount of

trainings on working with students considered English learners despite this not being the students

they primarily work with. The teachers needed professional development specifically designed

for speakers of AAE who have not acquired proficiency in SAE (Hudley & Mallison, 2011;

Ladson-Billings, 2009).

In addition, ongoing professional development, complete with coaching and professional

learning communities, provides the greatest potential for fully implementing effective

instructional strategies (Gay, 2002; Hollie, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009). It is not enough to hold

one-day training sessions for teachers, especially when the strategies require deep, versus

surface, understanding of the value of students’ language and culture. Deep understanding is

especially important when teachers may have a negative or deficit view of the student’s

language, as is often the case regarding AAE (Gay, 2002; Labov, 2012). Professional

development is needed to combat stereotypes and biases. The training will need to begin with

education on the role of culture in individuals’ lives, which happened to some extent in the

training observed. In addition to learning about the role of culture, teachers need to learn about

and respect the culture of their students without characterizing their differences as deficits (Alim

& Smitherman, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Ogbu, 2009; Tatum, 2003).

The next step in the professional development plan could be to develop each teacher’s

ability to recognize and understand use of AAE. Teachers need at least a basic understanding of

the origins of AAE and its features. Understanding the language of their students will need to be

the foundation for teachers to successfully implement contrastive analysis and other SAE

acquisition activities (Hudley & Mallison, 2011; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Maddahian & Bird,


2003; Wheeler & Sword, 2006). Additionally, being able to respect students’ culture and

language will be key to implementing culturally responsive policy, as students will not be able to

effectively learn from a teacher who does not respect them (Delpit, 1998; Ladson-Billings,

2009).

The teachers attempted to use all of the strategies they learned about during their training.

However, there was no practical hands-on approach to allow teachers to explore what the

strategies would look like in their classroom. Additionally, there was no time to reflect on

practices they may have used in their classroom that allowed for maintaining the status quo of

failing minority students (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Instead, the training allowed teachers to take a

passive role in learning the strategies. Teachers were also given a book to read that included

strategies, but there was no suggestion that the trainers would follow up with them other than if

the teachers emailed them directly to request additional training. This approach to learning is

minimally effective (Hollie, 2011)

This study also suggests that the brief introduction to AAE that prospective teachers

receive in their preparation programs does not offer enough knowledge to help them recognize

the language when it is used or how to help students acquire SAE.

Another implication of the study for practice is the confirmation of earlier research that

stresses the negative impact on learning when teachers display a lack of respect for students. It

causes a deterioration of the classroom experience. Students are not able to fully learn in the

classroom where their teacher does not respect them (Freire, 1970; Ladson-Billings, 2009).


Recommendations

In order to help teachers see the value of the AEMP training and recognize AAE use, the

AEMP coordinators and school leadership need a plan of professional development and

additional coaching schedules. Teachers were introduced to AEMP coordinators while they were

teaching instead of by first seeing these coordinators as experts in their field and understanding

the value of having them in the classroom. The first professional development goal should be to

learn some of the differences in culture among different ethnic groups and allow teachers to

explore their own biases and expectations in a safe way. This could add intrigue for teachers to

learn more about reaching out and effectively teaching their minority students. Allowing teachers

to understand that difference does not have to mean deficits and that differences should be

celebrated could help them open up to the possibility that AAE use can be talked about in class.

Teachers should be explicitly taught about the features of AAE so they can recognize its

use and implement strategies to allow students to analyze the difference between it and SAE.

Learning about the language will enable teachers to talk about it in a positive way that does not

diminish home language but adds mastery of SAE to students’ range of language use, as if SAE

were a second language

Ongoing training and a closer examination of long-term implementation is needed. It was

expected that teachers who had some AEMP training or familiarity with culturally relevant

and/or responsive teaching strategies would have a better understanding of the role that language

plays in the classroom and would recognize and account for their own personal biases. Instead,

teachers could not acknowledge they may have hidden biases that affect the approach they

employ with students (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Green, 2002).


Future Research

Recommendations for future research are to conduct a study that includes the school’s

administration and an extended observation of AEMP professional development training

sessions. Additionally, in this study, only one teacher who attended the training was observed,

and she had previously been exposed to the AEMP trainings. It would be useful to observe a

teacher who had little to no exposure to AEMP strategies before and after the training to look for

changes in classroom practices. Also, interview standout students, in both a negative and positive

sense, would add to the discussion. Interviewing them would allow the researcher to add how

students viewed classrooms situations without having to make assumptions.

Limitations

A limitation was clear when all three teachers stated they did not create lesson plans, a

data source described in the design of the study. The absence of lesson plans prevented their use

in the study and limited the researcher from being able to see the intent of the lesson and

collaboration between the grade level teams.

Conclusion

Teachers who are knowledgeable about AAE and their student’s culture are more likely

to provide effective instruction for AAE-speaking students (Baugh, 2001; Gay, 2002; Greene &

Walker, 2004; Labov, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009). This research builds on previous studies

that call on schools and teachers to develop policies and practices to expand learning

opportunities for African American students. One way schools can provide these opportunities is

by providing specific and focused instruction for their adult advocates and teachers on the role of

language and culture in the classroom (Alim & Smitherman, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009).


Knowing and understanding culturally responsive strategies that help students understand

the difference between AAE and SAE is only part of implementing culturally responsive

practices. Teachers must understand and respect the culture from which the language derives

(Dillard, 1972; Rickford & Rickford, 2000, Smith, 1998; Alim & Smitherman, 2012;

Smitherman, 2001).


References

Adams, J.E. (2010). Choosing the smart money path to education finance innovation.

Alim, H. S., & Smitherman, G. (2012). Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, language, and

race in the U.S. Oxford: Oxford University.

Baugh, J. (2001). Applying linguistic knowledge of African American English to help students

learn and teachers teach. Social and Historical Contexts of African American English,

319-330.

Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American Students in special

education: Acknowledging the role of White privilege and racism. Educational

Researcher, 35(6), 24-28.

Blanchett, W., Mumford, V., & Beachum, F. (2005) Urban school failure and disproportionality

in a Post-Brown Era: Neglect of the constitutional rights of students of color. Remedial

and Special Education, 26, 70-81.

Bourdieu, P., &Passerson, J.C. (1990).Reproduction in Education Society and Culture. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Champion, T.B, Cobb Roberts, D., & Bland-Stewart, L. (2012). Future educators’ perceptions of

African American Vernacular English (AAVE). Online Journal of Education Research,

5(1) 80-89.

Charity Hudley, A. H., & Mallinson, C. (2010). Understanding English Language Variation in

US Schools. Multicultural Education Series. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Christensen, L. (March 2011). Finding Voice: Learning about Language and Power. Voices from

the Middle, 18(3), pp. 9-17.


Conner, T., Pearson, B.Z., & Jackson, J.E. (2013). Removing obstacles for African American

English-Speaking children through greater understanding of language difference.

Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 31-44.

Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY:

The New Press.

Dow, G., Feggins, R., Rausch, M., Simmons, A., Skiba, R., Staudinger, L. (May, 2003).

Consistent Removal: Contributions of School Discipline to the School-Prison Pipeline.

Paper presented at School to Prison Pipeline Conference. Los Angeles, CA.

Eitle, T.M. (2002). Special education or racial segregation: Understanding variation in the

representation of Black students in Educable Mentally Handicapped Programs.

Sociological Quarterly, 403(4), 575-604.

Fecho, B., Davis, B., Moore, R. (2012). Exploring Race, Language, and culture in Critical

Literacy Classrooms. In Alvermann, D.E., & Hinchman, K.A. (3rd Edition)

Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents lives: Bridging the everyday/academic

divide (pp. 139-159). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ferguson, A. (2000).Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. Ann Arbor,

MI: The University of Michigan.

Ferri, B.A. & Conner, D. J., (2005) Tools of Exclusion: Race, Disability, and (Re)segregated

Education. Teacher College Record, 107(3), 453-474.

Fillmore, L. & Snow, C. (August 23, 2000). What teachers need to know about language

prepared. Washington, DC: US Department of Educational Research and Improvement.

Fisher, D., & Lapp, D. (2013). Learning to talk like the test: Guiding speakers of African

American Vernacular English. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(8), 634-648.


Fought, C. (2003) Chicano English in Context. London: MacMillian Publishers.

Freeman, D. E., Freeman, Y.S. (2004). Essential linguistics: What you need to know to teach

reading, ESL, spelling, phonics, and grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Pearson Education.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing

Group.

Fryer, R. G. & Levit, S.D.(2004). The Black-White test score gap through third grade.

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Godley, A., & Escher, A.(2008). Biadialectical African American adolescents’ beliefs about

spoken language expectations in English classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 55(8). 704-713.

Godley, A.J., Sweetland, J., Wheeler, R.S., Minnici, A., & Carpenter, B.D. (2006). Preparing

Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 30-38.

Goff, P.A., Jackson, M.C., DiLeone, B.A., Culotta, C.M., & DiTomasso, N.A. (2014). The

essence of innocence: Consequences of dehumanizing Black children. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 526-545.

Gonzales, T., (2012) Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the

school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law and Education, 41, 281-335

Green, L. (2002).African American English: A linguistic introduction. New York, NY:

Cambridge University.


Greene, D. & Walker, F. (2004). Recommendations to Public Speaking Instructors for the

Negotiation of Code-switching Practices among Black English-speaking African

American Students. The Journal of Negro Education, 73(4), 435.

Gregory, A. & Weinstein, R.S. (2008) The discipline gap and African Americans: Defiance or

cooperation in the high school classroom. Journal of School Psychology. 46(4), 455-475.

Gutierrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a Sociocritical Literacy in the Third Space. Reading

Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164.

Gutierrez, K.D., Rymes, B., &Larson, J.(1995) Script, counterscript, and underlife in the

classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Brown of Education. Harvard Educational

Review, 65(3), 445-471.

Harris, Y. R., & Schroeder, V. M. (2013). Language deficits or differences: What we know about

African American vernacular English in the 21st century. International Education

Studies, 6(4), 194–204.

Harry, B., Klingner, J. K., Sturges, K. M., & Moore, R. F. (2002). Of rocks and soft places:

Using qualitative methods to investigate disproportionality. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield

(Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 71-92). Cambridge: Harvard Education.

Hill, D. (May 2013). Three mentor texts that support code-switching pedagogies. Voices from the

Middle, 20(4), 10-15.

Hochschild, J. & Scovronick, N. (2004). The American Dream and the Public Schools. Oxford:

Oxford University.

Hollie, S. (2001). Acknowledging the language of African American students: Instructional

strategies. The English Journal, 90(4), 54-59.


Hollie, S. (2012). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: Classroom

practices for student success Huntington Beach, CA: Teacher Created Materials.

Hudley, A. & Mallinson, C. (2011). Understanding English language variation in U.S. schools.

New York: Teachers College.

Heubert, J.P. (2002).Disability, race, and high-stakes testing of students. In D. J. Losen & G.

Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 137-165). Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Education.

Labov, W. (2010). Unendangered dialect, endangered people: the case of African American

vernacular English. Transforming Anthropology, 18(1), 15–27.

Labov, W. (2012).Dialect diversity in America: The politics of language change. Charlottesville,

VA: University of Virginia.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding

achievement in the U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American

children. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

LeMoine, N. R. (2001). Language variation and literacy acquisition in African American

students. In J. L. Harris, A. G. Kamhi, & K. E. Pollack (Eds.), Literacy in African

American communities. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.

LeMoine, N. R. (2003). The impact of linguistic knowledge of African American

language/Ebonics on teacher attitude toward African American language and the students

who speak AAL/Ebonics(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses (Order No. 3103935).


Locher, L., Moretti, E., (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates,

arrests, and self-reports. The American Economic Review, 94, 155-177.

Losen, D. J. & Orfield, G. (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Education Press.

Losen, D. J., & Welner, K. G. (2002). Legal challenges to inappropriate and inadequate special

education for minority children. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in

special education (pp. 167-194).Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press

Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Center for Education for Statistics (NCES). (2012). Public school enrollment. Retrieved

from http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cga.asp

Neal, L.I., McCray, A.D., Webb-Johnson, G., & Bridgest, S.T. (2003). The effects of African

movement styles on teachers' perceptions and reactions. The Journal of Special

Education, 37(1), 49-57.

Ogbu, J. (2003) Black American students in an affluent suburb: A Study of academic

disengagement (sociocultural, political, and historical studies in education). Mahwah,

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ogbu, J.U. & Simons, H.D.(1998) Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-Ecological

Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education. Anthropology&

Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.


Ogbu, J. U. (1999). Beyond language: Ebonics proper English, and identity in a Black-American

speech community. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 147-184.

Okoye-Johnson, O. (2011). Intangible heritage of Standard English learners: The “Invisible”

subgroup in the United States of America? Implications for closing the achievement gap.

SAGE Open, 1(1).

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perry, T., & Delpit, L. D. (Eds.). (1998). The real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the

education of African-American children. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Rickford, J. R., & Rickford, R. J. (2002). Spoken soul: The story of Black English. John Wiley &

Sons.

Rodriguez, L. F. (2008). Struggling to Recognize their existence: Examining student-adult

relationships in the urban high school context. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public

Education, 40(5), 436-453.

Schott Foundation for Public Education. (2010). The Schott Foundation 50 state report on public

education and Black males. Retrieved from Schott Foundation for Public Education

website: http://blackboysreport.org/?page_id=14

Schleppegrell, M.J. (2012). Academic Language in Teaching and Learning Introduction to

Special Issue. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 409-418.

Skiba, R.J., Horner, R.H., Chung, C, Rausch, M.K., May, S., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not

neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in

School Discipline. School Psychology Review, 40 (1), 85-107.

Smith, E. (1998). What is Black English? What is Ebonics? The Real Ebonics Debate: Power,

Language, and the Education of African-American Children, 49–58.


Smitherman, G. (1977). Talkin and testifyin: The language of Black America (Vol. 51). Wayne

State University.

Smitherman, G. (2000). Black talk: Words and phrases from the hood to the amen corner.

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin that talk: Language, culture, and education in African America.

London: Routledge.

Spears, A. K. (2001). Directness in the use of African American English. In Laneheart, S.

Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English (pp. 239-259).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Stanton-Salazar, R.O., (1997) A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of

racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-39.

Tatum, B.T. (1999). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New York, NY.

Basic Books.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Warren, C. A. (2012). The effect of post-racial theory on education. Journal for Critical

Education Policy Studies, 10(1), 197-216.

Western, B., Schiraldi,V., & Ziendenberg, J., (2003) Education and Incarceration. Washington,

DC: Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/2037

Whitney, J. (2005). Five Keys Pieces: Steps toward Integrating AAVE into the Classroom.

English Journal, 94(5), 64-69.

Williams, R.L. (1997). The Ebonics controversy. Journal of Black Psychology 23(3), 208-214.


Wilson, M.G. (2013). Disrupting the pipeline: The role of school leadership in mitigating

exclusion and criminalization of students. Journal of Special Education Leadership,

26(2), 61-70.


AppendixA

Survey Instrument

University of Southern California

Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

The Exclusion of African American Students from Academic Discourse

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Clarece Weinraub, a doctoral

student at the University of Southern California. The results of this study will be contributed to

her dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a

teacher or teacher in training. We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are

trying to discover teachers’ perceptions of and responses to language variation among African

American students. The survey includes questions that tap your background, your training and

your understanding of this issue. Please respond as honestly and as objectively as you can.

Where scales are used there are no right or wrong answers your opinion is what matters.

Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview questions will constitute

consent to participate in this research project.

The interview will take you approximately 60 minutes to complete. Your responses will be

recorded electronically and notes will be taken during the interview. You will be interviewed

outside of paid working hours for this study.All responses to this interview are anonymous

therefore there are no risks from your participation in this study. There will be no payment or

other form of remuneration for your participation in this study. When the results of the research

are public shared or discussed in conferences, no information included will reveal your identity.


Guidelines:

Responses will be identified only by number and in no way will be associated with your name.

Surveys will be randomly assigned an identification number and stored in the computer by ID

number.

Interview responses may be used again in the future for further data analyses. Your participation

in this study is voluntary. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at any time

without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want

to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if

circumstances arise which warrant doing so. If you have any questions or concerns about the

research, please feel free to contact Clarece Weinraub: Principal Investigator (415) 424-3975,

155 N. Bonnie Ave Pasadena, CA 91106 or, Faculty Sponsor Dr. Sylvia Rousseau (XXX) XXX-

XXXX, University of Southern California, Rossier School o f Education 90089.

You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You

are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research

study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University

Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Bovard Administration Building, Room 300,

Los Angeles, CA 90089- 4019, (213) 740-6709 or [email protected]


Interview on the impact of Linguistic Knowledge on Teacher Attitude toward African American Language (Ebonics)

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

1. Are you a:

� Credentialed Teacher � Emergency Credent. Teacher � Student Teacher

2. Your highest level of education completed is:

� BA or BS � MA or MS � PhD/EdD � Other professional doctorate _______

3. What is your gender � Male � Female

4. Please indicate your ethnic identity: ________________________________

� Black (non-hispanic) � White Hispanic

� Asian Filipino � Native American

� Pacific Islander � Other (specify)

5. What is your age range?

� 18-25 � 26-39 � 40-55 � 56+

6. How many years of teaching experience do you have? _________

7. Please describe your role in the school, including what grade level you teach and what

subjects.

Language Background: In this section I would like to know a little about your language history and background.

8. Is English your first language? � Yes � No


9. Do you speak any other languages? � Yes � No

10. If you speak other languages were they acquired in school or elsewhere?

� acquired in school � other_________________________

11. Have you taken any courses related to bilingual education or 2nd language acquisition?

� Yes � No How many______

12. Have you taken any courses in “ Language Development In Children” or a course that

sounds similar?

� Yes � No How many_______

13. Have you taken any formal language courses?

� 1-2 � 3-5 � More than 5

14. Have you taken any courses in sociolinguistics or dialectology?

� Yes � No

If so, how many? � 1-2 � 3-5 � More than 5

15. Do you have any of the following credentials? (Check all that apply)

� CLAD � BCLAD � Training related to bilingual education

16. Have you participated in any staff development or training related to speakers of African

American English (Ebonics)? � Yes � No

a. If yes, then how many days _____________

17. If you answered yes to the above question, what was the total duration of the training you

received in days?

� 1-2 � 3-5 � 6-8 � 9-12

18. Have you participated in staff development or training related to bilingual education?

� Yes � No


19. Have you taken any courses/seminars related to Black History and/or Culture ?

� Yes � No

20. Have you participated in trainings related to speakers of non-standard languages or

Standard English Language Learners? � Yes � No

21. Are you familiar with the Standard English Learner (SEL) language resolution?

� Yes � No

a. If yes, has this resolution had any impact your professional development or staff

meeting topics? Please explain

b. If no, please review the resolution. Does the resolution appear to be something

that will impact your classroom? How/How not?

Familiarity with or competence in African American English/Ebonics: In this section we would like to know about your personal knowledge/competence in AAL/Ebonics. 22. What is your own definition of AAL/Ebonics?

23. On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being highest) to what extent are you familiar with African American language/Ebonics? (Circle the number that best reflects your answer.) Not familiar Some familiarity Very familiar

1 2 3 4 5

24. Are you a speaker of AAL (Ebonics)? � Yes � No

25. To what degree do you understand someone speaking AAL (Ebonics)?


� Never � Barely � Sometimes � Often � Always

26. Which of the following sentences is Ebonics (check only those that apply)

____Where did you put my shoes?

____That car is straight up dope.

____Don’t nobody never wanna talk to her.

____We were just chilling in the hood.

____My momma be at home doing her work.

____I never did like school very much.

____She walk to school with her friend sister everyday.

____I don’t have to do anything you tell me to do.

Linguistic Knowledge: In this section we are trying to get a sense of your knowledge and understanding of AAL/Ebonics (Circle your answer - select only one number). 27. AAL (Ebonics) is a form of slang used by African Americans.

Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5

28. Those who speak AAL/Ebonics are largely uneducated African Americans.


29. African American Language (Ebonics) is most likely to have developed from simplified English “baby talk” from master to slave. Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

30. AAL/Ebonics is used by 75-85% of all African Americans at some time.


31. African American language (AAL)/(Ebonics) is imperfectly learned English.



32. Children who arrive at school speaking AAL/Ebonics lack the cognitive skills tosucceed.


33. Students who speak AAL/Ebonics will have difficulty with “critical thinking.”


34. AAL/Ebonics basically results from carelessness when speaking.


35. AAL/Ebonics uses incorrect and poor grammar.

Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

36. In order to think logically children must be able to speak Standardized English.


37. AAL/Ebonics has regular grammatical rules like other languages.


1 2 3 4 5

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

38. Children should not be allowed to speak AAL/Ebonics at any time.


1 2 3 4 5


39. AAL/Ebonics should be eradicated.


1 2 3 4 5

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

____ teach them Ebonics

____ provide instruction using Ebonics as a resource

____ help them acquire Standardized English in addition to Ebonics

____ help them acquire Standardized English in place of Ebonics give children an appreciation

of their home language

40. Is there anything that you would like to add about AAL/Ebonics that was not covered in

this questionnaire?

41. What do you think are the biggest challenges that affect African American students

performance related to their language differences?

42. Can you describe strategies that work well work for you in ensuring that all students are

given the opportunity to engage in classroom discussion, particularly students with

language differences?


43. What are your criteria for assessing whether all students are engaged in classroom

discourses/ Can you describe what a classroom looks like when all students are engaged?

44. What do you typically do if a student uses his/her home language that differs from

Academic or Standardized English in the classroom discourse or in a writing assignment?

45. Are you familiar with the term code switching and what does it mean to you in the

context of classroom discourses and student writing?

46. How do you treat or address content vocabulary in instructing speakers of African

American English (AAL)?

47. How are writing assignments in your classes linked to helping students acquire Academic

English? What strategies do you use?

48. In what ways do you collaborate with other teachers to encourage speakers of AAL to

participate in Academic discourse?


49. In your opinion is a students’ ability to participate in classroom discourse using

Standardized English linked to students’ identity and confidence?

A. In what ways do you think that affects their academic performance?


Appendix B

Observation of Classroom Instruction

Part I: Can be done prior to the actual observation

School District:_________________________________ School Name: Name of Principal: ________________________________ Contact Phone Number: ____________________________ Teacher observed: ________________________________Grade observed: _________ Date of Observation: ______________________________Time of Observation: _____ General Information Number of Students Present:_________ How many African American students are enrolled in the class that fit the criteria? ____ Lesson duration:_________ Please document the classroom set up: Students-

Please use numbers to identify students and where they are in the room Tables Use boxes to identify tables


If there is a standard on the board please list it here: ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Learning Space: _________________________________________________________ Resources Being Used in Class: (include computers, video, audio/voice, black/white boards, overhead, reference/other books, software, maps/globes, wall displays, pictures posters) Part II: The actual observation (Use formatted columns below) Part III: Can be done after the actual observation Classroom environment (Y or N)

1. Behavioral expectations posted:

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

Examples: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Were there a tone of decency (fairness, generosity, and tolerance) used in the discourse in

the teaching and learning interaction between: a. student to student

b. teacher and student

4. Was there evidence of cultural and linguistic diversity of the students in the class? a. Inspirational quotes b. Diverse famous leaders:

c. Others


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

Examples: Students asked questions: Teacher admitted to not knowing things: Students asked each other for clarification: Others; Learning Discourse Opportunities (check those that apply)

1. Grouped Active Learning (project based)– same as above, but learners are working in pairs or small groups to complete the assignment.

2. Read Aloud – teacher reading to students AND involving them in thinking/discussion

about the material being read.

3. Think Aloud – working with metacognition (teacher modeling his/her thinking process or

helping students think about how they think).

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

about experiences.

5. Group Discussion – teacher plays a less dominant role than in recitation. Learners ask

questions, answer each other’s questions, and respond to each other’s answers, explore, express opinions, agree and disagree.

6. Writing – learner(s) writing – may include previously prepared worksheets that ask

students to reflect, organize (graphic organizers, etc.), project/hypothesize (does not include copying, fill in the blank, skill and drill).

7. Passive Listening – listening to a lecture by a teacher.

8. Passive observing –watching a demonstration or a presentation by a teacher, other

student, TV, listening center, film/filmstrip, CD, etc.

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

10. On Task (but not academically focused) – learner(s)/teacher(s) transitioning, managing,

grading, etc. 11. Other

Teacher’s instructional Strategies (Y or N)

1. The teacher stated the purpose of the lesson.


2. The teacher made an effort to connect lesson to what students had learned previously.

3. Teacher uses the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and performance styles of

diverse students to make learning more appropriate and effective for them.

4. If a student did not understand, the teacher recognized this and found another way to

communicate with that student or made a plan to follow-up.

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

6. What languages were used during instruction? Home? Standardized English? 7. What languages were used during non-instructional conversation?

Home? Standardized English? 8. Did the teacher ask questions?

a. If yes, were they aimed at:

i. Assessing student factual knowledge?

ii. Assessing student understanding?

iii. Engaging students in critical thinking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

13. Were there missed opportunities for such development?

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


Time 5 minute intervals

Teacher Said Student said Comments


Appendix C

Artifact Analysis Sheet

Weinraub 1-5 FINAL

Documents

Transcript of Weinraub 1-5 FINAL