Centering English Language Learners in the Praxis of Dialogic Pedagogy Ching-Ching Lin Montclair State University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Montclair State University Montclair State University Digital Commons Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects 8-2012 Centering English Language Learners in the Praxis of Dialogic Pedagogy Ching-Ching Lin Montclair State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Lin, Ching-Ching, "Centering English Language Learners in the Praxis of Dialogic Pedagogy" (2012). Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects. 23. https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/23 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Montclair State University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects by an authorized administrator of Montclair State University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CENTERING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN THE PRAXIS OF DIALOGIC PEDAGOGY A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of Montclair State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education by CHING-CHING LIN Montclair State University Upper Montclair, NJ 2012 Dissertation Chair: Rebecca A. Goldstein Copyright © 2012 by Ching-Ching Lin. All rights reserved. MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY THE GRADUATE SCHOOL DISSERTATION APPROVAL We hereby approve the Dissertation Centering English Languoge Learners in the Prmis of Dialogic Pedagogt of Ching-Ching Lin Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Education Department of Secondary and Special Education Certifred by: Dean of The Graduate School zla, l, . Date ABSTRACT CENTERING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN THE PRAXIS OF DIALOGIC PEDAGOGY by Ching-Ching Lin The mainstream classroom poses critical challenges to ELL students in the era of standardization. As English is used both as a language of instruction and assessment for all content subjects in the mainstream classroom, ELL students have to master a cognitively loaded and culturally specific curriculum while learning basic English. Through the standardization of curriculum and assessment, English exerts a normalizing power for ELL students. Given the role of language in regulating consciousness and controlling access to dialogic process, how does dialogic pedagogy theorize about the relationships between language, power and the needs of ELL students in mainstream, content-area classrooms? Using Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of language and symbolic power as my theoretical framework, and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a research method that focuses on language as an instrument that mediates power and privileges, this study explored the effects of dialogic pedagogy as a discourse on ELL students. Based on an examination of over two hundred and seventeen dialogic pedagogy texts published since NCLB (2001) was signed into effect, analysis of the data demonstrated that critical pedagogy failed to address the specificity of challenges facing ELL students in mainstream classrooms. The discourses of dialogic pedagogy normalized the notion of dialogue at the expense of addressing linguistic and cultural diversities. The findings call for a reconceptualization iv of dialogic pedagogy to incorporate the notion of linguistic and cultural diversity into its theorizing and literacy practices. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study is dedicated to all the people who have set themselves in exile, willingly or unwillingly, and turned their experiences of life in a foreign land into a personal saga of perseverance and endurance. For them, the awareness expressed in this study is nothing but a humble beginning to make sense of a long journey that they are at the dawn of comprehending. I would like to express my extreme gratitude to my dissertation supervisor, Dr. Rebecca Goldstein, who has been a constructive force in my academic progress, whose support and advice during this tortuous journey of study, research and writing, provides me with the guidance without which this dissertation would not be possible. My dissertation committee members, Dr. David Schwarzer, Dr. Tyson Lewis, Dr. Jeremy Price and Dr. Kathryn Herr offer insightful, challenging but always encouraging feedback and direction. I deeply appreciate the faculty, staff and friends whose path I have come know at MSU, who have nurtured my growth as a scholar and a person. I also would like to thank the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) and its members, whose vision inspired me to ask tough philosophical and pedagogical questions about teaching and learning. This dissertation wouldn’t be possible without the unconditional love and support of my family. My parents have always supported their children in whatever path they choose, and this with no exception. Despite the physical distance that sets us apart, their unwavering support has been a fixture throughout different phases of my life. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi LIST OF TABLES xi Chapter One: Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 1 Purpose of the Study 5 The Hegemony of English 9 Addressing the Hegemony of English 14 Significance of the Study 16 Organization of the Thesis 17 Definitions of Terms 18 Democratic Education 18 ELL (English Language Learner) 19 Mainstreaming or mainstream classroom 20 Dialogic Pedagogy 20 Constructivist 20 Critical Pedagogy 21 Praxis 21 Hegemony 22 Cultural Capital 22 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 23 Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework 24 Bourdieu on Language as a form of capital 24 Cultural Capital 25 Language, symbolic power, dialogue and symbolic violence 29 Symbolic Power 29 Field 32 Habitus 33 Field, Habitus and Capital 34 Synthesis and Reflection 36 Rancière’s critique of Bourdieu 38 An appraisal of Rancière’s critique of Bourdieu 41 Chapter Three: Review of Literature 46 Overview of ELL Education 47 The Mainstreaming of ELL Students under NCLB 52 Emerging Issues Facing ELL Students in Mainstream Classrooms 54 Specificity of Cultural Literacy in the School Curriculum 55 Bias of the Hidden Curriculum 57 The Hegemony of English to the Exclusion of Heritage Languages 59 The Suppression of Student Voice, Subjectivity and Identity 60 Synthesis/Discussion/Relevance to Study 62 Critical Pedagogy, Dialogue and Addressing ELL students 63 vii Chapter Four: Methodology 65 Overview 65 Research Method 69 Overview of CDA 71 CDA and Fairclough 76 Fairclough 76 Relevant CDA Concepts 80 Discursive Formation 80 Discursive Strategy 82 Style 83 Discursive Effects 85 Data 90 Table 1: Summary of Methods 90 Limitations 92 Data Collection 95 Identifying the Data Set 96 Table 2: Including and Excluding items 98 Collecting and Sorting Instances 98 Analysis Procedure 99 Identifying Discursive Formation 99 Identifying the Discursive Strategies that Are Deployed 100 Identifying Competing Styles 101 Identifying the Discursive Effects 101 Issues of Validity and Limitation 103 Conclusion 105 Chapter Five: Descriptive Findings 106 Introduction 106 Summary of Descriptive Findings 107 Table 3: Numerical Property of Descriptive Findings 108 Specificity of Cultural Literacy in the School Curriculum 109 Table 4: Coding for Specificity of Cultural Literacy in the School Curriculum 110 The School curriculum is rooted in Western culture and is culturally Specific 111 The School curriculum favors the cultural capitals representative of the dominant group and neglects students’ local knowledge 112 Critical pedagogy promotes literacy practices that build on the dialogic relationship between students and teachers to uncover the dominant ideologies 114 Implications for ELL students 115 Bias of Hidden Curriculum 116 Table 5: Coding for the Bias of Hidden Curriculum 117 Schools are shaped by the hidden agenda of corporate interests and solely focus on industrial skills that reinforce inequality 118 viii Critical pedagogy urges teachers to constantly challenge and interrogate their own beliefs and values in the cycle of praxis and reflection 120 Critical pedagogy calls for teachers to dialogue with students the meaning and purpose that schools play in their relationship to the demands of the broader society 122 Implications for ELL students 123 The Hegemony of the English Language to the Exclusion of Heritage Languages 124 Table 6: The coding for The Hegemony of the English Language to the Exclusion of Heritage Languages 125 The U.S. upholds English as the official language to the exclusion of other languages 126 English plays an important role in defining literacy 127 Critical pedagogy promotes literacy strategies that can be used to address the hegemony of English 128 Implications for ELL students 129 Suppression of ELL students’ voices, subjectivity and identity 129 Table 7: Coding for the Suppression of Student Voice, Subjectivity and Identity 130 Critical pedagogy recognizes that ELL students tend to see themselves in the image of the dominant culture and attribute their experience of hardship at schools to the failure on their own parts 131 Dialogic discussion provides an educational context that helps students construct their subjectivities and identities through problematizing language that promotes dominant interests 132 Implications for ELL students 134 Chapter Six: Discursive Findings 136 Major Discourses within Critical Pedagogy 137 Table 8: Discursive findings at a glance 139 1) Neo-Marxism 140 Table 9: Coding for the Discourse of Neo-Marxist Critical Pedagogy 141 Discursive Formations within Neo-Marxist Discourse 141 Relative autonomy 142 Class consciousness 144 Discursive Strategies