AFRICAN AMERICAN VERNACULAR ENGLISH AND THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP: HOW TEACHER PERCEPTION IMPACTS INSTRUCTION AND STUDENT MOTIVATION

Suweeyah Sultanah Salih

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Findlay’s College of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

April 2019

Committee:

Christine Denecker, Ph.D. Chair, Dissertation Committee

Allison Baer, Ph.D. Committee Member

Erin Laverick, Ph.D. Committee Member

John C. Gillham, Ed. D. Chair, Doctorate of Education Program

Julie McIntosh, Ed. D. Dean, College of Education

© 2019

Suweeyah S. Salih

All Rights Reserved iii

ABSTRACT

The achievement gap between African American students and their White peers in language arts has prompted researchers to identify teachers’ perceptions of the language of African American

Vernacular English-speaking students as a contributing factor. The persistence of the achievement gap has created a social justice issue that is addressed with the transformative mixed methods paradigm by including the historically disenfranchised, their historical truths, and the issues of power that impact their current conditions. This study uses data from a Language

Attitude survey on a 4-point Likert scale administered to ten teachers of African American

Vernacular English-speaking students in grades K-5 and 14 African American Vernacular

English-speaking students in grades 4-5 to examine how language bias impacts student achievement and motivation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and coded to identify prominent themes. The study found participants have negative perceptions of African American

Vernacular English and prefer Standard English in all communication. These findings suggest that students and teachers can benefit from culturally responsive teaching.

Keywords: achievement gap, transformative mixed methods, African American Vernacular English, culturally responsive teaching, language bias, social justice

iv

DEDICATION

I sacrificed everything I knew in pursuit of this degree. It was not easy, and sometimes I questioned if I had made the right choice, but I could not stop because of all the people who were watching and observing me. Being the first in the family to reach this height is a tremendous pressure that guided my determination to finish and finish well.

This is dedicated to my ancestors, those I know and those I do not. I will always remember your sacrifice, so that I was possible. Rejoice in your graves, for your prayers were answered. I am here, and you are forever in my heart, calling me to do and be better. This is for you.

To my son Khadim. All that I have done is to set a path for you that inspires greatness in you.

Never forget the importance of humility and faith. These qualities brought you to me. Don’t be like me, son; be better—big shoes to fill. Make me proud.

To my mother who nurtured my love of school and learning. I will never forget how in your desire to alleviate my disappointment in not being able to go to school because I was too young, you created a school for me that fed my intellect and interests and sparked a love of learning that led me to my destiny. Thank you, Ma.

To my grandmother Betty who helped nurture my love of reading throughout my life. She always had books and magazines for me to read at her home, and she taught me how to play

Scrabble. She beat me in Scrabble for years. By the time I was able to beat her, I did not. I let her win. We shared a love of literature so much so that even on her death bed, she kept mentioning the novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. I talked to her about the book as she listened. Thank you,

Granny, for feeding my intellect and imagination. It helped me get here.

To my former students. Thank you for inspiring my life’s work and reminding me why I chose you and why the work I do is so important. v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank G-d for inspiring me to find and develop my true calling in life that has been made known to me through this process. Thank you for your guidance and many blessings. I am very grateful and humbled by all that you have caused me to experience and that I will experience in the future.

I thank my dissertation committee—Dr. Allison Baer and Dr. Erin Laverick—for your guidance and support. A special thank you goes out to my dissertation chair Dr. Christine Denecker who offered me unwavering support and assistance. Your feedback helped me a lot, and I looked to you for help when I was not sure. You always came through. Your attention to detail and consistency aligned well to my own thorough and detail-oriented process. Thank you so much for all of your help! I also thank all of my professors who I studied under at the university. I felt supported and motivated by your words of encouragement and appreciation of my work. I learned so much that positively influenced my practice and philosophy of education.

I would also like to thank those individuals who checked on me and asked about my dissertation.

You listened with interest as I went on and on about my work and why it was so important. I appreciate the time you took to support my pursuits and the effort you put in to encourage me.

To those who did not understand my absence or commitment to myself throughout this process, I pray that one day you experience the pleasure of finding your calling and devoting yourself to it as I did. I pray that you love yourself enough to pursue your dreams and take risks as I did when others shudder and shake with fear of the unknown.

I also want to show my love and appreciation for African American Vernacular English, the language of my childhood and a source of comfort for me and many others.

vi

Table of Contents

Page

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………... 1

Background of the Problem…………………………………………………. 1

Rationale & Significance of the Study………………………………………. 18

Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………. 22

Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………. 24

Research Questions…………………………………………………………… 29

Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………… 30

Limitations…………………………………………………………………… 35

Subjectivity & Research Positionality……………………………………………. 37

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………. 39

Origins of AAVE………………………………………………………………… 41

History of the Black-White Achievement Gap………………………………… 46

The Opportunity Gap…………………………………………………………… 54

Teachers’ Attitudes Towards AAVE…………………………………………… 55

Summary………………………………………………………………………… 65

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………. 66

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………… 69 vii

Research Questions………………………………………………………………. 70

Research Design…………………………………………………………………. 71

Participants ……………………………...………………………………………. 75

Ethical Considerations ……………………...……………………………………. 79

Instrumentation & Data Sources………………………………………………… 80

Data Collection Procedures……………………………………………………… 88

Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………. 90

Assumptions……………………………………………………………………... 95

Trustworthiness……………………………....…………………………………... 96

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS………………………………………………………………. 98

Instrument Validity and Reliability………………………………………………. 99

Characteristics of the Sample……………………………………………………. 100

Research Question 1……………………………………………………………. 102

Structure and Usefulness of AAVE……………………………………………… 105

Consequences of Using AAVE in Instructional Settings………………………… 107

Philosophies on the Use and Acceptance of AAVE……………………………… 109

Cognitive and Intellectual Abilities of AAVE Speakers……………………….… 111

Research Question 2……………………………………………………………… 124 viii

Structure and Usefulness of AAVE……………………………………………… 127

Consequences of Using AAVE in Instructional Settings………………………… 129

Philosophies on the Use and Acceptance of AAVE……………………………… 131

Cognitive and Intellectual Abilities of AAVE Speakers…………………………. 134

Summary……………………………………………….…………………………. 143

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………. 145

Review of the Study………………………………………………….…………. 145

Discussion……………………………………………………………….………. 146

Research Question 1 …………………………………………….………. 147

Research Question 2 ………………………………………………….…. 155

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………... 162

Recommendations………………………………………………………………… 166

Future Research Opportunities …………………………………………………… 172

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………. 174

APPENDIX A. IRB APPROVAL………………………………………………………… 195

APPENDIX B. INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY……………………196

APPENDIX C. TEACHER’S INTERVIEW SCRIPT ……………………………………203

APPENDIX D. STUDENT’S INTERVIEW SCRIPT ……………………………………205

APPENDIX E. TEACHER SURVEY……………….……………………………………208 ix

APPENDIX F. STUDENT SURVEY…………………………………………………… 210

APPENDIX G. TEACHER INTERVIEW CODES……………… ………………………212

APPENDIX H. STUDENT INTERVIEW CODES……………… ………………………213

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Fourth Grade NAEP Average Reading Scores by Ethnicity 2002 – 2017 ...... 3

2 Eighth Grade NAEP Average Reading Scores by Ethnicity 2002 – 2017 ...... 5

3 Twelfth Grade NAEP Average Reading Scores by Ethnicity 2002 – 2017 ...... 7

4 Students at or above Proficient on the NAEP Reading by Ethnicity 2017 ...... 9

5 Teacher Interview Questions by Topic Thread ...... 83

6 Student Interview Questions by Topic Thread ...... 86

7 Research Questions and Variables ...... 95

8 Teacher Demographic Data ...... 101

9 LAS Teacher Statements...... 102

10 Teacher LAS Responses with Scale Score ...... 104

11 Teacher Structure and Inherent Usefulness of AAVE ...... 105

12 Teacher Consequences of Using AAVE ...... 107

13 Teacher Philosophies Concerning the Use of AAVE ...... 109

14 Student Perception Survey Demographics...... 124

15 LAS Student Statements ...... 125

16 Student LAS Responses with Scale Score ...... 126

17 Student Structure and Inherent Usefulness of AAVE ...... 127

18 Student Consequences of Using AAVE ...... 129

19 Student Philosophies Concerning the Use of AAVE ...... 132

xi

1

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

One of the biggest issues facing educators today is how to improve the educational outcomes for African American students, particularly in reading (Paschall, & Kuhfeld, 2018;

Ladson-Billings, 2006; Horton, 2004; Lewis, James, Hancock, and Hill-Jackson, 2008;

Blackford & Khojasteh, 2013; Williams, 2011; Barton & Coley, 2010). The debate about the achievement gap has dominated the discussion with a plethora of policies, programs, and laws, including No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which hoped to resolve the issue. However, African

American students continue to trail behind their peers in reading comprehension as measured by standardized tests in reading (Craig, Connor, & Washington, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2006). The

No Child Left Behind Act signed into law in 2002 as a reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act was the most recent public education reform before the Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA) that became a law in 2015. NCLB was designed to improve educational goals for K-12 students, especially those in low-performing schools in the United States

(Paschall, & Kuhfeld, 2018; Hartney & Flavin, 2014) and ushered in the age of accountability for states, districts, and schools (Hartney & Flavin, 2014; Harrison-Jones, 2007). NCLB mandated yearly testing for all public-school students, and measured achievement in grades 4, 8, and high school in reading and math. The ESSA was enacted to further NCLB’s efforts to provide an equitable education to all students.

The Every Student Succeeds Act was signed into law by President Barack Obama on

December 10, 2015, as a part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act. This bipartisan federal policy was created to address some of the issues, such as 2

unattainable prescriptive measures imposed by NCLB while keeping some elements of the act.

The purpose of ESSA was to provide a law that focused on preparing all students for college and career success with no regard for their ethnic background, religion, or economic status (U.S.

Department of Education, n.d; The White House, 2015). ESSA introduced college and career ready standards while still maintaining accountability measures that were designed by the state not the federal government as was the case with NCLB (The White House, 2015). That is, while there would still be annual testing, states would set the performance standards for students and base those on multiple measures. Struggling schools would receive support and dedicated funding where subgroups were not performing well and/or the high school dropout rate was low.

Unlike NCLB, the ESSA included the Pre-K population and provided more access to high- quality preschools, a competitive program that recognized innovation amongst teachers

(evidence-based and place-based interventions), a program to replicate high-quality charter schools, and programs that included wrap around services in vulnerable communities (The White

House, 2015). The ESSA was signed into law as the next big step in education policy designed to provide a quality education to all students and prepare them for college or careers. Since ESSA is in its early stages of implementation, this research will use data obtained during the NCLB era to discuss the achievement gap.

Prior to NCLB, states voluntarily collected data on the achievement of students in different subjects using a variety of tools including the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP). However, NAEP testing became mandatory for states under NCLB. National and state assessments in reading and math were given at least once every two years for students in grades 4 and 8, and national assessments in reading and mathematics were administered to 3

students in grade 12 at scheduled intervals (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).

Long term trend assessments were also given to 9, 13, and 17-year olds in reading and math

(Thompson & Allen, 2012; The Nation’s Report Card, 2015). The reading assessment measured students’ ability to read for information, for literary experience, and to perform a task. Questions on the assessment measured one of the three reading cognitive targets: locate and recall, integrate and interpret, and critique and evaluate (The Nation’s Report Card, 2015; Dee & Jacob, 2010a).

Under NCLB, no significant improvements in reading among 4th graders on the NAEP for African American students were realized see Table 1).

Table 1

Trends in fourth grade NAEP average reading scores by ethnicity during the NCLB era, 2002 – 2017 Year White African Hispanic Asian/ America Two or American Pacific Indian/ More Islander Alaska Races Native 2017 232 206 209 239 202 227 2015 232 206 208 239 205 227 2013 232 206 207 235 205 227 2011 231 205 206 235 202 227 2009 230 205 205 235 204 226 2007 231 203 205 232 203 225 2005 229 200 203 229 204 223 2003 229 198 200 226 202 223 2002 229 199 201 224 207 219 Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 Reading Assessments.

In fact, as the data in Table 1 demonstrates, the average reading score for African American students in 2003 was 198, one year after NCLB; and by 2017, they had only realized an 8-point

(206) gain thirteen years after NCLB had been implemented. White 4th grade students did not 4

demonstrate significant improvements in reading under NCLB either. In 2003, the average scale score in reading for White students was 229; and by 2017, they had only realized a 3-point gain

(232). Some would argue that an eight-point gain for African American students represented progress for this demographic, but when one considers the difference between scores for this population and their White peers, that “progress” was not significant, and the achievement gap only slightly decreased. One year after NCLB was implemented in 2003, there was a 31-point gap between the reading scores of African American and White fourth graders with White students averaging a score of 229, and African American students averaging a score of 198. In

2005, there was a 29-point gap between the reading scores with White students averaging a score of 229, and African American students averaging a score of 200. In 2007, there was a 28-point gap with White students averaging a score of 231, and African American students averaging a score of 203. In 2009 and 2011, there was a 25-point and 26-point gap between these two demographics with White students averaging a score of 230 and 231 while African American students averaged scores of 205 and 205. By 2013, 2015, and 2017, the gap between African

American and White students’ reading scores was 26 points, a slight decrease from 2003. White students’ average scores were 232, and African American students’ averaged scores of 206. No significant changes in fourth grade reading achievement occurred in 2017 from 2015 or 2013 across all demographics.

If one goes further back and looks at data from the NAEP from 1992, the first reading assessment year, an achievement gap between African American students and their White peers was still apparent in fourth grade reading when White students’ average score was 224 while 5

African American students’ average score was 192, which was a 32-point gap (NAEP, 1992 and

2015 Reading Assessments).

This data demonstrates that the achievement gap in fourth grade reading has narrowed since 1992, but not in a manner that was statistically significant at only a 5-point difference from

1992 to 2017 with an average score of 217 in 1992 and an average score of 222 in 2017 (NAEP,

1992 and 2017 Reading Assessments). As the data in Table 1 shows, African American,

Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native average scores showed similar outcomes and were not statistically that different from each other though there were a few exceptions when comparing the African American and American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups in 2002 and

2005. The data in Table 2 shows gaps in reading among eighth grade students nationwide.

Table 2

Trends in eighth grade NAEP average reading scores by ethnicity during the NCLB era, 2002 – 2017 Year White African Hispanic Asian/ America Two or American Pacific Indian/ More Islander Alaska Races Native 2017 275 249 255 282 253 272 2015 274 248 253 280 252 269 2013 276 250 256 280 251 271 2011 274 249 252 275 252 269 2009 273 246 249 274 251 267 2007 272 245 247 271 247 265 2005 271 243 246 271 249 266 2003 272 244 245 270 246 266 2002 272 245 247 267 250 265 Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 Reading Assessments.

As the data in Table 2 shows, eighth grade students in all demographics performed better on the NAEP reading assessment than their fourth-grade peers. However, there was still a 6

considerable score gap between African American and White students. As demonstrated in the fourth-grade reading data previously discussed, African American, Hispanic, and American

Indian/Alaska Native students’ average scale scores showed similar achievement and were not statistically that different from each other. But, when comparing the African American and

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups, there were more instances of differences in scale scores between the two with a 6-point gap difference in 2005 being the highest. However, all three subgroups have gaps in scores with their White peers.

In 2002, 2007, and 2009, the eighth-grade score gap between White students and their

African American peers was 27 points. In 2003 and 2005, there was a 28-point gap between

White and African American students, a slight increase from 2002. In 2011, there was a 25-point gap between White and African American students’ average scores. White students averaged a score of 274 while African American students averaged a score of 249, a slight decrease from

2009. In 2013, the score gap increased to a 26-point gap with an average score of 276 for White students and 250 for African American students. In 2015 and 2017, no statistically significant changes in eighth grade reading achievement occurred across all subgroups. The 26-point gap between White and African American students remained, which is only 1-point difference from the average 2002 scale scores when NCLB became law.

As this data demonstrates, there were statistically significant differences in the scale scores of White and African American eighth-grade students. This difference was apparent in

1992 as well with White students averaging a scale score of 267 and African American students averaging a scale score of 237, a 30-point gap (NAEP, 1992 and 2017 Reading Assessments).

However, there was a slight narrowing of the reading achievement gap from 1992 to 2017 among 7

White and African American eighth-grade students decreasing from 30 to 26 points (NAEP,

1992 and 2017 Reading Assessments). But the score gap between these two groups continues to be significant pre-and post NCLB as this data demonstrates. It is alarming that 25-years after the first NAEP eighth grade reading assessment in 1992, there was only a four-point reduction in the gap score between White and African American students, and while the scale scores of both

White and African American students showed slight improvement in 2017, the gains expected over time along with the mandates of NCLB, were unable to significantly improve the outcomes for students, particularly African American students who have experienced historical inequity in public education in the United States (Ladd, 2017; Thompson & Allen, 2012; Dee & Jacob,

2010b; Reardon & Robinson, 2007; Lee, 2006). The data for twelfth grade students on the reading NAEP only confirmed the existence of the achievement gap (see Table 3).

Table 3

Trends in twelfth grade NAEP average reading scores by ethnicity during the NCLB era,2002 – 2015 Year White African Hispanic Asian/ American Two or American Pacific Indian/ More Islander Alaska Races Native 2015 295 266 276 297 279 295 2013 297 268 276 296 277 291 2009 296 269 274 298 283 298 2005 293 267 272 287 279 283 2002 292 267 273 286 ‡ 289 Note. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002, 2005, 2009, 2013, and 2015 Reading Assessments.

The score gap appears to have widened by the time African American students were in the twelfth grade in comparison with all other subgroups. As the data from Table 3 displays, 8

twelfth grade White students had significantly higher scale scores than their African American peers with the largest score gap between them being 29-points in 2013 and 2015. Each year of the assessment represents some growth or constant for all demographic groups except for 2015 when White students’ scale score reduced by 2-points, 2013 and 2015 for Asian/Pacific Islander students whose scale scores reduced 2-points and 1-point, 2013 and 2015 for American

Indian/Alaska Native students whose scale scores reduced 6-points, and 2-points. African

American students’ scores reduced 1-point in 2013 and 2-points in 2015. There was no data collected for twelfth grade students in 2017.

As this data demonstrates, there were statistically significant differences in the scale scores of White and African American students. In 2005, three years after NCLB was enacted, there was a 26-point gap between White and African American twelfth-grade students. In 2015, there was a 29-point gap between these two subgroups, which represents a slight widening of the achievement gap by 3 points from 2005. This increase in the achievement gap was also apparent in 1992 with White twelfth-grade students averaging a scale score of 297 and African American students averaging a scale score of 273, a 24-point gap (NAEP, 1992 and 2015 Reading

Assessments) that represents a 5-point decline in achievement from 2015. Twelfth-grade African

American students had the lowest scale scores each year out of all subgroups with enough students to report data. They also had the fewest students scoring at or above proficient on the

NAEP (see Table 4).

9

Table 4

Percentages of students scoring at or above proficient on the NAEP reading test by ethnicities, 2015 Reading African White Hispanic American Asian/ To or more American Indian/ Pacific races Alaska Islander Native Grade 4 18% 46% 21% 21% 55% 40%

Grade 8 16% 44% 21% 22% 52% 38%

High 17% 46% 25% 28% 48% 45% School

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2015 Reading Assessments.

Despite the intentions of NCLB, African American students across the country have not significantly benefitted from its implementation. Based on NAEP data in Table 4, African

American students had the lowest percentage of students scoring at or above proficient on the

NAEP reading test among the major racial/ethnic subgroups. The African American subgroup in grade 4 had 18% of students scoring at or above proficient, compared to 46% for the White subgroup, 21% for the Hispanic subgroup, 21% for the American Indian/Alaska Native subgroup, 55% for the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup, and 40% for the two or more-race subgroup. In grade 8, the African American subgroup had 16% of students scoring at or above proficient, compared to 44% for the White subgroup, 21% for the Hispanic subgroup, 22% for the American Indian/Alaska Native subgroup, 52% for the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup, and

38% for the two or more-race subgroup. In high school, the African American subgroup had

17% of students scoring at or above proficient, compared to 46% for the White subgroup, 25% 10

for the Hispanic subgroup, 28% for the American Indian/Alaska Native subgroup, 48% for the

Asian/ Pacific Islander subgroup, and 45% for the two or more-race subgroup.

While the number of fourth-grade students scoring at or above proficient for all ethnicities has increased since 1992 when the first reading NAEP assessment was given, the achievement gap between African American students and their peers was still substantial. The

African American student subgroup scoring at or above proficient went from 8% in 1992 to 18% in 2015, a definite improvement, but they still were considerably behind their fourth-grade White peers who scored 35% in 1992 and 46% in 2015. In eighth grade, African American students scoring at or above proficient went from 9% in 1992 to 16% in 2015, and White students went from 35% at or above proficient in reading in 1992 to 44% in 2015. In twelfth grade, the African

American student subgroup was at 18% at or above proficient in reading in 1992 but decreased to 17% in 2015. The White student subgroup remained at 46% in 1992 and 2015 (U.S.

Department of Education, 1992–2015 Reading Assessments). While the twelfth grade NAEP scores showed the least gains across the years for these subgroups, the African American student subgroup was significantly behind their White peers in scoring at or above proficient on the

NAEP reading assessment. If all students were expected to be proficient in reading by 2014 according to NCLB policy (Harrison-Jones, 2007), this data demonstrates how far students were from that goal.

The data from the 2017 NAEP reading assessment also did not show significant improvement in the percentage of students scoring at or above the proficient level. The fourth- grade African American student subgroup scoring at or above proficient went from 18% in 2015 to 20% in 2017. They still scored below their White peers who scored 46% in 2015 and 47% in 11

2017. In eighth grade, African American students scoring at or above proficient went from 16% in 2017 to 18% in 2017, a slight increase. White students went from 44% at or above proficient in reading in 2015 to 45% in 2017, a slight increase (U.S. Department of Education, 1992–2017

Reading Assessments). There was no data collected for twelfth grade students in 2017.

These data comparisons highlight the unease and concern educators have about African

American students’ achievement in reading, and it is this concern that fuels continuous efforts to close the achievement gap. This researcher would add that the alarm also extends to Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native students as well because their reading data is comparable to

African American students’ scores in many cases. Other researchers have conducted studies on the academic gaps experienced by these populations, and future studies by this researcher may be conducted where the achievement gaps among all three populations are analyzed for trends and patterns. However, the focus of the current research is on the Black-White achievement gap that was the impetus for the creation of NCLB.

The expected gains in student achievement under NCLB were never realized, and in fact, most of the goals that were established originally were not met, such as all students being proficient in reading and math by 2014 (Harrison-Jones, 2007). NCLB was intended to make a positive difference in the lives of all children, especially those in low-performing schools, but it failed to improve the education of African American students despite the mandates for highly qualified teachers in the classroom, requiring school districts to make adequate yearly progress

(AYP), requiring district and school report cards to report AYP measures, and requiring states to rate a school’s effectiveness based on its AYP (Thompson & Allen, 2012; Harrison-Jones, 2007;

Jones, 2010; Dee & Jacob, 2010b). Even with these elements built into the NCLB framework, 12

African American students continued to progress at slower rates than their White peers, and the achievement gap persisted. Extensive research has attempted to discover the reasons for the achievement gap (Morales, 2016; Williams, 2011; Barton & Coley, 2009; Connor & Craig,

2006; Cowan-Pitre, 2014).

Much has been written about the reasons for the achievement gap, including in-school and out of school factors. Some of the reasons given for the achievement gap are student mobility, teacher quality, home environment, lack of curriculum rigor, and parental involvement, which addresses the amount of time families spend at home reading and on educational tasks

(Morales, 2016; Williams, 2011; Barton & Coley, 2009; Connor & Craig, 2006; Cowan-Pitre,

2014). Socioeconomic status is another explanation given for the achievement gap because of families’ inabilities to provide proper nutrition and access to resources and experiences. It should be noted that most researchers reject the theory that poverty is responsible for the achievement gap because it makes students appear to be deficient somehow and blames them for their circumstances without acknowledging the historical inequity and social structures that were created to deny them access to a quality education in the first place (Cowan-Pitre, 2014; Lewis et al., 2008). This inequity will be discussed further in chapter two. A theory that has received considerable attention in the literature is that when students’ home language differs significantly from the official language spoken and taught in school, students speaking a non-standard language have trouble; and this difficulty is true of African American Vernacular English- speaking students (AAVE) (Beneke & Cheathem, 2015; Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Zurer-Pearson et al., 2013). Other researchers believe that the issue is not simply about dialect differences.

Instead, they look to teachers’ (including pre-service teachers) lack of understanding of dialects 13

and their negative perceptions of students’ dialects that impact their learning (Fogel & Ehri,

2006; Conner, & Jackson, 2013; Bowie & Bond, 1994; Champion, Cobb-Roberts, & Bland-

Stewart, 2012; Good & Nichols, 2001; Sirota & Bailey, 2009; Holliday, 1985; Adenika & Berry,

1976; Ferguson, 2003; Cross, Devaney, & Jones, 2001; Godley, Sweetland, Wheeler, Minnici, &

Carpenter, 2006; Beneke & Cheathem, 2015).

Some teachers have a negative perception of AAVE as the students who speak AAVE are often seen as being unintelligent, lacking confidence, and less likely to be successful than their

Standard English (SE) peers (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Mordaunt, 2011; Zurer-Pearson et al., 2013;

Shepherd, 2011; Spears & Hinton, 2010; Godley & Escher, 2012). Teachers of AAVE-speaking students are also more critical of their students’ class work that contains AAVE, seeing AAVE as inferior to work expressed in SE and often replacing students’ AAVE with SE as traditional practice (Beneke & Cheathem, 2015). Fogel & Ehri (2006) stated that:

Such negative assessments and reduced expectations can impact students by significantly

depressing their motivation, self-confidence, and self-efficacy, interfering with their

ability to learn to read, write, and speak SE; and supporting a self-fulfilling prophecy of

poor performance and low achievement” (p. 466).

These negative teachers’ attitudes toward AAVE-speaking students can transfer to them, resulting in self-defeat and low self-esteem (Adenika & Berry, 1976; Douglas, Lewis, Douglas,

Scott, & Garrison-Wade, 2008; Bowie & Bond, 1994; Goodman & Buck, 1997; DeMeis &

Turner, 1978; Godley et al., 2006; Beneke & Cheathem, 2015). While these attitudes may be blatant, the researcher believes that there are more instances of subconscious disdain towards

AAVE, and consequently, AAVE-speaking children, by teachers as seen in the Black English 14

Case. The case brought against the Ann Arbor School District in 1979 by the parents of AAVE- speaking children was based on how teachers’ negative attitudes toward their language impacted student discipline, placement in special services, and instruction (Smitherman & Baugh, 2002).

The judge found that the school district had not done enough to prepare their teachers to instruct

AAVE-speaking students resulting in very negative educational experiences for the plaintiffs

(Sung & Allen-Handy, 2019; Smitherman & Baugh, 2002).

One would have to only look at the historical racism, discrimination, and negative stereotypes experienced by African American people to begin to understand these attitudes towards AAVE. Eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume described African

Americans as “naturally inferior to the whites” in an essay (Gates & Smith, 2014, p. xxxviii).

Hume went on to describe that civilized societies were only found amongst White people, and no individuals amongst African Americans were renowned in action or conjecture. Hume extended this belief to describe there were no arts, science, or manufacturers amongst African Americans

(Gates & Smith, 2014). The German philosopher Immanuel Kant responded to Hume’s essay by describing African Americans as having “by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling”

(Gates & Smith, 2014, p. xxxviii). Kant went on to assert that there was a difference in color and mental ability between African Americans and Whites (Gates & Smith, 2014). The deficiency philosophy that classified African Americans and other minorities as being childlike in intelligence, genetically inferior, and having simple language expression originated in slavery during the seventeenth century (Hoover, 1990; Taylor, 1998). In the mid-1700s, Thomas

Jefferson described Blacks as being intellectually inferior (Jefferson, 1832). It was widely 15

believed during slavery and afterwards that African Americans were cognitively deficient. Judge

R.P. Carpenter of South Carolina said about African Americans in the 1870s:

The colored population upon the seacoast and upon the rivers, in point of intelligence, is

just slightly removed from the animal creation as it is conceivable for man to be…. They

talk a very outlandish idiom, utterly unknown to me. They are very ignorant, and still

have very strong passions, and these bad men lead them just as a man would lead or drive

sheep. (Bullock, 1970, p. 61)

The belief that AAVE was a mark of ignorance and unintelligible was a constant theme from the

1700s through the 21st century, and this belief was used to describe the language and consequently, the African American people. The forced illiteracy of the enslaved and the criminalization of those who tried to teach them to read certainly contributed to the stereotype of

AAVE as sub-standard speech. An example of this belief in more modern times was the public uproar and misunderstanding following the 1996 Oakland School Board Resolution on Ebonics that was incorrectly taken to understand that AAVE was going to be taught in classrooms (Sung

& Allen-Handy, 2019; Blake & Cutler, 2003; Cross et al., 2001; Tamura, 2002; Baugh, 2015).

When it was believed that AAVE would be taught to children, there was a huge public outcry denouncing this plan and AAVE. The truth was the Oakland School Board Resolution recognized AAVE as the home language of AAVE-speaking students and would use it to scaffold literacy instruction to improve the academic outcomes for these students. What followed was a condemnation of the vernacular and the resolution and programming that was put in place for AAVE-speaking students (Sung & Allen-Handy, 2019; Blake & Cutler, 2003; Mordaunt,

2011; Tamura, 2002; Baugh, 2015). Under pressure from parents, the media, politicians, and the 16

public, the Oakland School Board ended their efforts. The very vocal displeasure with the school board’s resolution reflected the lack of cultural competence about AAVE-speaking students prevalent in society and transferred to the classroom.

In the period following Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the concept of cultural deprivation or disadvantage began to appear in the literature to describe how culture was critical to comprehending why the academic achievement of students of color was hindered. The idea was that there was a gap between the cultures of students of color and the mainstream culture that needed to be filled. During this time, no distinctions were made between specific demographic groups or their specific cultural needs. Students were either White or culturally disadvantaged from the late 1950s through the 1970s (Schmeichel, 2012). If the authority in the classroom views students as being culturally deprived or disadvantaged, they may approach instructing those students with limitations and not push or challenge them as they may do for others. The belief that students of different races are fundamentally different from one another is based on the belief that white, middle class responses and opinions are the norm. Researchers had concerns about culture differences especially with white, middle class, female teachers and the students of color in their classrooms. “The interactions between teachers who expected ‘the norm’ and students who were not ‘the norm’ were described as problematic, and as contributing to the academic failure of the students of colour” (Schmeichel, 2012, p. 214). Students who do not conform to the teacher’s norm may have trouble in that teacher’s class (Schmeichel, 2012;

Goldenberg, 2014). For students who have already experienced historical educational disenfranchisement, it is distressing to think of the destructiveness of this possibility. As unfortunate as it is, these perceptions are based on beliefs and events that occurred in United 17

States history. The influence of history and its conditioning cannot be overstated. While it is a tender and often avoided topic, the damage of slavery must be understood and discussed as the origin of the challenges AAVE-speaking students and their teachers experience today.

The gap between White teachers and Black students is exacerbated by powerful social

conditioning that cultivates actual negative attitudes towards Black students. Researchers

(Boykin, 1992; Darder, 1991; Scheurich, 1993) believe that many White teachers work

from within a hegemonic, Western, epistemological framework, which often predisposes

them to have lower expectations of Black students and a lack of respect for the students’

families and primary culture. (Douglas et al., 2008, p. 49).

Teachers bring their own cultural values and experiences to school and identify these as factors that helped them meet their goals and define who they are. These values may give them a preconceived notion of what success is or should be. Their cultural values and experiences also provide an image of what success looks like and what it does not. When teachers encounter someone, who does not fit into that image of success, a cultural mismatch may occur (Shedrow,

2017; Douglas et al., 2008; McGrady & Reynolds, 2013; Goldenberg, 2014). This coupled with the historical portrayal of African Americans as inferior in intelligence and less than human could be the source of these low expectations and lack of respect for African American language and culture. These ideas were once openly promoted in the United States, and they have influenced the disconnect between Whites and African Americans including student and teacher relationships (Henfield & Washington, 2012; (Haynes) Walker, 2011; Gorski, 2011; Douglas et al., 2008; Hoover, 1990). These beliefs have negatively affected educational institutions, policies, and curriculum towards African American students and other people of color (Gorski, 18

2011; Douglas et al., 2008; Hoover, 1990). In the interest of social justice, it is critical that teacher training programs and school districts take more than a passing interest in this topic as the achievement gap continues to widen for African American students (Zhao, 2016; Thompson

& Allen, 2012).

Rationale and Significance of the Study

The lack of diversity in schools has implications for student academic achievement and outcomes (Bryant, Triplett, Watson, & Lewis, 2017). The demographics of teacher and student populations in the United States must be examined to understand why they are so important to the classroom dynamic as it relates to AAVE-speaking students and their teachers. The current public-school population is made up of 51% White students, 16% African American, 24%

Hispanic, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 3% Multiracial students (Bryant et al., 2017). African American students made up 17% of all students enrolled in public schools in 2002 (Center on Education Policy, 2010; U.S. Department of Education,

2016). This number decreased to 16% in 2012 and is expected to drop to 15% by 2024 (U.S.

Department of Education, 2016). At the present time, 75% of African American students are attending school in predominately African American schools with some large urban districts having over 90% minority student populations (Bryant et al., 2017). While African American students are attending schools with large minority student populations, this diversity is not reflected in the teacher workforce in these schools.

Most teachers in public schools in the United States are White, and student populations in the 21st century in urban settings are predominately students of color and many are African

Americans (Bettini, Walraven, Billingsley, & Williams, 2018; Shedrow, 2017; Warren, 2015; 19

Douglas et al., 2008). The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that by 2024, students of color will make up 56% of the public-school population, but the teaching workforce will continue to be overwhelmingly White as it has been for the past fifteen years (Bettini et al.,

2018; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). According to the most recent data from the 2011-

2012 U.S. Department of Education Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 82% of the 3,385,200 teachers in the country were White and 7% were African American with African American male teachers making up only 2% of the entire teaching force (U.S. Department of Education, 2012;

U.S. Department of Education, 2016); these numbers were down from 1987-1988 when 87% of teachers were White compared to 8% who were African American (Sun, 2018; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). The research on African American teachers’ career patterns and factors influencing their career moves are very scarce (Sun, 2018). But what is clear is that this is the first time in history where African American students are being taught by a majority of teachers who do not share the same ethnic and cultural background as them (U.S. Department of

Education, 2016; Douglas et al., 2008). In fact, the data shows that in every state there is a higher percentage of students of color than teachers of color, and the student population is expected to become more diverse (U.S. Department of Education, 2016), so how African American and other students of color perform impacts the economy and social health of the country (Center on

Education Policy, 2010). Social justice tenets ask educators and researchers to consider the potentially positive educational and social outcomes change efforts can have on AAVE-speaking students and their teachers. Providing African American students with positive English Language

Arts (ELA) instructional experiences are important to their success and confidence in school, which may transfer to other subjects and promote their interest in higher education. 20

In the last couple of decades, much research has focused on the need to view language learning from multiple perspectives that recognize and respect culture as an important factor in individual development and instruction. The New London Group introduced the term multiliteracies to the field and literacy pedagogy in 1994. This group of educators recognized that new multimedia technologies were heavily influencing society and impacting globalization

(New London Group, 1996). They believed that because of this, it was necessary to employ a multiliteracies approach to language learning that included a variety of cultural, linguistic, communication, and technological perspectives and resources to prepare students for the changing world. This evolving world needed to make use of multiliteracies to provide new opportunities for students to contribute to their own development, society, and futures, which they believed was the purpose of education. The New London Group hoped to move language instruction away from a single technique that relied on traditional methods, promoted one culture, and relied on a national language towards more recognition and the ability for students to successfully interact with multiple languages because of their emphasis on linguistic and cultural diversity in the workplace, society, and private life. The attention and interaction of visual, audio, spatial, and other learning modes were important in multiliteracies to educators and students who were viewed as active participants in social change and designing meaning (New

London Group, 1996). The emphasis on culture and linguistic diversity would continue as an important theme in education going forward.

Another important framework that emerged in the latter part of the twentieth century was culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP). CRP is also known as culturally congruent, culturally appropriate, multicultural education, or culturally relevant pedagogy (Rhodes, 2017; Harmon, 21

2012). CRP “is a way for schools to acknowledge the home-community culture of the students, and through sensitivity to cultural nuances integrate these cultural experiences, values, and understandings into the teaching and learning environment” (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p.

67). Neither schools nor students are homogenous. Teachers may be coming to schools with different cultures than their students creating a cultural mismatch that can negatively impact and create gaps in learning. In order for authentic learning experiences to take place, there must be a connection between the home and school cultures. Intentionally including students’ backgrounds in instruction and planning removes the presence of deficiency and replaces it with the value of difference (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Put another way, if teachers do not have a complete understanding of the language and cultures of their students, they may be missing opportunities to bring students’ cultures into the classroom to improve learning outcomes (Walter, 2018;

Mackay & Strickland, 2018; Bassey, 2016; Harmon, 2012). The ethnic group of the teacher is not an indicator of his or her ability to engage and positively impact African American students.

In fact, it is unlikely that the number of White teachers will decrease and those of African

American teachers increase any time soon as the teacher workforce demographics have remained consistent over the years (Bryant et.al, 2017; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). The point is the importance of all teachers becoming more conscious of language and culture as the basis for how they approach instruction that is rooted in the value of different as opposed to the negative behaviors associated with deficit perspectives. Culturally responsive pedagogy’s importance to the current study will be discussed later in this chapter.

The current study will add to the research on the relationship between teacher perception of AAVE-speaking students and ELA instruction. The researcher will also expand the literature 22

by including the relationship between the perception of AAVE-speaking students and their confidence and motivation in the ELA class. Typically, pre-service and in-service teachers are the participants in studies on this topic. But the perspective of AAVE-speaking students is necessary for a more complete understanding. The researcher is also adding to the transformative mixed methods research body of literature through the study of this topic by including both teacher and student participants as authorities on the subject.

This research will benefit teachers of African American children and the students themselves. If educators are exposed to linguistic difference in the African American community that might improve ELA instruction, they may begin to decrease the gaps in reading achievement and increase positive perceptions of AAVE. Furthermore, this study has the potential to improve the social-emotional needs of African American children in addition to their academic needs if they are exposed to educators who accept that culture and language should be explored in instruction. In that case, these students will not have to abandon their use of AAVE to access the school curriculum. Lastly, this research may impact the parents of African American children who may gain a deeper understanding of how AAVE can be used to improve the understanding of SE in ELA and how AAVE-speaking students can preserve their home language and learn to codeswitch or code mesh as needed.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to explore how teachers’ perceptions or opinions of AAVE determines how they instruct AAVE-speaking students in ELA classes. The researcher will gather data from K-5 teachers of AAVE-speaking students using a Language Attitude Survey

(LAS), one-on-one interviews, and collect and analyze student work samples with teacher 23

feedback. To further add to the research and present a balanced picture of the issues, the researcher will include AAVE-speaking student participants in the study. The researcher seeks to understand how the students’ perceptions of AAVE guide their motivation and confidence in

ELA classes. Students in grades 3-5 attending elementary school in a predominately African

American populated school will be invited to participate in the study. The researcher selected this group of students because in the current literature if student participants were used, they were secondary students. The research needs to explore and learn the perspectives of this younger population. Additionally, since these students are younger, the researcher believes they are more likely to have retained their AAVE usage and its connection to their identity. Like the teacher participants, students will also be asked to complete the LAS to analyze their thoughts about AAVE in general and AAVE use in the classroom. Students completing the LAS will be randomly selected to participate in one-on-one interviews where their thoughts on AAVE will be further explored.

Theoretical Framework

The transformative paradigm is concerned with addressing issues of social justice using a mixed methods design. This framework recognizes that historically, research does not always serve the needs of the disenfranchised who have been excluded from a position of power in research; thus, the transformative paradigm is necessary to reflect on power and social justice issues (Barnhardt, Reyes, Vidal Rodriguez, & Ramos, 2018; Jackson, Pukys, Castro, Hermosura,

Mendez, Vohra-Gupta, Padilla, & Morales, 2018; Mertens, 2007; Sweetman, Badiee, &

Creswell, 2010; Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). This paradigm’s central focus is on issues of power and ensuring that these are considered in every phase of research 24

including the selection of topic, community input, and methodology (Mertens, 2007; Creswell et al., 2003). The subject of this study involves the perception of AAVE by ELA teachers and how it influences how they instruct AAVE-speaking students. The issues of power in the teacher- student relationship and the debate about African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and

Standard English (SE) are topics that reflect the issues of power concerning this study. In addition, AAVE-speaking students’ perspectives were included to give a voice and a sense of authority to the subject. Using the triangulation measures of mixed methods, researchers can give a voice to all perspectives in culturally complex societies, bringing the reality of the issues to life from the point of view of those in power and those who are subject to that power. Taking these steps allows researchers who want to promote change to make authentic appeals for social justice and equity (Mertens, 2007).

The transformative mixed methods research paradigm informed this study’s design, including identification of participants, instrumentation, and data collection procedures. The four assumptions identified by Guba and Lincoln (2005) that advise all research paradigms— ontological, epistemological, methodological, and axiological—informed this study (Mertens,

2017; Mertens, 2007; Mertens, 2010). The transformative paradigm provides specific expectations at each level for researchers interested in social justice and issues of power for the disenfranchised.

Ontological

The transformative ontological assumption asks the researcher to acknowledge that reality is socially constructed and shaped by race or ethnicity, gender, social values, cultural values, and economic values. Thus, there are multiple realities present at one time, and one must be aware that issues of power and exclusion are always present. Consequently, the 25

disenfranchised may not be given consideration in the methodology, including the focus and research questions (Mertens, 2007). However, the ontological assumption, while accepting multiple perspectives, asserts there is one reality and many opinions about that reality. The transformative researcher must learn about these opinions (Mertens, 2010). Some of the questions posed under the ontological assumption in the transformative paradigm are:

How is reality defined? By whom? Whose reality is given privilege? What are the social

justice implications of accepting reality that has not been subjected to a critical analysis

on the basis of power differentials? How can mixed methods shed additional light on the

capture and interpretation of reality? (Mertens, 2007, p. 216)

The researcher attempted to answer these questions by carefully considering the realities of pertinent participants to the research. This study not only described teachers’ perceptions of

AAVE in general and in the school setting, but it also solicited the perspective of AAVE- speaking students and sought to understand the relationship between their perceptions of AAVE and their motivation and confidence in ELA. The use of mixed methods—transformative mixed methods—allowed the researcher to gather data that not only represented multiple perspectives, but also focused the reason for the inquiry and evaluated issues of power throughout the research process as they impacted those who were marginalized: AAVE-speaking students (Mertens,

2010; Mertens, 2007; Mertens, 1999; Sweetman et al., 2010). The alarming educational outcomes experienced by African American students in reading heightened the importance of reporting on their experiences. The transformative framework was ideal for this purpose since it allowed the researcher to report on the lives of real people subject to the authority of those in power and allowed social justice issues to be addressed to further human rights through the research process (Jackson et al., 2018; Mertens, 2007; Sweetman et al., 2010). 26

Epistemological

The transformative epistemological assumption is about the trust established between the researcher and the participants. Specifically, it regards the researcher being aware of power relations that may exist between her and the participants in the study and the respect of culture and realities of the participants (Mertens, 2007; Mertens, Bledsoe, Sullivan, & Wilson, 2003).

To support this assumption, the mixed methods design was preferred due to its cyclical pattern of research that encouraged partnerships between researchers and the community to include an understanding of power differences and rapport that was built from culturally competent processes (Barnhardt et al., 2018; Mertens, 2007; Mertens, 2010). Mixed methods design often use data sources that run concurrently. This study used a similar method in that the survey, semi- structured interview, and artifact collection were occurring around the same time with little time lost between them. Once the teacher participants were selected, student selection and survey participation occurred. The artifact collection also occurred shortly after the interview. The purpose was to get a full picture of the realities of all the participants. The cyclical process asked community members to be involved with the project from beginning to end with the understanding that the research would provide consistent change in the community (Mertens,

2007). To support this, the researcher also conducted member checks of interview transcripts to make sure that she was accurately representing the participants’ thoughts and perceptions.

Methodological

The methodological assumption of the transformative framework is concerned with using mixed methods to promote dialogue between the researcher and members of the community.

(Barnhardt et al., 2018; Mertens, 2012; Mertens et al., 2003). The methodological choices must be made with a conscious understanding of the background and history related to discrimination 27

and marginalization (Mertens, 2012; Sweetman et al., 2010). The researcher has given the background of the stigma associated with AAVE in society and school and gives an historical context on slavery’s role in the achievement gap in chapter two. This is why it is recommended to use qualitative methods first to build trust and relationships with the community. The community members have a prominent role throughout the research process in the methodological assumption using a cyclical model where they participate in some capacity from beginning to end (Mertens, 2010). Prior to the study, the researcher met with community members to discuss the study and solicit teacher participants. The researcher spoke to the student participants to seek their assent after getting consent from their parents to participate. During the study, the teacher and student participants’ experiences and realities were sought out to examine the issues using multiple methods to collect data. The researcher also conferred with participants during member checks on interview transcripts for accuracy and clarity.

Axiological

The transformative axiological assumption is central to the framework and informs the other three assumptions. The axiological assumption is about the researcher showing respect for the culture and history of the disenfranchised as well as being conscious of how to interact to conduct research that promotes social justice (Mertens, 2010; Mertens et al., 2003). Under the framework, researchers need to have a grasp of widespread discrimination and deep knowledge of the community to challenge this discrimination as the platform for social justice (Mertens,

2007). As outlined above, the researcher has in-depth knowledge of the discrimination faced by

African Americans in this country in education. In addition, the topic of this research study is

AAVE, a language system the researcher speaks and respects. The researcher tried to understand this subject from teachers and from the students who speak AAVE. The researcher hopes to 28

change the academic outcomes in ELA for AAVE-speaking students by using the students’ home language as the tool to make that change. Giving recognition and importance to the home language of students is the foundation for culturally responsive teaching (CRT), the theoretical basis that informed this research.

Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) describes the importance of valuing and using students’ home languages and cultures in the classroom during instruction to build a bridge between home and school (Walter, 2018; Mackay & Strickland, 2018; Harmon, 2012). In CRT, teachers include students’ in the creation of knowledge in the classroom using their personal and cultural strengths as assets where prior knowledge, student interest, and language are used in learning activities (Walter, 2018; Mackay & Strickland, 2018; Rhodes, 2017; Bassey, 2016;

Harmon, 2012). CRT asks teachers to develop a sociocultural consciousness that acknowledges and accepts that the way students think, behave, and identify are heavily influenced by race, class, and language. CRT obliges teachers to see differences as indications of diversity that they honor and respect in the classroom and grow from due to interactions with students (Walter,

2018; Mackay & Strickland, 2018). Using students’ strengths in the classroom during instruction, validates and empowers them. Furthermore, when teachers understand the learning styles of their students, their hobbies, and interests, they can use these in instruction to motivate students to learn (Walter, 2018; Mackay & Strickland, 2018; Bassey, 2016; Gay 2002). CRT views culture as a strength that can improve academic and social achievement (Bassey, 2016).

Studies of teachers who used CRT have had success instructing and building relationships with

African American students (Bassey, 2016; Harmon, 2012). African American students, in particular, perform better in school when instruction is presented through their experiences

(Bassey, 2016; Harmon, 2012; Gay, 2002). The transformative framework seeks to correct 29

injustice and inequity suffered by the community of concern or disenfranchised people (Harmon,

2012). The framework works from the premise that the historical oppression that impacts the current conditions for the community of concern have risen to the level of social justice. Because the disenfranchised often have no voice to address their conditions, educators and researchers must make social justice reform the goal of their research (Bassey, 2012). Culturally responsive teaching views “social justice as a means of exposing and altering the institutions that perpetuate systematic oppression; social justice as a means of perceiving oppressive patterns that affect students as individuals and others in society; and social justice as a means of developing wide- awakeness” (Bassey, 2016, p. 2-3). Both teachers and students are viewed as experts of their own experience and advocates for social justice in CRT who challenge the status quo (Bassey, 2016;

Harmon, 2012). This theory is aligned with the transformative framework with its emphasis on utilizing home language and culture in the classroom to improve the academic and social outcomes for African American students. Culture and diversity are valued by the transformative framework and CRT. Furthermore, both CRT and the transformative framework promote understanding and learning about the experiences of the community to effect change.

Understanding the power dynamics that exist to explain historical and present conditions are essential to effectively practice the transformative framework and CRT (Bassey, 2016). The research questions, research design, sample population, collected data and analysis, and recommendations support CRT as the theoretical basis for this research.

Research Questions

The present study examined how ELA teachers’ perceptions of AAVE-speaking students shaped their methods of instruction for these students. It also sought to understand how AAVE- 30

speaking students’ opinions of AAVE determined their motivation and confidence in ELA. The present study sought to answer the following research questions.

1. What is a teacher’s perception of AAVE-speaking students in regard to intellectual

capabilities, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her instructional

approach with these students in English/Language Arts?

2. What is an African American Vernacular English-speaking student’s perception of

AAVE, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her motivation and

confidence in English/Language Arts?

The researcher hoped that the data gathered in the study would have positive implications for teacher training programs where pre- and in-service teachers instructing students who speak

AAVE would be trained in linguistic diversity and prevention of linguistic discrimination through personal language bias exploration and correction beginning with intensive training on

AAVE syntactic patterns that differ from those expected and taught in ELA classrooms. The researcher hoped that this change in process, thought, and practice would transfer to students who will feel more accepted and respected as linguistically different, but not deficient and more than capable of accessing and using the ELA curriculum without compromising their heritage and identity.

Definitions and Terms

The following terms were defined as they were used in this research and were significant to understanding this topic. 31

Achievement Gap. The achievement gap occurs “when one group of students continually disproportionately outperforms other groups of students on achievement tests”

(Blackford & Khojasteh, 2013, p. 6). The National Center for Educational Statistics adds to the definition when stating “the difference in average scores for the two groups is statistically significant” (Cowan-Pitre, 2014, p. 209). While White students also outperform other minority students such as Native American and Hispanic, the gap between African American and White students is what most research on the achievement gap describes (Lewis et al., 2008; Blackford

& Khojasteh, 2013; Williams, 2011), and this study will focus on this disparity. The achievement gap is seen in students’ grades, standardized test scores, and other student measures of academic success like college admission (Blackford & Khojasteh, 2013; Cowan-Pitre, 2014; Connor &

Craig, 2006). The term Black-White achievement gap and achievement gap are used interchangeably in the research.

African American. The term African American is used to refer to the Americans who descended from enslaved Africans. This usage became popular in 1966 and continues in the present. The term was the result of the recognition of one’s connection to the African continent and other Africans in the Diaspora (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002.)

African American Vernacular English. African American Vernacular English (AAVE) also known as African American Language (AAL), African American English (AAE), Ebonics,

Bilalian Language (Morgan, 1994), Black English, and Black English Vernacular among others refers to the language system spoken by African American people with its own pronunciation, grammar, syntax, and semantics rules (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Harris & Schroeder, 2013; Vetter,

2013; Boutte & Johnson, 2013; Connor & Craig, 2006; Zurer-Pearson et al., 2013; Newkirk- 32

Turner, Williams, Harris, & McDaniels, 2013; Cross et al., 2001). It is important to note that not all people of African descent living in America speak AAVE (Zurer-Pearson et al., 2013; Vetter,

2013; Lewis, 2008; Champion et al., 2012; Newkirk-Turner et al., 2013; Gupta. 2010) nor do all

AAVE speakers use every pattern or feature of AAVE (Lewis, 2008). There are variations in language patterns amongst African Americans that can be attributed to home environment and upbringing, socioeconomic status, education, and dialect. This research does not intend to suggest this definition of AAVE applies to every African American. This definition and research refers to those African Americans who speak AAVE throughout the course of their day in formal and informal circumstances with their familiar acquaintances and those who are unfamiliar and do so with consistent daily use. Vetter (2013) identified speakers of AAVE as those who are working class people in rural and urban areas (Vetter, 2013; Lewis, 2008). Zurer-Pearson et al

(2013) stated that most African American children show patterns of AAVE when they first enter school in kindergarten. It is estimated that at least 80%1 of African Americans use AAVE at some time though their usage varies depending on situation and context. Thus, it is likely that teachers teaching African Americans will encounter students who show some AAVE patterns during their elementary school years because of its widespread usage. In addition, there are some southern Whites and urban Latinos who also speak AAVE (Mordaunt, 2011; Gupta, 2010), which can be attributed to their proximity and communion with AAVE speakers. It is important to note that the different names given to the vernacular or home/community language of African

American people follows the social timeline of what they have been called since the nineteenth century (Mordaunt, 2011; Wassink & Curzan, 2004; Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002; Smitherman,

1Linguists stated that 80% of African American children use AAVE at some time while testifying during the ‘Black English Case’—a federal court case brought against the Ann Arbor School District Board that successfully argued that the district violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (Mordaunt, 2011). 33

1994). Thus, terms like Negro dialect, Negro English, and American Negro speech faded from use as did the term Negro due to the disrespect inherent in their use and society’s agreement on their inappropriateness (Mordaunt, 2011; Wassink & Curzan, 2004; Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002).

Some researchers take an alternative view on the many names associated with African

Americans. They suggest that when those who were dominated could name themselves, they did so to control their own identity and defined themselves in a show of power. While there is a debate concerning the negative impact on the legitimacy of African American speech because of the multiple titles it has (Wassink & Curzan, 2004), the researcher will use the term AAVE to describe the language spoken by African American students as it is heavily used in the research and the term vernacular or home language speaks to the issues being explored in this study.

Code Switching. Code switching is a strategy that allows AAVE-speaking students to choose to speak and maintain their home language but learn SE and switch between the two as needed (Baker-Bell, 2013; Boutte & Johnson, 2013). Code switching allows AAVE-speaking students to understand how setting is important to selecting the most appropriate form of communication. It provides a positive and culturally relevant manner to teach speaking and writing to AAVE-speaking children using their existing language system (Swindler-Boutte,

2015). Some researchers, however, are critical of code switching viewing it as a deficit model that promotes a transitional rather than additive approach. These critics have recently been promoting code meshing where students use alternating languages in a single conversation.

Code meshing removes the racial compromises conducted during code switching according to some researchers. Students can be more expressive using code meshing particularly in light of 34

the decreasing boundaries between formal and informal language in media communications and academic and political dialogue (McBee-Orzulak, 2015).

Dialect. Linguists define dialect as a variety of language spoken in a certain region or by a social group (Godley & Escher, 2012; Godley et al., 2006). This does not equate to a lesser or grammatically incorrect way of speaking as is popularly believed. Research has shown that all dialects have an equal structure and logic with variation in pronunciation, grammatical patterns, and vocabulary (Godley et al., 2006). Some dialects are stigmatized. These dialects are not valued in social institutions like schools, media, and business, and there is bias shown towards the dialect and the people who speak it. AAVE is an example of a stigmatized dialect as well as

Appalachian English and Chicano English (Godley et al., 2006).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). President George W. Bush charged educators and school districts to close the achievement gap by the 2013-2014 school year under the No Child

Left Behind Act by requiring districts to have all students demonstrate at least proficiency in reading and math scores on state standardized tests (Jones, 2010). Schools and districts were required to disaggregate student data including subgroups (e.g. special education, Blacks, SES, etc.,) within the schools to show the progress made with all students over the course of a school year. This data was reported publicly on annual report cards along with graduation rates for high school students. The public could see tangible proof of the Black-White achievement gap as a result. If schools did not make adequate yearly progress consistently, states were required to impose sanctions, so how students performed on annual tests had tremendous impact on their schools standing, and thus, their own progress (Dee & Jacob, 2010b). In December 2015, NCLB was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). 35

Standard English (SE). Standard English also known as Standard American English,

School English, Mainstream American English, and/or General American English is the language spoken and expected to be spoken by those in the media, government, and education.

It is the dialect spoken by many teachers and White students, and it is the English used in textbooks, on tests, and in school (Connor & Craig, 2006; Mordaunt, 2011; Zurer-Pearson et al.,

2013; Godley et al., 2006; Cross et al., 2001). SE is the socially preferred language variety because it is used by the most powerful White people in society. There is no single SE dialect because regional standard dialects can be found throughout the country and around the world.

There are also many structural differences between written and spoken standard Englishes

(Godley et al., 2006). The term Standard English is often used in the research, so for consistency, the researcher will use the term Standard English (SE) in this study to describe the language ELA teachers speak and instruct their students in school. It should be noted that some African

American people speak SE as their primary language while others speak a combination of SE and AAVE (Boutte & Johnson, 2013).

Limitations

Although this research was planned with careful consideration, the researcher is aware of some limitations. First, the study was based on a purposive sample rather than a random sample.

The researcher has confined the participants to ELA teachers in grades K-5 from the school site who work with AAVE-speaking students. Thus, they have knowledge and/or prior information that the study needs. While it was likely that ELA teachers in secondary school had insight and data to add to this subject, the researcher elected not to include them to focus on elementary-aged students who were “newer” to public school and participants in critical literacy instruction for 36

state programs such as the Third Grade Reading Guarantee. The Third Grade Reading Guarantee is a program in the state of Ohio that identifies students in grades K-3 that are behind in reading.

Schools are required to provide support to make sure students are on track for reading success by the end of third grade (Ohio Department of Education, 2017). Since the subject of the study analyzed teachers’ approaches to instruction in ELA, teachers in other subjects were not included in the study. Other staff members such as counselors, paraprofessionals, and administrators were also not included as participants in the study because they were not directly responsible for instructing AAVE-speaking students in ELA.

This was also a purposive sample because students in grades 3-5 whose teachers were selected for the interview were asked to complete the survey. As previously mentioned, this student population was not frequently found in the research, and they were more likely to have retained their AAVE usage and its connection to their identity. Students in grades K-2 were thought to not have enough experience in school and instruction to provide authentic data, so they were excluded from the study. The inclusion of only AAVE-speaking students in grades 3-5 in the one-on-one interviews was decided because they were the focus of the research subject, have sufficient experience with school and attitudes about AAVE, and they represented the marginalized community in need of social justice that the transformative mixed methods paradigm addressed. Students in grades 3-5 of all ethnicities were invited to take the LAS survey.

The research was conducted in a single school with a small number of student and teacher participants, so their perceptions and attitudes might not represent most students and teachers at the K-5 level at other schools in and outside of this district. Since the study took place 37

in a single school, the results of the study could not be generalized to other schools or populations with similar demographics. The results could only be bound to this population and site at the time of the study. Since the researcher was focusing on attitudes toward AAVE and instruction in ELA, this study did not elaborate on the syntactic, grammatical, phonological, and semantic features of AAVE—topics frequently discussed in linguistics—because they were too large in scope to include in this study. This research did not take this direction because its focus was on educating teachers on the achievement gap and AAVE’s history and how that history might be shaping classroom instruction and teacher perception. To add a linguistic frame to this research would distract from that focus and possibly alienate teachers who typically do not have training in linguistics. In addition, the researcher did not engage in the ongoing debate about the origins of AAVE as the theories in the literature did not impact this study and were largely unknown to the participants. However, a brief overview of the origins of AAVE were provided in chapter two. The researcher also did not engage in the debate as to whether AAVE was a dialect or a language system to prevent distraction from the subject at hand. But future scholarship by the researcher will address both topics independently and in instructional contexts.

Subjectivity & Researcher Positionality

The researcher has experiences as an English teacher working in an urban district with

AAVE-speaking students that may impact the researcher’s perspective on AAVE in general and its use in the classroom. As a teacher, the researcher regularly allowed students’ use of AAVE while teaching students the importance of SE acquisition using code switching and contrastive analysis. The researcher also grew up speaking AAVE and continues to do so though the 38

researcher is adept at speaking and writing in SE. The researcher could potentially exhibit biased support towards AAVE but used triangulation methods to collect different types of data, used interview scripts with probing questions, did member checks, and kept an audit trail to assure that the research study was implemented with fidelity and accurately reported using reliable instruments to mitigate any potential bias. The researcher also conducted several rounds of coding and selected themes that emerged based on participants’ responses.

39

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Closing the Black-White achievement gap is one of the most important issues educators face today. Studies show that the achievement gap starts when students begin school (Patton-

Terry, Mills, Bingham, Mansour & Marencin, 2013; Ferguson, 2003) and continues to widen through twelfth grade (Craig, Connor & Washington, 2003; Hester, 2010; Gupta, 2010). For years, legislators, school districts, administrators, and teachers have tried to close the gap with laws, strategies, programming, and instruction. But despite these efforts, the achievement gap persists into the 21st century. This disparity continues to exist even when so much time, debate, and resources have been directed at its end. Research suggests that the negative perceptions and attitudes of teachers towards AAVE and AAVE-speaking students may be one of the issues.

These negative perceptions may be related to how teachers instruct these students. These attitudes may have a negative influence on these students’ motivation, confidence, and performance that may be contributing to the achievement gap.

This literature review begins with a discussion of the origins of AAVE and the history of the Black-White achievement gap focusing on its origins and causes. Important to this discussion is the dissection and analysis of the beginnings of the oppression and discrimination experienced by African American people that continues to marginalize them today. Looking back on history to identify the issues of power that inform current practice is central to the transformative mixed methods paradigm (Jackson et al., 2018; Mertens, 2007; Mertens, 2012). The nature of this study hinges closely on linguistics, and it is difficult to separate since language is a system of power where linguistic authorities dominate the social contexts of language, determining what is appropriate and what is not, and by proxy, who is acceptable and who is not. This is especially true in postcolonial societies (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002). 40

Language is a fundamental site of struggle for post-colonial discourse because the

colonial process itself begins in language. The control over language by the imperial

centre—whether achieved by displacing native languages, [or] by installing itself as a

“standard” against other variants which are constituted as “impurities” . . . — remains

the most potent instrument of cultural control. (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 1995, p.

283)

AAVE was created due to an environment of oppression and physical control of enslaved

Africans by dismantling and denying their native languages and cultures during the Transatlantic

Slave Trade. The transfer of the attitudes towards the enslaved as less than human has occurred when the speakers of AAVE are said to speak a sub-standard or nonstandard dialect that is socially unacceptable to the dominant language promoted by those in power. Researchers and educators seeking to understand the Black-White achievement gap and how it may be related to teachers’ perceptions of AAVE and how it correlates to the motivation and confidence of

AAVE-speaking students in ELA cannot ignore nor gloss over the role enslavement contributed to this problem. As ugly as it is and the feelings of shame, embarrassment, and humiliation it may provoke, if AAVE-speaking students, indeed AAVE-speaking people, are to benefit from transformation through social justice, the impact of slavery must be recognized and addressed.

It should be noted that the researcher will use the terminology for African Americans used in particular studies. That is, if a research study refers to Black subjects, the researcher will use that term when discussing the study. Sometimes the researcher will quote studies that use terms such as Ebonics or AAE depending on the time period of the literature. As described in the definitions, AAVE has undergone several changes in title, and this usage should not be viewed 41

as errors. The terminology to describe AAVE follows the same evolution as the people who speak it.

Origins of AAVE

There are several debates concerning the origins of AAVE; however, the creolist and dialectologist theories stand out and are the most discussed in the literature (Vetter, 2013;

Louden, 2000; Davis, 2003; Morgan, 1994; Spears & Hinton, 2010; Baugh, 1983; Green, 2004;

Tamura, 2002). The researcher is aware of the intense feelings and passion surrounding each theory including speculation that some English may have been spoken by some Africans in the coastal areas prior to arrival in the early colonies due to trade, from the factories located there, and/or interactions with captors aboard slave ships (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002; Dillard, 2008).

The researcher is also aware of the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the creolist and dialectologist origin theories (Davis, 2003). However, the researcher will not participate in this debate because it does not advance the need to improve the literacy instruction of AAVE- speaking students to provide more equitable access to opportunities in the United States to progress their lives and their communities socially, politically, and economically. Thus, the researcher will not engage in deep discussions of theories. The researcher’s primary intent in discussing the origins of AAVE at all are to give the historical context that led to its development.

The creolist school of thought believes that modern AAVE emerged from a pidgin language spoken by enslaved Africans (Spears & Hinton, 2010; Baugh, 2007; Dillard, 2008).

All the captured Africans brought their native languages with them (Spears & Hinton, 2010;

Johnson, 2002; Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002), but it was standard practice for slave peddlers to separate individuals speaking the same language aboard slave vessels and on the plantation to 42

prevent plots and uprisings (Smitherman, 1997; Dillard, 2008; Baugh, 1983; Baugh, 2015).

However, there is evidence that, at least initially, slave peddlers allowed homogenous groups of the enslaved to reside and travel together to the colonies, but revolts and uprisings aboard the ships changed this. Groups of individuals speaking the same language could and did organize and fight against their captors (Dillard, 2008). Thus, it became necessary to separate same language-speaking groups. While a practical solution for the captors, this practice also was a psychological tactic to isolate and deprive the enslaved Africans from connections to their cultures and previous lives in the hopes that they would be more docile and conform to life as a slave (Erickson, 1997). It is under these conditions that AAVE began (Ramirez, 2005).

Upon arriving to the colonies, enslaved Africans needed to develop a way to communicate in their new environment quickly as their very survival depended on it (Vetter,

2013; Louden, 2000; Dillard, 2008; Hopkins, 2008; McLaren, 2009; Baugh, 1983; Nash 1970;

Spears & Hinton, 2010; Smitherman, 1997; Brandon Baszile, & Berry, 2009; Tamura, 2002).

With so many individuals speaking so many languages and no dominant language to share between them, the development of a pidgin language was inevitable. Pidgin is the meshing together of two languages in a system that has its own rules and grammatical constructs like all other languages (Dillard, 2008; Hopkins, 2008; Nash, 1970). It should not be characterized as wrong or a failed attempt to speak the dominant language.

Pidgins are not formed by distortions of the syntactic patterns of the “standard”

language…. It is designed to be used by diverse linguistic groups. It tends to “lose” or

“rid itself of”.…. the more finicky, trivial features of language…. In more important

language features – like the formation of questions, commands, subordinated sentence

patterns, and even in potentialities for sentence complexity – a pidgin is very like any 43

other language. It may come to be used primarily for trade, since it is used entirely with

outsiders. And nobody gets sentimental or emotional about a pidgin, or rebukes you for

misusing his language. Since children do not grow up using it, it is a language primarily

for adults. (Dillard, 2008, p.55)

Under the horrific conditions of bondage, enslaved Africans created a language that helped them try to make sense of their environments and survive them, which would have been impossible without the assistance of Pidgin English (PE). Surviving texts of slave speech and observations of this speech support the idea that PE was used en masse by enslaved Africans (Dillard, 2008).

It is important to note that while physical survival would have been the primary reason for enslaved Africans to develop PE, maintaining some form of their native languages through meshing them with the English spoken around them would also allow some part of their pre- slavery identity to survive (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002). It has been documented that Wolof, a language spoken in Senegal and parts of Gambia and Mali, was the lingua franca at least early in the thirteen colonies (Dillard, 2008). Thus, it comes as no surprise that words such as, banana and jive have their origins in Wolof (Johnson, 2002). Anyone aware of this linguistic history would not criticize the sounds and constructions of speech made by enslaved Africans and their descendants knowing the context of its creation. This language created for survival was passed down from the enslaved Africans to their children.

The children of enslaved Africans may have been taught their parents’ native tongues; however, they would have found no use for them in an environment where those languages were not the dominant form of communication (Dillard, 2008). Creolists believe that the early PE developed into a Creole spoken by the children and descendants of the original enslaved Africans

(Dillard, 2008; Hopkins, 2008; Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002). An example of this Creole is the 44

Gullah language still spoken by the inhabitants of the Atlantic coast Georgia and South Carolina

Sea Islands (Vetter, 2013; Smitherman, 1997; McLaren, 2009; Spears & Hinton, 2010). A Creole has development forms consistent with children learning it, and it is a language system that increases its vocabulary by borrowing words from the native tongues of their parents and SE like other languages do. People who speak it are sentimental about it because it comes to identify them as being uniquely their language (Dillard, 2008).

The creolists point to the lexical and structural differences between AAVE and White varieties of English, similarities between AAVE and Niger-Congo languages, and parallels between AAVE and Creole English in the Caribbean and other African Diaspora varieties to support their theory (Louden, 2000; Baugh, 1983; Spears & Hinton, 2010). Creolists believe that the social distance and separation between Blacks and Whites led to the language differences between AAVE and white varieties of English (Louden, 2000).

The second theory on the origin of AAVE comes from the dialectologists who believe that the first generation of enslaved Africans came to learn the forms of English spoken by the

White people whom they lived and worked under in the same way any non-English speaking person would though under very different circumstances (Spears & Hinton, 2010; Hopkins,

2008; Smitherman & Baugh, 2002; Morgan, 1994). This theory views the similarities between

AAVE and SE without accounting for the African language influence. Dialectologists believe that AAVE is a dialect of SE that has more in common with it than differences (Morgan, 1994;

Baugh, 1983). The dialectologists theorize that there was more linguistic contact between Blacks and Whites than typically imagined and that interaction influenced the creation of AAVE

(Louden, 2000; Spears & Hinton, 2010). Francis Lieber was the German author of the

Encyclopedia Americana written between 1829 and 1832 who immigrated to the United States. 45

He was a well-respected academic who was known for his writings on politics and legal issues.

Lieber also had an interest in the “slave speech” of the Caribbean and South Carolina.2 He documented this speech in published and unpublished manuscripts (Davis, 2003). Lieber would be considered for the time an authority on language, so his perspective on the language spoken by enslaved Africans bears weight. He often described European language features that appeared in the speech of the enslaved that would support the theory of dialectologists. For example,

Lieber recounts the use of the word “till” in a love letter dictated to an Irishman by an enslaved male to his love interest. Lieber describes the use of the word “till” as meaning “to” referring to space (Davis, 2003). He identifies this usage as the same used by the Irish in the area. His observation reflects on the close contact between Blacks and Whites that they would share language features. Lieber provides several examples like these that support the argument that

AAVE developed from the various White varieties of English spoken in the early colonies. It should be noted that his manuscripts also support the language transfer from Blacks to Whites

(Davis, 2003).

Lieber was also one of the first to identify that there may have been different dialects spoken by field hands and house servants among the enslaved. He notes as late as 1840 that field hands spoke a type of pidgin/Creole whereas house servants spoke a more standardized English, which would be sensible given the differing duties of these positions and personal contact between Blacks and Whites (Davis, 2003). Lieber, therefore, provides a first-hand observation that supports both AAVE origin theories. No matter what side of the debate one chooses, there can be no doubt that it was the trafficking in people that initiated all of this. The story of slavery

2 Lieber was also a student of language and studied Native American languages and Americanisms—new words and expressions that he found unusual. 46

and its impact on AAVE-speaking people and African American people in general does not end with the language. There can be no discussion of the achievement gap without identifying its origins in slavery and the legal denial of reading and writing to the enslaved and Free Blacks in many cases.

History of the Black-White Achievement Gap

Historians believe that slavery began in 1619 in the United States and formally ended on

December 6, 1865. The Black-White achievement gap can be traced back to the history of slavery and inequality in public education in the United States (Hallinan, 2001). The very nature of one class of people owning another created a climate of disparity and inequity. Slavery prohibited enslaved men, women, and children from reading or attending school (Baugh, 1983;

Baugh, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Levine & Murray, 2014; Ndemanu, 2015; Ramirez, 2005;

Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002; Hallinan, 2001). From the early 17th century until the end of the Civil

War, it was illegal to teach the enslaved to read and write though there were instances where slave owners let a few of the enslaved learn to read parts of the Bible or become literate as a benefit to the slaveowners. Religious slaves were thought to be more obedient, and those skilled laborers, who could read and write, were more valuable to their masters. But these exceptions were few (Levine & Murray, 2014). In fact, many states passed compulsory ignorance laws that outlawed the education of enslaved people (Curry, 2010; Ndemanu, 2015; Baugh, 2015). South

Carolina was the first state to adopt a compulsory ignorance law in 1740 (Ndemanu, 2015;

Erickson, 1997; Price-Curtis, 1981). The law reads:

Whereas the having of slaves taught to write, or suffering them to be employed in

writing, may be attended with great inconveniences; Be it enacted, that all and every

person and persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach or cause any slave or slaves 47

to be taught to write, or shall use or employ any slave as a scribe, in any manner of

writing whatsoever, hereafter taught to write, every such person or persons shall, for

every such offense, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money. (South

Carolina & Cooper, 1840, p. 413)

These laws passed all over the south made it a crime for the enslaved to seek literacy instruction and a crime for anyone to teach literacy skills to the enslaved, contributing to the longevity and permanence of AAVE among enslaved Africans. Louisiana passed a law in 1830 that threatened a life of hard labor or the death penalty for the writing, printing, or publishing of any literature that might cause discontent among free Blacks and insubordination among the enslaved. The law went on to threaten one month to one-year imprisonment for anyone who directly or indirectly taught enslaved people to read or write (Williams, 1833/2018; Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002). In

Mississippi, Blacks were forbidden from employment in printing offices, and in Kentucky,

Blacks were not allowed to vote or use schools even though they paid taxes (Zeigler & Osinubi,

2002).

It is also possible that the perception of AAVE as unintelligent and substandard English was cultivated during this period in history where the enslaved were legally unable to defy the logic of this belief through demonstration otherwise. “Ebonics [AAVE] would not be in the same shape and form had its earlier speakers been given the opportunity to read and write Standard

English” (Ndemanu, 2015, p. 30). Denying the enslaved African the ability to read and write set the foundation for the Black-White achievement gap that their descendants grapple with even now. Compulsory ignorance laws remained legal until 1868 (Curry, 2010), negatively impacting literacy acquisition in SE for generations of AAVE-speaking people. Since enslavement in the 48

North did not have the support it had in the South, one would think the conditions for educating

African Americans up North were more favorable, but this was not the case.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, most states refused to take responsibility for the education of African American children. Rhode Island ended slavery in 1784 but did not uphold a condition in its Emancipation Bill that required reading and writing to be taught to freed children. Public schools were not open to African American children in Ohio (Price-Curtis,

1981). During the nineteenth century, when free Blacks living in the North could access a public education, it was often restricted and segregated. Their access to an education from non-public sources depended heavily on institutions and the philanthropy of others before and after emancipation (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002). It was no better for free Blacks in the South.

The climate for educating Blacks was so toxic that even free Blacks living in the South had restricted access to education during slavery (Levine & Murray, 2014; Ruef & Fletcher,

2003; Erickson, 1997). From 1800-1850 free Blacks were not allowed to attend school in urban areas in the South in places such as Charleston, Baltimore, New Orleans, Louisville, and even

Cincinnati (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002). When slavery ended, the process of educating ex-slaves began though slowly.

President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on June 19, 1862. After amendments to the constitution were passed, it became law on January 1, 1863 (Zeigler &

Osinubi, 2002). After the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, one would think that conditions would improve for ex-slaves, but quite the opposite occurred. Many states immediately passed their own amendments to their constitutions that were known as the Black

Codes to return Blacks to slave conditions. These codes limited Blacks to contract labor, and if one refused, he or she would be punished with forced labor on public works. It was forbidden for 49

Blacks to own guns and land ownership was limited. A child separated from his or her parents could be enslaved as well as anyone convicted of vagrancy (Fleischman, Tyson, & Oldroyd,

2014; Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002). The Fourteenth Amendment passed in 1866 sought to outlaw and abolish the Black Codes. The 40 acres and a mule idea originated from this amendment where President Abraham Lincoln hoped to redistribute land and give reparations to former slaves, but Congress never authorized this (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002).

Just before the end of the Civil War, Congress established the Bureau of Refugees,

Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, better known as The Freedman’s Bureau (FB). The Bureau was given responsibility for abandoned lands and the control of refugees and freedmen

(Fleischman et al., 2014; Harrison, 2007). The Bureau functioned from March 1865 to December

1868 where they provided support in court for freedpeople seeking justice, set up judicial tribunals and provided food, shelter, medical care, and clothing to freedmen and White refugees.

The FB also formalized marriages established during enslavement and helped reunite freedpeople and their families separated during the war. The FB managed abandoned and confiscated lands under the control of opposing forces, and their most important work was supervising and assuring free labor (Fleischman et al., 2014; Harrison, 2007). The FB opened public schools for former slaves (Levine & Murray, 2014; Ruef & Fletcher, 2003; Erickson,

1997; Curry, 2010) by collaborating with freed communities and northern philanthropists

(Harrison, 2007). However, these schools were not designed to advance freedpeople politically, socially, or economically because they only offered a rudimentary education and training that promised to keep them in a permanent servant class with courses in domestication, carpentry, and manual labor (Ladson-Billings, 2006 Levine & Murray, 2014; Ndemanu, 2015; Hoover,

1990; Cooper, 2010). Furthermore, there is evidence that FB officers banded with employers to 50

make freedpeople work the land to revive the plantation agriculture by evicting those who refused, forcing workers to return who left the land, and enforcing vagrancy laws for workers refusing to sign an annual contract (Harrison, 2007). Early research about the FB was revisionist in scope and did not accurately represent the facts about what freedpeople experienced with this agency.

Although the Bureau was widely praised for its part in the establishment of freedmen’s

education, the Bureau schools themselves were criticized for institutionalizing systems of

social control not dissimilar to those that historians of education like Michael B. Katz had

found underpinning northern public-school systems. The Bureau was castigated for its

failure to provide sufficient legal protection for the former slaves, for its failure to

challenge all but the most racially discriminatory of the Black Codes, and for its

connivance in the establishment of a system of apprenticeships which bound large

numbers of African American children under conditions closely approximating slavery.

(Harrison, 2007, p. 207)

The FB, on the face of it, appears to have been a great service to freedpeople, but the officers charged with assuring the agenda of transitioning the ex-slaves into productive, independent members of society often failed to act on their behalf and in their best interest. There are some historians who view the FB’s work on the rights of freedpeople and livelihood as positive when viewed from a nineteenth century perspective (Harrison, 2007). These historians have looked deeper into the records of the bureau including the papers of local agents, which provided personal accounts referred to as agent studies. These studies demonstrate a range in competence, corruption, indifference, and idleness. Some FB officers were advocating for freedpeople and others were not according to these agent studies (Harris, 2007). Whatever position one takes on 51

the FB, they had a role in establishing educational opportunities for ex-slaves during their tenure though the opportunities were not elevating for freedpeople.

In 1870, 10% of Black children were enrolled in school compared to 54% for White children. However, by 1991, both White and Black children had reached 93% enrollment. On average, Black students attended schools twenty days less than White students. For example, in

1909, White students attended school for 128 days and Black students for 101 days. By 1929,

White students attended school for 164 days and Black students for 144 days. Currently, most school districts have school calendars with at least 180 days or longer of attendance for all students (Levine & Murray, 2014).

It is important to note that 85% of Blacks still lived in the south as late as 1909, and though they had been given their freedom, and Freedman schools were available to them,

Southerners often made it difficult for them to send their children to school because of threats to their jobs and housing Levine & Murray, 2014). Threats of violence and the setting of schools on fire from time to time, had a negative impact on Black student attendance. To further complicate matters, the school year and attendance rates of Black students were already considerably less than White students due to the tenant farming schedule and cotton production to which many

Black families were bound (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Levine & Murray, 2014; Hallinan, 2001).

Some rural Black students’ school year was only four months because of the farming demands.

In 1968, universal schooling was finally put in place for all Black students in the South (Ladson-

Billings, 2006). Despite the many setbacks experienced by African Americans, some gains were made. For example, in 1865 only 1 in every 20 or five percent of Blacks could read, but by 1900,

1 in every 2 or fifty percent of Blacks could read (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002). But whatever gains made during Reconstruction were negatively impacted by the Plessy v. Ferguson verdict. 52

In 1896, the Plessy v. Ferguson case ruled separate but equal education the law (Ladson-

Billings, 2006; Curry, 2010). However, there was nothing equal about the schools African

Americans were forced to attend. For example, in the 1920-1921 school year in Mississippi,

Blacks made up 80% of the population in 19 counties, but the funding provided to the children in the majority Black counties received only one-eighth of the funding spent on White students in three different counties (Price-Curtis, 1981). This period in history up to before the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 is known by some as legal apartheid (Ladson-Billings, 2006) because it was lawful for African American students to travel far distances, in some cases, to attend classes in overcrowded, unsafe facilities, study from outdated, second-hand books no longer being used by

White students, and receive an inferior education (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Price-Curtis, 1981).

African Americans begin leaving the South for the North in large numbers from1890-

1910 looking for better job opportunities and lives. However, they still experienced segregation and discrimination as they had in the South by the early part of the twentieth century (Levine &

Murray, 2014; Baugh, 2015). The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas case ordered all public schools to desegregate, opening the door for equitable educational opportunities. However, between 1954-1964, the mandate to desegregate Southern schools was met with resistance at the local and state levels (Curry, 2010). Some of the refusal tactics used included closing schools that were told to desegregate and not giving funding to desegregated schools but re-distributing funds to re-segregated White schools. Even the compulsory attendance laws were changed to allow White students to leave desegregated schools (Price-

Curtis, 1981). This resistance went on until the passage of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act in

1964 that allowed the U.S. Commissioner of Education to be involved in the desegregation of schools with support from Title VI. The U.S. Attorney General was able to restrict schools that 53

continued to use federal funds in any program that practiced racial discrimination (Price-Curtis,

1981). Southern schools went from being the most segregated in the country between 1964-1970 to the least segregated (Curry, 2010). Despite this, African Americans experienced some gains.

Educational advances were made by African Americans, especially in the 1970s. The enrollment of African American students in high schools increased 23.1 % compared to 3.9% for

Whites. The high school graduation rate for African Americans between 1970-1976 was much higher than White students. In 1976, 80% of African American students ages 16-17 were enrolled in school, and White students in the same category were 89%. The dropout rate for

White students was 8.4% and 9.5% for African Americans, and 1976 was a record year for

African Americans in higher education with large increases in the number of students earning master’s degrees and being admitted to law and medical school (Price-Curtis, 1981).

Any progress that was made during the Civil Rights era lost ground when many schools became re-segregated in the 1970s (Curry, 2010) as access to highly qualified teachers and funding declined for minority students (Jones, 2010; Cowan-Pitre, 2014). Northern schools were more segregated than Southern schools, and segregation worsened between 1970-1975 (Price-

Curtis, 1981). “By 2000, re-segregated schools were the norm with 71% of African American students and 77% of Latino students attending “majority ethnic minority” schools” (Cowan-Pitre,

2014, p. 213). When minority students are limited to segregated schools, opportunity gaps are likely to occur (Cowan-Pitre, 2014). There have been no serious efforts to integrate schools since the 1970s (Curry, 2010). Given these circumstance and history of discrimination and denial of education, how could AAVE-speaking students’ current educational outcomes be different than what they have been and are today given this very difficult history? 54

The chattel servitude of most Africans and their American descendants before the Great

Emancipation, their contract servitude afterward, and the indignity and discomfort of the

color caste institution throughout (Jackson, 1989) separated them socially,

politically, economically, and linguistically from other Americans. These factors have

contributed to AAE’s postcolonial denigration and stigmatization. (Zeigler & Osinubi,

2002, p. 594)

A clear correlation exists between the historical and educational barriers experienced by African

American people and the poor academic outcomes seen in their performance compared to their

White peers. These factors cannot be ignored as they are a stain on how African American people and AAVE are viewed throughout society.

The Opportunity Gap

The history behind the achievement gap provides an insight into the inequity built into the public education system (Young, Wright & Laster, 2005; Goldenberg, 2014) that leads some researchers to refer to the achievement gap as an opportunity gap. Because of the United States’ history of denying education to enslaved Africans, African American students, and other ethnic minorities, this action equated to an opportunity gap (Cowan-Pitre, 2014). According to Darling

Hammond (2010), three factors that contributed to the opportunity gap are re-segregated schools, lower access to qualified teachers, and limited access to a quality curriculum. Along the same lines, Ladson-Billings (2006) described the disparities in the achievement gap between African

Americans and other ethnic minorities and their White peers as an education debt. She described this debt as a promise not fulfilled to these groups. It changed the conversation from blaming the students and their families for poor academic achievement to addressing the responsibility that public schools in America have to guaranteeing equal opportunity to all of its children (Cowan- 55

Pitre, 2014). The researcher agrees with the terms education debt and opportunity gap. However, to remain consistent with the language used widely in research and the field, “achievement gap” will be used in this study though the terms are appropriate and reflective of the historical truths that must be acknowledged when discussing the achievement gap. The achievement gap experienced by AAVE-speaking students in schools today may be an extension of negative attitudes towards African Americans developed historically from beliefs that birthed and bred enslavement and Jim Crow. These negative perceptions may also have come to describe and define AAVE. Though the researcher believes that for many teachers these attitudes are subconscious, for others they are deliberate. In either case, the results are damaging and of great concern for the success and future of AAVE-speaking students.

Teachers’ Attitudes Toward AAVE

There is a relationship between teachers’ attitudes and student performance (Good &

Nichols, 2001; Sirota & Bailey, 2009; Holliday, 1985; Rowley & Wright, 2011). This relationship is especially true of minority students (Adenika & Berry, 1976; Ferguson, 2003;

Cross et al., 2001; Godley et al., 2006; Beneke & Cheathem, 2015; Sirota & Bailey, 2009).

African American children's achievement is associated with their self-esteem, linguistic competence, and motivation. Their achievement is impacted by teacher expectations, perceptions, and type and frequency of interactions (Holliday, 1985; Godley & Escher, 2012).

Since teachers’ expectations and beliefs have such a lasting and influential effect on students’ performance and self-concept, it is pertinent that their attitudes be known as a first step in determining what relationship, if any, these attitudes have on their instruction of AAVE-speaking students. Research shows that if the teacher has a negative perception of the students’ language, this will negatively affect the students’ performance (Adenika & Berry, 1976; Douglas et al., 56

2008; Bowie & Bond, 1994; Goodman & Buck, 1997; DeMeis & Turner, 1978; Godley et al.,

2006; Beneke & Cheathem, 2015). Some studies showed that teachers tended to evaluate AAVE- speaking students as less intelligent and less capable of success than their SE-speaking (Blodgett

& Cooper, 1973; Morgan,1994; Billings, 2005; Franklin & Hixon, 1999) and White peers

(DeMeis & Turner, 1978; Ferguson, 2003; Sirota & Bailey, 2009) to whom they showed favor.

Other studies using recordings of AAVE-speaking and SE-speaking individuals further supported this when it was determined that teachers or participants were more critical of those speaking AAVE (Cross et al., 2001; Franklin & Hixon, 1999; Koch, Gross, & Kolts, 2001;

Payne, Downing, & Fleming, 2000; Shepherd, 2011). A review of the research will highlight the depth of the issue.

A 1970s study by Blodgett and Cooper (1973) on the definition of Black dialect and attitudes toward Black dialect presented a questionnaire to 210 elementary school teachers. The study presented six definitions of Black dialect and ten questions about attitudes toward Black dialect to participants that were answered with yes or no responses. Demographic information such as race and years of teaching were also collected. The study revealed that both Black and

White teachers believed that Black dialect was best defined as a complete but nonstandard language with 32% of teachers selecting this definition overall. Further analysis showed that 60 of 134 White teachers and 5 of 65 Black teachers selected this definition. In fact, this definition was the least selected by Black teachers. Definition number five that stated that Black dialect was a different but equally acceptable form of English was the most frequently selected definition by Black teachers with 32% of the 65 choosing it. Only 8% of the 165 White teachers selected this definition. Definitions that defined Black dialect as undeveloped language were selected by 22% of the participants. Ten percent of the participants believed Black dialect was a 57

language disorder. The least selected definition overall was that Black dialect was an uneducated way of speaking; it was selected by 16 of the 210 participants (Blodgett & Cooper, 1973).

The teachers’ responses to the ten questions revealed some interesting insights that at times, conflicted with their previous responses about Black dialect. For example, question one asked if dialect speakers have difficulty following spoken directions in the classroom. Fifty-two percent of White teachers and 32% of Black teachers answered in the affirmative. Question two asked if teachers have difficulty understanding children speaking Black dialect. Sixty-five percent of White teachers and 6% of Black teachers responded yes. Most of the respondents

(58%) believed that the Board of Education should provide speech and language assistance for dialect speaking students.

When asked if dialect speakers were in general as intelligent as non-dialect speakers,

42% of the participants responded no. Specifically, 53% of White teachers and 26% of Black teachers said no. Forty-three percent of the participants overall stated that they had attempted to eliminate dialect from the speech of children in class. Forty-four percent of White teachers responded identified they had done this. In a follow-up question as to whether these attempts were successful, 44% of Black teachers and 17% of White teachers said yes; fifty percent of

White teachers and 18% of Black teachers did not respond to this question at all.

When asked if parents should eliminate Black dialect from their speech, 41% of the participants responded affirmatively. Forty-nine percent of Black teachers and 41% of White teachers responded yes to this question. However, 50% of Black teachers and 55% of White teachers believed dialect-speaking students could make satisfactory progress in school without changing their dialect. Finally, in response to whether dialect results in communication issues in the classroom, 76% of Black teachers answered no, and 42% of White teachers answered yes. 58

The study also disaggregated data using the definition selected and years of teaching experience (Blodgett & Cooper, 1973). This study demonstrated the overall negative attitudes towards AAVE but showed some discrepancy in responses according to the race of the teacher.

For example, 53% of White teachers believed dialect speaking students were not as intelligent as non-dialect speaking students, only 26% of Black teachers believed this. White teachers also responded in the majority affirmative to questions about communication difficulties and dialect speaking students following spoken directions in the classroom. These results were consistent with other studies that followed and preceded it. The teacher perception study done by DeMeis and Turner (1973) demonstrated negative perception of AAVE, but the researchers sought to understand more about the basis for teachers’ biases.

DeMeis and Turner (1978) furthered the discussion of teachers’ negative attitudes toward

African American students by looking at how the characteristics unique to African Americans formed the basis for teachers’ biases. The two characteristics were race and dialect, but the researchers also believed physical attractiveness was a third factor impacting teacher expectations and evaluation of student performance. The study involved 68 white, female elementary teachers who were asked to listen to audio responses from 17 fifth grade males describing what happened on their favorite television show. The responses were separated into 9

AAVE-speaking and 8 SE-speaking depending on pronunciation and grammar. Pictures of

African American and White males were evaluated for degree of attractiveness from exceptionally unattractive to exceptionally attractive and paired with student responses. The pictures were distributed equally between the AAVE and SE responses. Teachers used a measurement scale where they rated all 17 speakers on personality, quality of response, and current and future academic ability. The results showed that for all four areas, White students 59

were rated much higher than AAVE-speaking students. In all measures except quality of response, the difference in SE-speaking and AAVE-speaking White students was much higher than between SE-speaking and AAVE-speaking African American students. The effects of race by physical attractiveness were significant across the board. Students identified as middle physically attractive rated the highest no matter the dialect. Middle physically attractive AAVE- speaking students scored higher than low or high physically attractive AAVE-speaking students.

But AAVE-speaking students rated highly physically attractive ranked second and scored significantly higher than AAVE-speaking students rated low physically attractive students. For

AAVE-speaking White students, the more physically unattractive a student was rated, the more decreases experienced in all areas. When a White student spoke SE, the low physically attractive student was rated above the middle physically attractive student (DeMeis & Turner, 1978).

Personality and current and future academic abilities were variables measuring the student while quality of response evaluated student performance. When the race by dialect interaction were compared, the rank order in all areas was SE-speaking White student, SE- speaking African American student, AAVE-speaking White student, and AAVE-speaking

African American student. In the dialect by physical attractiveness interaction, the rank order in all areas was SE-speaking, middle physical attractiveness; SE-speaking, high physical attractiveness; SE-speaking, low physical attractiveness; AAVE-speaking, middle physical attractiveness; AAVE-speaking, high physical attractiveness; and AAVE-speaking, low physical attractiveness. While the ranks in race by physical attractiveness interactions were not perfectly correlated, the results were high physical attractiveness, White; middle physical attractiveness,

African American; middle physical attractiveness, White; low physical attractiveness, White; high physical attractiveness, African American; low physical attractiveness, African American. 60

The correlation of race by dialect by physical attractiveness interaction was also significant (w =

.85, p < 01).

This study showed that dialect, race, and physical attractiveness interactions influenced teachers’ evaluations of students and their performance (DeMeis & Turner, 1978). As previously indicated, African American students were evaluated more negatively than White students, even when the African American students spoke SE. It also appeared that AAVE-speaking White students were also judged harshly, which was also a concern. The researchers acknowledged that more studies needed to be done to provide conclusive evidence on the relationship of physical attractiveness and lower teacher evaluation of African American students. Furthermore, since the middle physically attractive student got the highest ranking, it seemed attractiveness was not a factor in the academic success of African American students. However, this might be a factor for middle and low physically attractive White students because highly attractive White students got the highest rankings. This study suggested that students develop a global impression that included their race and dialect, which teachers viewed as deficient (DeMeis & Turner, 1978).

These students had no control over these features, making it essential that such bias be identified and eliminated.

Extensive research conducted on pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward AAVE, found they held similarly negative views as in-service teachers. For example, Bowie & Bond (1994) conducted a study of 75 pre-service teachers. Eighty-six percent of the participants were White and 92% were female. The participants were undergraduate elementary education majors (3/4) and the rest were graduate level students seeking elementary certification (1/4). They completed a modified version of the LAS, which had 12 positive statements toward AAVE and 13 negative statements. Participants responded to the questions using a three-point Likert scale: agree, no 61

opinion, and disagree. The results showed that most of the responses were negative (41%).

Thirty-two percent were positive responses, and 27% were indifferent. The statement about

Black English sounding as good as SE drew the most negative responses at 75%. Most of the participants believed that AAVE used a faulty grammar system (61%), and most of them supported the standardization of English in schools (60%).

Most of the participants (52%) felt Black English should be socially acceptable, yet only

39% thought teachers should allow AAVE to be spoken in class. Also, 63% of the participants thought it was harmful to students when their native language was rejected; however, only 39% of them thought attempts to eliminate Black English could be psychologically damaging to

African American students. While most of the students (63%) reported some exposure to the issues of AAVE in the classroom, only 19% had more intensive training on the subject. Thirty- seven percent had no exposure to the subject at all. Those students who had some exposure tended to disagree more with statements about AAVE’s inferiority, its discouragement, and its elimination. Those with no exposure to the subject tended to be the most negative.

In response to the open-ended questions on the survey, some participants discussed the need to be sensitive toward the culture and language of students while others described Black

English speakers as lazy people who choose to speak incorrectly. What is interesting about this study is the majority of participants’ beliefs that Black English should not be spoken in class while at the same time believing the rejection of a student’s native language to be potentially harmful (63%), but only 39% believed the attempts to eliminate Black English from the classroom was psychologically damaging to African American students. It is this contradiction that is the root of the problem. If rejecting a student’s language is potentially harmful, why is it not recognized as being psychologically damaging for African American students by teachers at 62

higher rates? This is the heart of the problem that educators and researchers must resolve to provide equitable educational opportunities. One cannot say it is harmful to reject a student’s language while rejecting a student’s language and only slightly believing African American students may be psychologically damaged by attempts to eliminate their language from the classroom. Educators must be able to see the ambivalence in that logic.

A more recent study by Champion et al., (2012) used a modified version of the LAS to administer to 136 undergraduate pre-service teachers enrolled in a mandatory course titled

Teaching Diverse Populations. The participants were 75% female, 23.5% male, and 1.5% that did not say their gender. Most of the participants were White (76.5%) while 8.1% were African

American, 8.8% were Hispanic, 4.4% identified as other, and 2.2% did not identify their ethnicity. The LAS asked the participants for demographic information including their gender, years in school, ethnicity, and any prior teaching experience. The 25 questions included both positive and negative statements about AAVE in general and its usefulness in academic settings.

Three open-ended questions about participants’ exposure to AAVE as a legitimate language system in their coursework were asked at the end of the survey. The results showed that 85% of the participants viewed AAVE negatively, which was consistent with other studies of pre- and in-service teachers (Champion et al., 2012; Sirota & Bailey, 2009). The survey results showed no correlation between gender and attitudes toward AAVE; however, there were significant differences in race and attitudes toward AAVE. African American pre-service teachers were less likely to view AAVE negatively compared to their White peers. These results were consistent with other studies that viewed AAVE negatively overall; however, African American teachers viewed AAVE more positively than White teachers (Champion et al., 2012; DeMeis & Turner,

1978). The researchers also identified that their results contradicted other studies that indicated 63

African American teachers had a negative attitude towards AAVE (Washington & Miller-Jones,

1989; Koch et al., 2001; Payne et al., 2000). Champion et al., (2012) speculated that the difference in the attitude towards AAVE by African American teachers in their study may be attributed to their enrollment and exposure in the course Teaching Diverse Populations. Another study (Newkirk-Turner et al., 2013), however, seemed to support research that African American teachers viewed AAVE negatively.

Newkirk-Turner et al., (2013) conducted a study of the attitudes of 38 senior, early education pre-service teachers enrolled in an advanced education course at Jackson State

University, a historically Black university. The participants were mostly African American females between the ages of 22-25. Participants completed a 25 question Likert scale survey that evaluated their opinions about students’ use of AAVE in school and their feelings about their preparation for teaching linguistically different students in school. Sixty-one percent of the pre- service teachers believed AAVE to be an inadequate language system for education. Seventy-one percent of them felt that AAVE negatively impacted students’ performance in ELA and other subjects. The results were mixed when asked if AAVE impacted learning in school (strongly agreed/agreed 39.5%; strongly disagreed/disagreed 31.6%) and whether speaking AAVE contributed to the achievement gap (strongly agreed/agreed 42.1%; strongly disagreed/disagreed

36.9%). Speaking AAVE was found not to impact math instruction (76.3%) or general communication in the classroom (42.1%). However, 68.4% of pre-service teachers believed that addressing the linguistic issues of AAVE-speaking students would improve their achievement, and sixty-two percent of them believed that speaking SE rather than AAVE would improve school success. Additionally, 84% of the participants believed that speaking SE would improve job opportunities for African Americans. 64

Most of the pre-service teachers believed that their teacher training program had adequately prepared them to teach linguistically different students (65.8%) and that they could identify AAVE features (71.1%) in students’ reading (65.8%) and writing (81.5%). But 82% of the pre-service teachers acknowledged they wanted to learn strategies to address the linguistic needs of AAVE-speaking students. These findings were aligned with studies done with in- service teachers reported here and in the literature, particularly the research conducted by Gupta

(2010), which the Newkirk-Turner et al., (2013) study replicated. The only significant difference in the results is that 67% of the teachers in Gupta’s study believed that speaking AAVE impacted learning in school compared to the 39% of pre-service teachers in the Newkirk-Turner et al.,

(2013) study. Obviously, all of these studies are alarming as they indicate an over forty-year continuation of the attitudes, low expectations, and behaviors that have negatively impacted the achievement, confidence, and opportunities of AAVE-speaking students as research has shown.

Pre-service teachers have more flexibility and openness to change in beliefs since they are still learning (Newkirk-Turner et al., 2013). Teacher training programs must assume responsibility for breaking these stereotypes and bias about AAVE and other linguistically different dialects with concerted and consistent training and practice.

Research has proven that deliberate training in dialects and language systems to be effective in preparing teachers to instruct linguistically different students (Godley et al., 2006;

Brandon et al., 2009; Bowie & Bond, 1994). Godley et al., (2006) advocated for courses on dialect diversity for pre-and in-service teachers that focused on: “(a) anticipating and overcoming resistance to dialect diversity; (b) addressing issues of language, identity, and power; and (c) emphasizing practical, pedagogical applications of research on language variation” (p. 31). This in-depth training will help begin the difficult task of challenging and changing teachers’ beliefs 65

to significantly improve the academic and social outcomes for speakers of linguistically different

English. The training required must go beyond introductory and exploratory courses. Teacher preparation programs must re-evaluate their purpose and programming. This is the new mindset required to be an agent of change.

Summary

This literature review established history and background on the origins of AAVE and the achievement gap. The two major theories on how AAVE was created—the creolist and dialectologist —were presented. The literature showed that the unusual circumstances of enslavement and being thrust into an unknown environment without the means to communicate gave birth to a Pidgin English (PE) used by enslaved Africans that grew into a Creole with their children. The emphasis on the African influence or the White English varieties on the PE distinguished the divergence between the two theories. The review then gave an historical account on the conditions, laws, and institutional racism that was the breeding ground for the marked difference in achievement between African American students and their White peers.

The literature showed how the compulsory ignorance laws that forbade the enslaved from reading and writing and other laws and practices in place at the time forced illiteracy on the enslaved that lasted throughout the period of slavery. Even free Blacks had limited access to education. At the time, these acts were legal. The review followed the African American educational experience from emancipation, to the Great Migration, to Plessy v. Ferguson, to

Brown v. Board of Education, and into the 21st century. The events and policies that were in place throughout these eras contributed to the marked differences in achievement experienced by

African Americans that have come to be known as the achievement gap. This review also discussed what some researchers call the opportunity gap and the education debt that discussed 66

the failure of public education to provide equitable opportunities for African Americans to advance. The history of education for African Americans explains why the achievement gap exists, but another factor that needs consideration is negative teachers’ perception of AAVE- speaking students.

The literature showed that some in-service and pre-service teachers have lower expectations of AAVE-speaking students because of negative attitudes they have toward AAVE use in the classroom and AAVE in general. Some teachers viewed AAVE-speaking students as less intelligent because of their vernacular. Research has shown that students’ academic achievement is influenced by their teachers’ perception. This is especially true of African

American students and can also impact these students’ self-esteem and motivation. The research also showed that when faced with AAVE-speaking and SE-speaking White and African

Americans, educators still preferred White SE-speaking students overall and preferred SE- speaking African Americans over those speaking AAVE. Obviously, teachers preferring one language over another has very negative implications for those students not speaking the preferred language, which is the case with AAVE-speaking students. More training in dialect variety and linguistic systems in teacher training programs are recommended to begin to diminish these attitudes and perceptions.

Conclusion

The deficit perspective many African American students experience in schools is often based around their use of AAVE. AAVE has been characterized as substandard, incorrect, and the language of someone who is uneducated and/or illiterate (Tamura, 2002; Godley & Escher,

2012). Teachers can begin to foster a deeper appreciation of diverse linguistics and culture by ridding themselves of the negative perceptions they have about AAVE by learning about the 67

history of AAVE, the origins of the achievement gap, the features of AAVE, and instructional strategies using AAVE as culturally responsive teachers. They must work to remove the stigma of AAVE as being inappropriate for the classroom and spoken by those who are uneducated

(Vetter, 2013) towards a model that sees AAVE as being different but not deficient (Vetter,

2013). For many African American students, their use of AAVE is tied to their way of thinking

(Boutte & Johnson, 2013) and kinship and identity for the African American community

(Hansberry-Williams, 2006), so when teachers insist on the monolingual use of SE, they may be correcting these students home language, and unknowingly, their identity. Teachers must stop correcting African American students’ use of AAVE in the classroom as incorrect usage of SE; this also includes only using materials and curricula that promote SE (Hansberry-Williams,

2006).

Since SE is the dominant language spoken in schools, business, and in formal situations

(Hansberry-Williams, 2006; Connor & Craig, 2006; Boutte & Johnson, 2013; Fisher & Lapp,

2013), it is important for African American students to be able to access its use while still maintaining their language diversity. It is important that students not have to give up their AAVE in preference for SE. Teachers should utilize code switching or code meshing to accomplish this.

Code switching occurs when African American students learn SE while keeping their AAVE; they learn when to and when not to use AAVE. However, in this scenario, AAVE is reserved for informal situations (Baker-Bell, 2013), which is counterproductive and undermining if not coupled with the empowerment of code meshing. Code meshing sees AAVE as a co-parallel language with SE that allows mutual exchanges and code switching between AAVE and SE speakers (Boutte & Johnson, 2013).

This study seeks to answer the following research questions. 68

1. What is a teacher’s perception of AAVE-speaking students in regard to intellectual

capabilities, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her instructional

approach with these students in English/Language Arts?

2. What is an African American Vernacular English-speaking student’s perception of

AAVE, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her motivation and

confidence in English/Language Arts?

This research hopes to add to the literature on teachers’ attitudes toward AAVE in the classroom and AAVE-speaking students. The researcher is viewing this issue from the perspective and framework of social justice. The lack of advancement of AAVE-speaking students academically is a serious concern that continues to widen and deepen the longer it remains. The educational experience and environments of AAVE-speaking students remains a civil rights issue in America that must be remedied for the good of society where equity and opportunity are guaranteed.

Furthermore, to extend educators’ and researchers’ knowledge of the entire issue and add to the literature, this study sought the expertise of AAVE-speaking students on this topic. The researcher sought their perspective on AAVE and how it was related to their motivation and confidence in ELA class. The transformative paradigm gave a voice to all stakeholders to seek understanding and redress. The researcher was unaware of other studies on this topic conducted from this framework. Perhaps, this work will serve as a model for others wishing to promote change and social justice for marginalized groups in PK-12 education or beyond.

69

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY

Research indicates that African American students lag behind their peers in reading as measured by standardized tests (Hamilton, Baldwin Anderson, & Rahman, 2009; Lewis et al.,

2008; Blackford & Khojasteh, 2013; Williams, 2011). Many explanations have been given to explain this phenomenon including poverty, lack of school preparedness, inexperienced teachers, and re-segregated schools (Duncan & Magnuson, 2005; Williams, 2011; Cowan-Pitre, 2014).

Several researchers have speculated that the reason for the achievement gap in reading may be attributed to the teacher’s perception and beliefs about African American Vernacular English

(AAVE), and these researchers have advocated for the inclusion and use of AAVE in the classroom to teach literacy standards (Beneke & Cheatham, 2015; Zurer-Pearson et al., 2013;

McBee-Orzulak, 2015). The Oakland School District in Oakland, California and the Ann Arbor

School District in Ann Arbor, Michigan were the first districts to bring the plight of AAVE- speaking students to the public and formally utilize AAVE in the classroom as an instructional strategy (Rickford, 2005; Floyd, 2010). Their attempts, however, were not sustained, and AAVE- speaking students were returned to the traditional English/Language Arts (ELA) instructional model that presented Standard English (SE) as the language of instruction where they experienced little success, and it is this model that is in place in ELA classrooms across the

United States.

As a change agent who embraced the transformative framework’s pursuit of social justice, the researcher was interested in revisiting the conversation about the needs of AAVE- speaking students in the classroom, beginning with teacher perception in instruction. The purpose of this research was to understand and evaluate how teachers’ perceptions of students’ use of AAVE related to how they instructed these students in ELA classes. The transformative 70

framework required inclusion of a group that was defined as a community of concern (Sweetman et al., 2010). A community of concern is a group of individuals with links to historical discrimination who were generally excluded from society through marginalization or underrepresentation (Mertens, 2012; Sweetman et al., 2010; Mertens, 2007; Mertens, 1999).

Much research has grown out of the inequity experienced by AAVE-speaking students in the educational setting. To further advance educators’ and researchers’ awareness of the depth of the issues and add to the body of literature, this study included the perspectives of AAVE-speaking students to understand and evaluate how their perceptions of AAVE related to their motivation and confidence in ELA. This body of research focused on pre-service and in-service teachers’ perceptions in quantitative and/or qualitative studies. This research further sought to demonstrate how the transformative mixed methods framework could be used to promote change and social justice for those traditionally underrepresented and disenfranchised in the society.

This chapter discusses the research methodology used to develop this study that includes the research questions, the research design, the selection of participants, the instrumentation and data sources used, and the methods used for data collection. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the data analysis used, the assumptions made about the study that were not questioned in the analysis, and the steps that were taken to assure the trustworthiness of this study.

Research Questions

The intent of the research was to gather information about teachers’ and students’ perceptions of AAVE and how it related to instruction in ELA. The following research questions were addressed in this study: 71

1. What is a teacher’s perception of AAVE-speaking students in regard to intellectual

capabilities, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her instructional

approach with these students in English/Language Arts?

2. What is an African American Vernacular English-speaking student’s perception of

AAVE, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her motivation and

confidence in English/Language Arts?

Research Design

This study used primary data collected through a mixed methods research design. Mixed methods research offers a more balanced approach to the subject (McKim, 2017; Mertens, 2012).

Mixed methods research uses both quantitative and qualitative strategies in a single study

(Barnhardt et al, 2018; McKim, 2017; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), and research conducted in this way captures the subject in a more comprehensive manner (McKim, 2017). “The goal of mixed methods research is not to replace either of these approaches but rather to draw from the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both in single research studies and across studies”

(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 14-15). The mixed methods design was first used in 1959 by

Campbell and Fiske in a study of psychological traits. They encouraged other researchers to use the mixed method of collecting and examining data (Creswell, 2013). Researchers began combining observations and interviews, common qualitative methods, with surveys--a typical quantitative method. Researchers using the mixed methods design realized that while bias was found in all methods, single data methods were more susceptible to bias than when methods were triangulated (Creswell, 2013). Triangulation lowered bias and one method could be used to develop another (Creswell, 2013; Shenton, 2004). Additionally, the application of multiple 72

methods could have a transformative and advocacy effect on marginalized populations such as the poor, ethnic minorities, women, etc. (Creswell, 2013).

Mixed methods research followed three general strategies—sequential, concurrent, or transformative. The transformative strategy used both qualitative and quantitative data to advance a theoretical position. The framework informed the research topic, data collection methods, and anticipated outcomes. This study accepted a sequential or concurrent data collection strategy (Creswell, 2013). The theoretical framework for this research elaborated on the transformative mixed methods design. This study followed this research design by surveying teacher and student participants and followed this with interviews of randomly selected individuals to get an in-depth understanding of their perspectives on AAVE usage in the classroom. To further support and strengthen the participant-as-expert driven by the transformative mixed methods framework, this study was influenced by phenomenology research.

Phenomenology research attempts to uncover the lived experiences of participants by looking at phenomena from their realities and subjective viewpoints (Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie,

2015; Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Qutoshi, 2018; Alase, 2017). Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie (2015) stated:

The main emphasis of phenomenological research is to describe or to interpret human

experience as lived by the experiencer in a way that can be used as a source of qualitative

evidence. The preliminary concern for the researcher is to use qualitative data collection

techniques to obtain examples of everyday experiences. (p. 92-93)

This concept is compatible with the transformative mixed methods paradigm where the participants guide the research process as active contributors with a valid and valued story to tell 73

(Jackson et al., 2018; Alase, 2017; Mertens, 2010 ), particularly for AAVE-speaking students who were the community of concern as defined by the transformative framework. Their stories and expertise were often missing from the research literature. Phenomenological research and the transformative framework supported the collection and analysis of data using semi-structured interviews and focus groups (Sweetman et al., 2010; Qutoshi, 2018; Flynn & Korcuska, 2018); artifact collection was also considered as another data source (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018). The current study used semi-structured interviews and artifact collection to understand how teachers and students viewed AAVE in general and in the classroom. These data tools, in addition to the survey data that was also included, provided the triangulation methods and inclusion of the community as a constant part of the research process required by the transformative mixed methods framework and the phenomenological research approach (Jackson et al, 2018; Alase,

2017; Mertens, 2010). Phenomenological research allowed for a variety in the number of participants, but recommended sample sizes ranging from two or three to twenty-five (Alase,

2017; Flynn & Korcuska, 2018). Others suggested that sample sizes have fifteen or sixty at a minimum with a maximum of 150 participants (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018). This study included six teacher and nine student interviews, which allowed the researcher to develop trust with the participants to identify and understand their perspectives about AAVE since they were most qualified to speak on their experiences. This supported the transformative framework and phenomenological research approach (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Mertens, 2010).

The transformative mixed methods framework that informed this study along with the influence of the phenomenological approach allowed the researcher to collect and analyze data from the survey to the interview that established patterns and trends in thought that supported the positive or negative perceptions of participants’ views of AAVE, maintaining the purpose of this 74

study. The research questions were aligned to both of these methods since the participants’ beliefs and perceptions were the focus of the study from beginning to end, influencing where and how data was collected and analyzed. The participant-driven coding process for the transcribed interviews was also supported by the phenomenological approach and the transformative mixed methods framework used in this study (Jackson et al., 2018; Alase, 2017; Flynn & Korcuska,

2018). Finally, taking steps to improve the inequity experienced by AAVE-speaking students and working to remove oppression in the interest of social justice are the hallmarks of the transformative framework. Researchers endorsing this framework are required to offer solutions and recommendations based on the insight and experiences of the participants, particularly those who represent the underserved and disenfranchised. The phenomenological approach supports this effort by providing the focus on individuals’ lived realities. Without the attention the transformative framework and phenomenology research gave to the importance of participants’ subjective viewpoints, there would be no basis to act on their behalf, a critical part of the transformative process. This concept of understanding participants’ viewpoints and realities led the researcher to include culturally responsive teaching (CRT) as the theoretical basis for this research, particularly when offering recommendations after data analysis.

CRT asks teachers to improve the academic and social outcomes for African American students by utilizing their experiences, interests, and most importantly, their home language in the classroom during instruction (Walter, 2018; Mackay & Strickland, 2018; Bassey, 2016;

Harmon, 2012). When teachers consider students’ experience and language in the instructional design, students are empowered and more motivated to learn (Walter, 2018; Mackay &

Strickland, 2018; Bassey, 2016; Gay 2002). This is especially true for African American students

(Bassey, 2016; Harmon, 2012; Gay, 2002) whose success in school is heavily influenced by 75

teachers’ expectations, perceptions, and the frequency of student teacher interactions (Holliday,

1985; Godley & Escher, 2012). Research shows that if the teacher has a negative perception of the students’ language, this negatively affects their performance (Adenika & Berry, 1976;

Douglas et al., 2008; Bowie & Bond, 1994; Goodman & Buck, 1997; DeMeis & Turner, 1978;

Godley et al., 2006; Beneke & Cheathem, 2015). Because teachers have such a lasting influence on how students perform in school and their self-concept, it is essential that their attitudes about

AAVE be viewed with respect to CRT within the transformative mixed methods framework. The researcher does not believe that CRT in isolation will improve the academic outcomes for

African American students. This concept has to be taken as a part of a larger campaign of social justice that looks at the historical reasons for the current conditions of African American students in education, include the African American students in the research process to hear and learn from their perspectives, and offer recommendations that will positively impact the learning environment for African American students and their teachers. The transformative framework provides the platform on which all of these components can be addressed. The triangulation of these methods will add to the research on mixed methods, the transformative framework, and culturally responsive teaching.

Participants

Since this study used mixed methods research, the qualitative design of the study is emergent in that the process is not concrete and subject to change once the researcher starts collecting data in the field. Thus, the initial plan for identifying and selecting participants is described, but it is subject to change based on research site needs, for example. Additionally, in qualitative design, the researcher collects data in the setting where the problem occurs to understand the meaning the participants make of it (Creswell, 2013). This study involved two 76

groups of participants—teachers and students. The researcher intended to discover the participants’ general perceptions of AAVE and AAVE in school using the Language Attitude

Scale (LAS) survey. The study was based on a purposive sample. The participants were ELA teachers in grades K-5 who worked with AAVE-speaking students because they had knowledge and experience working with AAVE-speaking students and opinions about AAVE use that the study discussed. This study was also based on a purposive sample because AAVE-speaking students in grades 3-5 whose teachers were selected for the interview, participated in the study since they had knowledge and experience as speakers of AAVE as the study discussed.

Teacher Participants. The researcher contacted and sought permission to complete the study from a K-8 elementary school in an urban area in the Midwest. Since the study involved students who spoke AAVE, the researcher located a school that had a majority African American student population where AAVE-speaking students were likely to be present in large numbers since speakers of AAVE are typically working-class people who populate rural and urban cities.

Teachers of AAVE-speaking students who taught general education English and/or language arts (ELA) in grades K-5 were the targeted adult population for the study. “Teacher" was defined as the individual of record responsible for the education of students during the school year. Reading teachers were also included as part of the study though the researcher recognized they may not be the teacher of record since they may service students through pull- out or push-in instruction. A pull-out program is when reading teachers remove students from their general education classroom to provide services, and a push-in program is when the reading teacher works collaboratively with the general education teacher and services the student within the classroom. The rationale for including reading teachers was related to the purpose of the research. Since these teachers share responsibility for literacy instruction with the teacher of 77

record, their perceptions of AAVE-speaking students and how they instructed these students was important to this study.

The researcher collected demographic information about the ten teacher participants that may have influenced the teachers’ perceptions of AAVE use by students in the classroom. First, a teacher’s ethnicity was not being used to recruit or exclude teachers though this information was gathered and key to understanding issues of power in the transformative paradigm. The researcher hoped to identify patterns and trends that crossed ethnic lines to get to the core of teachers’ beliefs about AAVE and the students who spoke it and hoped to provide socially just solutions that would help improve teacher relationships and expectations for AAVE-speaking students. Second, teacher participants were asked about their years of service (See Appendix E) since this information might point to correlations of how experience might influence teachers’ perceptions of AAVE-speaking students and AAVE in the classroom. A teacher’s years of experience also might influence the power dynamics in the classroom under the transformative framework. Third, teachers were asked to identify the years when they were trained (See

Appendix E) because there may be a correlation between a teacher’s approach to teaching ELA standards and their views of AAVE depending on when they were educated. That is, a teacher trained in the 1980s would have presumably been exposed to a different approach to instruction than a teacher trained in the 2000s. Finally, teacher participants were asked to identify the grade level he or she taught. Though not being explored in this study, upcoming studies might wish to evaluate teachers’ tolerance of AAVE-speaking students in the classroom using their grade levels as the independent variable. Data sources in this study might identify such trends.

Student Participants. The transformative framework asks researchers to be keenly aware of the issues of power that exist in the natural setting, the classroom in this case, and to 78

consider the perspectives of the group that has been traditionally disenfranchised as their position is not typically sought (Mertens, 2010; Mertens, 2007; Mertens, 1999). Gathering the perspectives of marginalized but relevant parties is a necessity for equity in representation in research and marks the beginnings of social justice.

The challenges that donor agencies, service providers, and researchers face around the

world suggest that basing practice and policies on a social justice theory of ethics will

allow the community to redress inequalities by giving precedence, or at least equal

weight, to the voices of the least advantaged groups in society, who may not have

sufficient power for accurate representation among stakeholder groups. (Mertens, 2007,

p. 222)

A study discussing perceptions of AAVE use in the classroom would not be balanced without the perspectives of AAVE-speaking students.

AAVE-speaking students’ realities play heavily on the topic of home language and academic expectations, and the researcher desired to seek solutions for inequities in this area as encouraged in the transformative framework rather than just collect data (Barnhardt et al, 2018;

Mertens, 2007). Furthermore, there are not an abundance of studies related to this topic that included the perspectives of AAVE-speaking students, and for this reason, the researcher intended to include only African American student participants who spoke AAVE in this research; thus, schools with majority African American students were sought for this study.

This study involved fourteen AAVE-speaking students who attended school where they were the majority student population. The study targeted general education students in grades 3-5 who spoke AAVE. This student population was not prevalent in the literature, so their perspectives on the subject of AAVE use in general and in the classroom were critical and added 79

to the research. In addition, AAVE-speaking students in grades 3-5, due to their age and “newer” experience in school, were more likely to have retained strong usage of AAVE in school; however, due to lack of signed parent consent forms, students in grade 3 were unable to participate in this study. Students in K-2 were not included in this study because they might be too young and too new to school to provide feedback on teacher perception and instruction as well as student perception and motivation, but upcoming research may address this population.

No contact was made with schools, teachers, or students prior to the approval of the study by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the researcher’s university in the interest of preserving the ethical process of the IRB (See Appendix A). Participants were not compensated for participation in this study. The steps the researcher took to maintain the integrity of the research process will be discussed in detail in the Data Collection Procedures section later in this chapter. The researcher also explored ethical considerations that might occur with participants.

Ethical Considerations

There was a psychological risk that teachers might feel uncomfortable discussing race and issues of power around language in general, especially with an African American researcher.

Since teachers would be talking about the students they interacted with daily, there was a social risk they might fear being ostracized by other staff and students because of their beliefs. There was a psychological risk to students since they would be discussing the teachers that they interacted with daily during class. There was also a social risk that students might worry about getting in trouble for expressing their opinions or disagreeing with their teachers. Students may also have felt uncomfortable discussing their teacher’s instruction and felt uncertain about speaking about AAVE and its negative perceptions and stereotypes. To mitigate the psychological and social risks described, the researcher assured all participants that their survey 80

and interview data were completely confidential. To demonstrate this, the researcher assigned participants pseudonyms for identification purposes rather than their legal names. The researcher also completed member checks of the written transcripts of interviews for clarity and accuracy.

Instrumentation & Data Sources

Data came from three sources: a survey with open-ended questions (See Appendix E and

F), a semi-structured interview of participants (See Appendix C and D), and artifact collection of items provided by the teacher interview participants.

Survey. The Language Attitude Scale (LAS) pioneered by Taylor (1973) and modified by Champion et al., (2012) was used to obtain information from teacher and student participants.

The LAS was available in two forms and both were designed to identify teachers’ and students’ general attitudes about AAVE and its role in education. The twenty-five statements directly addressed the research questions in this study. The modified version of Form 1 with fifteen statements about AAVE in general and ten statements about AAVE use in the classroom by

Champion et al., (2012) was used in this study (See Appendix E and F). Champion et al., (2012) administered the survey to 136 pre-service teachers from a university in Florida. The LAS included 25 Likert scale statements that evaluated the respondents’ general beliefs about AAVE and AAVE in the classroom. Respondents rated the positive statements using a 4-point scale of strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree (4). The negative statements received a reverse coding of strongly disagree (4), disagree (3), agree (2), and strongly agree (1).

Open-ended questions were also included that asked about the pre-service teachers’ training.

Champion et al., (2012) collected demographic data such as race, year in school, gender, and prior teaching experience during their study. They tested for differences based on gender and found no significant difference between males and females and their attitudes toward AAVE. 81

They also analyzed correlations between race and attitudes toward AAVE and found that there was a significant effect of race on the attitudes of the participants toward AAVE. The researcher made slight changes to the modified version of the LAS that made it more relevant to the participants of this study. First, since the same LAS survey was being given to both teachers and students, they were named as Teacher Perception Survey (See Appendix E) and Student

Perception Survey (See Appendix F) respectively because the researcher did not want participants to be swayed by the negative connotation of the word “attitude” used in the original title. Second, the use of Mainstream American English (MAE) on the LAS was changed to

Standard English (SE) to remain constant with its use in the study. Third, the wording on the

Student Perception Survey was rewritten using a Lexile level that students could read and understand. Fourth, the demographic information collected from the respondents was adjusted, removing questions about college attendance and gender for teachers, which were not being evaluated in this study. The Teacher Perception Survey did ask for ethnicity, grade level taught, teaching experience, and when teachers were trained that were relevant to this study. Ethnicity and grade level were relevant to the Student Perception Survey, so they were included. The open-ended questions at the end remained the same for teachers. There was a slight change of wording on the open-ended questions for students. They were asked about which, if any class, they could use AAVE along with their opinion of AAVE in school.

The surveys were created online for administration using the program SoGoSurvey though participants had the option to complete a hard copy. SoGoSurvey is an online survey tool that creates, publishes, and collects responses to surveys. This site allowed the researcher to specify the participants and the number of times they could take the survey in a secure and manageable environment. Hard copies of surveys were input on the SoGoSurvey platform by the 82

researcher. Survey results from SoGoSurvey were exported to the Microsoft Excel software program for data analysis. The survey was administered in person to all ELA teachers and students of teachers interviewed. The school principal randomly selected teachers who took the survey to participate in the interviews. Teachers who interviewed, passed out consent forms to their students to participate in the study. Teachers randomly selected students who took the survey to participate in the interviews.

Semi-structured Interviews. Data was collected from semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with six teachers in grades K-5 and nine students in grades 4-5 that were conducted at the school site by the researcher who used an interview guide with probing questions (See

Appendix C and D) to direct the conversation and maintain focus during the interview.

Interviews ranged from 11-25 minutes. The interview script included details about the study, consent and confidentiality information, the interview questions, final words that reiterated the confidential nature of the study, next steps including member transcript checks and how the data gathered would be used, and any future follow-up information. Interviews allowed the researcher to explore the beliefs, experiences, and views of the participants (Turner, 2010; Yin, 2011;

Sweetman et al., 2010). Using the LAS as a guide, the researcher developed fourteen guiding questions that allowed participants to speak on a range of experiences. Questions also reflected culturally responsive teaching’s values on cultural and linguistic diversity to ascertain if teachers were acting out of a sociocultural consciousness or not. The researcher assigned five topic threads to questions one-thirteen with question fourteen as the opportunity for participants to add any further thoughts and close the interview. Tables 5 and 6 below show the question distributions with topic threads. Questions that had overlapping threads were noted.

83

Table 5

Teacher Interview Questions by Topic Thread Teacher Interview Question Images AAVE in Self- AAVE Teacher Associated Class: Assessment Impact on Instruction with AAVE Reactions Instruction 1.When you hear your AAVE- X speaking students using their home language in class, what images come to mind? 2. Where do the ideas and images X you describe come from? 3.When you hear your AAVE- X speaking students using their home language in class, do you correct them? If so, what do you say? Give me an example. How do they respond to your correction? 4.If you do not correct students X using AAVE, why don’t you? 5.What do you consider your home X language to be? 6.How does the language you speak X X drive how and what you instruct and your expectations of AAVE- speaking students? 7.What if any impact does student X use of AAVE have on them academically? 8.What if any impact does student X X use of AAVE have on how you instruct them? 9.What is your responsibility as a X teacher to AAVE-speaking students? 10.Do your AAVE-speaking X X students respond well to your 84

methods of instruction? If so, what evidence do you have to support this? If not, what evidence do you have to demonstrate this? What do you think can be done to help AAVE-speaking students improve in Language Arts/ELA instruction and on standardized tests? 11.Do you use any of the X suggestions you just mentioned with your AAVE-speaking students? If so, do you notice any improvements in knowledge and mastery of Language Arts/ELA standards? 12.If you are not using any of your X suggestions, why aren’t you, and what would it take for you to shift your instruction with this population? 13.Does AAVE have any role in the X English/Language Arts classroom? If so, in what capacity? If not, why not? 14.Is there anything else we have not discussed that you think is important and needs to be included and considered?

85

Table 6

Student Interview Questions by Topic Thread Teacher Interview Question Images AAVE in Self-Image AAVE Impact Teacher Associated Class: on Instruction Influence with AAVE Reactions 1. Does the language you speak at X home sound like the language you are taught in school? 2. Listen to this conversation: “You X coming? We bout to go to the stow. Hurray up! We fin to leave you. We aint waiting. You is gon get lef. I been told you bout this! We leaving. Brotha, you irritating. We is gon!” How does she sound? Explain. 3. Why did you use those words or X pictures? 4. Is your teacher okay with you X X speaking the way you do in class? How do you know? 5. Have you ever been corrected for X X speaking or writing the way you do in English class? How did you feel? If not, should you be corrected for using the language you do in class? 6. Have you ever stopped speaking X X AAVE when a teacher came by? Why or why not? 7. Can you think if a time when you X X felt bad about using AAVE in the classroom? Explain. 8. Have you ever felt happy about X X using AAVE in the classroom? Explain. 86

9. Does speaking AAVE, affect how X X well you do in school? Explain. 10. Can using AAVE ever be useful X in the English classroom? If so, in what way? If not, why not? 11. Should teachers use AAVE in X X the English classroom to teach? Why or why not? 12. Do you think that you would do X X better in school and on tests if you used AAVE in class to learn school English? Explain. 13. If AAVE is accepted and used X X in the classroom, will this change how you view AAVE and yourself? Please explain. 14. That’s the end of my questions. Do you have any questions or comments?

According to Turner (2010), semi-structured interviews allow the researcher to reword or drop questions, change the order of questions, and/or asked follow-up questions as appropriate to clarify participants’ answers. The interviews were recorded using the computer application Voice

Recorder for accuracy and transcribed using a professional transcription service. The researcher used Dedoose software to support the coding process and data analysis of the interview transcripts. Dedoose did not analyze the data, but its software helped the researcher organize ideas, identify codes and corresponding excerpts and identify prominent themes.

The transformative mixed methods design asks researchers to look at multiple perspectives to understand how different parties make sense of the issues (Turner, 2010; Yin,

2011; Alase, 2017). Additionally, the transformative framework emphasizes the importance of 87

looking at the historical and/or social events that informed the present conditions of participants

(Barnhardt et al, 2018; Jackson et al., 2018; Mertens, 2007; Mertens, 2012). By giving participants a perception survey and following that with a semi-structured interview, the data results reflected the negative stereotypes associated with AAVE-speaking students, such as deficit thinking that could be explained by the systemic discrimination and oppression experienced by African Americans in the educational system and in general. The use of multiple data sources helped to paint a wider picture of the power dynamics that occurred between teachers and their AAVE-speaking students that explained the relationship between teachers’ perceptions and how they instructed their students as well as AAVE-speaking students’ views of their home language and SE.

Artifact Collection. During this study, the researcher collected and examined artifacts of student work with teacher feedback. Some artifacts teachers could choose were essays (draft and final), journal entries, short and long answer responses to literature, student reflections, original stories, summaries, poetry, English/Language Arts homework and classwork, report card feedback and English/Language Arts tests (if available). The purpose of the artifact collection was to identify written feedback that affirmed or negated AAVE and/or upheld SE as the preferred language over AAVE based on decisions by the teacher. The data collected from these artifacts might support or negate information gathered during the survey and interview.

According to Yin (2011) artifact data could provide evidence of the level of instruction occurring in the class and provide further evidence about the teacher’s belief about AAVE use in the classroom. The researcher collected 5-7 student artifacts from the teachers participating in the interviews. Participants were given a written description of sample artifacts at the end of the interview that would be collected and examined. These artifacts were collected shortly 88

afterwards. Participants were asked to provide a short description of the assignment and its relevance to ELA standards as well as the name of the student who completed the work for the researcher’s knowledge only. Participants were assured that all names and references to the school would not be disclosed, and if the artifacts were included in the appendix, all names would be redacted. Data gathered from this instrument may be used to inform future research on helping teachers identify AAVE features and ways to integrate these into instruction in the classroom.

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection for this study took place once the researcher received approval for the study following the IRB process at the University of Findlay. The researcher contacted administrators in the selected district to discuss the study and received permission to conduct it at a school fitting the criteria discussed previously. The researcher arranged to meet with the principal at the school where the study took place to discuss the study and get assistance with identifying ELA teachers that were eligible to participate. The principal supported the research topic and design and acted as a community consultant and expert, providing important information and access to community members throughout the research process as suggested and encouraged in the transformative framework. The researcher and the principal then arranged an information session to meet with the selected teachers to describe the study and measures taken to protect confidentiality. Teachers were given a description of the study, and consent forms were distributed and collected from the participants. The participants were given a copy of the consent form that explained their right to leave the study at any time. After the information session, the researcher gave the survey to the ELA teachers. 89

Dates for the interviews were decided with the assistance of the principal after teachers completed the Teacher Perception Survey. The intent was for the interview to take place within two weeks of the survey session, giving the researcher time to look over the participant’s responses to inform any follow-up questions during the interview. However, interviews could take place earlier than that if necessary to accommodate the school’s scheduled activities. Prior to the interview, the researcher reminded participants of their rights and protections relative to confidentiality and consent. The interviews were conducted face-to-face at the school site in a private office with individual participants due to the sensitive nature of the topic. At the end of the interview, the researcher notified the participants that she would prepare a written transcript of the interview for his or her review within two weeks. A date was agreed upon with each teacher for the researcher to return for the transcript review. The researcher met with the participant to review the transcript and ask any follow-up question as needed. If teachers were not available to meet face-to-face to conduct member checks of the transcripts due to time constraints, communication took place via email. After the interview, the participant was asked to collect samples of student work with teacher feedback and asked to assist with securing the student participants by sending assent and consent forms home that explained the purpose of the study, the student’s role in the study, and the measures that would be put in place to maintain ethics and confidentiality per the IRB process (See Appendix B). The researcher provided contact information on the consent form where parents could ask questions related to the study if they occurred. The period for obtaining student consent was 2 to 3 weeks.

Once assent and consent forms were submitted, the researcher administered the Student

Perception Survey in-person to the students of the teachers participating in the semi-structured interviews. This survey was given at the school site during a regular school day by the researcher 90

on multiple dates as consent forms were returned. The Student Perception Survey was available electronically, but hard copy was preferred for its ease and immediate access. Survey data was collected and input online on the SoGoSurvey software program. From those participants completing the survey, teachers randomly selected students to participate in open-ended interviews. Interviews took place after the survey was completed to avoid too many interruptions to the educational process and programming at the school. Member checks to review transcripts were arranged with the principal of the school shortly after the interviews were conducted.

Typically, these checks occurred when the researcher was scheduled at the school to survey and interview other students. Measures were put in place to protect and secure the data collected.

The survey data was stored in a password secured account on SoGoSurvey and on a password protected computer; it will be deleted after three years from the date of collection.

Consent and assent forms were stored in a locked cabinet in a locked home and will be shredded after three years from the date of collection. Audio files of interviews were stored on a password protected hard drive and will be deleted from the hard drive after three years from the date of collection. Typed transcripts of interviews and artifacts were stored in a locked cabinet in a locked house and will be shredded after three years from the date of collection. Coded interview data was stored in a password secure account on Dedoose and on a password protected computer and will be deleted from the Dedoose account and computer after three years from the date of collection.

Data Analysis

Research data on the LAS survey was analyzed for positive and negative perceptions of

AAVE in general and AAVE use in academics. The LAS was based on a 4-point Likert scale.

The twenty-five statements on the LAS had a range from 25 to 100 when scored. The higher the 91

score, the more positive the respondent was towards AAVE, and the lower the score, the more negative the respondent was towards AAVE. Scores that were 75 or higher demonstrated a positive perception of AAVE, and LAS scores 74 or lower reflected a negative perception of

AAVE. The LAS scores represented participants’ broad attitudes about AAVE in four categories: 1) the structure and inherent usefulness of AAVE, 2) the consequences of using

AAVE in instructional settings, 3) philosophies concerning the use and acceptance of AAVE, and 4) the cognitive and intellectual abilities of AAVE speakers. First, the data was analyzed to determine students’ and teachers’ LAS scores. The open-ended questions at the end of the LAS were coded and analyzed for patterns and themes. Teacher demographic information was collected for analysis of significant mean differences between ethnicity and perception of AAVE as seen in similar perception studies (Champion et al., 2012; Jones, 2011; Taylor, 1973) using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between and within groups. However, the sample for this study with ten participants was too small to comfortably conduct statistical testing and base conclusions about the differences influenced by teachers’ race on their perceptions of AAVE.

Also, the researcher intended to analyze the data to determine if there were significant mean differences between teachers’ years of experience and their perceptions of AAVE using a simple

ANOVA test, but again, the researcher did not have the number of participants to break the samples up into groups to make competent claims that those groups may or may not have different perceptions of AAVE depending on their years of experience. The qualitative aspect of the mixed methods design of this study allowed for changes such as this. The qualitative design of this mixed methods study was meant to be evolving and flexible since the process was not definite and subject to change once the researcher began collecting data (Butina, Campbell, & 92

Miller, 2015; Labaree, 2009; Finlay & Tuval-Mashiach, 2017; Creswell, 2013). According to

Finlay & Tuval-Mashiach (2017),

Because each case of qualitative research is perceived as a singular process, requiring the

researcher to craft his or her own method, there has been an emphasis on flexibility,

versatility, and creativity, as well as much tolerance of methodological ambiguity as an

inescapable, even desired component of the process (Morrow, 2005). (p. 126)

Future studies with significantly more participants will allow differences between teachers’ years of experience and their perceptions of AAVE to be examined in great detail. In addition, student data will be examined in the future to see if there are any significant mean differences between a student’s grade level and his or her perception of AAVE using a simple ANOVA with a larger sample size. The fourteen students in grades four and five did not yield relevant data to address this. With a substantially larger student sample, this analysis could produce significant information across grade levels and schools in the future.

The researcher took the six teacher and nine student interviews and transcribed them using a professional online transcription service. The researcher edited the transcribed interviews to correct errors in spelling and grammar made by the program and to maintain the examples of

AAVE used by the participants, particularly the students. Thus, the use of AAVE features found in the interview transcripts were not accidental nor were they included to demean or mock the participants. The researcher believed that preserving the authentic language of members of the community of concern was supported by the transformative paradigm. The researcher also did not edit out words in the transcripts that expressed hesitation or discomfort such as “uhm” or

“you know.” Speaking on matters of language, power, and race were difficult and being interviewed by an African American about how these ideas related to AAVE may have been 93

uncomfortable for some participants. The transformative framework encourages these conversations even though they may be unpleasant because discomfort can be the impetus for positive change.

Teacher and student interview transcripts were studied separately but followed the same analysis process. The transcripts were read independently, and emerging patterns were identified as they occurred in each transcript. When the researcher read an idea on one transcript, other transcripts were reviewed to see if the same idea was repeated. The researcher employed multiple coding sessions to identify the most appropriate categories for all data sets. An excerpt could be listed in more than one category when applicable. Prominent themes that emerged from the codes were identified. Since the study collected a considerable amount of information from student and teacher participants, the researcher used the online data management software

Dedoose to help label, code, and analyze the interview data. Dedoose was used to highlight excerpts on each transcript that were assigned a code, making it easier for the researcher to discover patterns and emerging themes.

The artifacts were examined for patterns and themes that emerged in relation to AAVE perception and acceptance in the classroom. Specifically, the researcher intended to analyze student work for written teacher feedback in two categories: 1) Identifying AAVE-speaking students’ written expression as wrong due to their use of their home language by filling the document with marks (x’s, red ink, etc.) or corrections indicating errors in SE usage with no explanation, and/or 2) Making no reference to student work with clear AAVE usage as wrong but describing how the expression would look in SE in an effort to directly teach or support code switching. Both categories were aligned with the survey and interview content that measured participants’ attitudes toward AAVE in general and in the instructional environment. These two 94

categories were also reflective of the transformative framework’s desire to address and improve issues of power that have disenfranchised certain individuals in society. However, upon review of the artifacts, the researcher found that the seventeen artifacts collected did not provide written teacher feedback that could be analyzed or coded; examples included stickers and hand drawn stars. This feedback did not allow the researcher to analyze student work as described in the two categories listed above.

Teachers were given verbal and written directions to include student work samples that represented a variety of achievement levels including developing, proficient, and advanced since the actual student work was not being evaluated. However, all of the artifacts submitted were examples of proficient or better student work based on the stickers and all the positive comments teachers provided. Teachers’ feedback was the subject of the researcher’s analysis, so the fact that teachers only gave their best student work could indicate that teachers excluded other samples that received less positive feedback because they may have contained AAVE language features. Another explanation for this was that teachers presented their best student work because they believed that their instructional abilities were under scrutiny and offered high- quality student work to identify themselves as highly capable and effective educators. The artifacts submitted by participants may have been selected for one of these reasons. It was difficult to determine if either or both of these explanations were the case. In addition, none of the teachers provided written descriptions detailing what the assignment was and its relevance to ELA standards. While some of the artifacts provided clues as to what the task was that students may have been asked to complete, these clues did not provide an understanding of the broader context to which they were related, and it was not appropriate for the researcher to speculate about their 95

context without proof. Therefore, due to lack of written teacher feedback, the artifacts collected were excluded from this study.

Table 7 identified the research questions, independent and dependent variables for each question, and the tools that were used to collect data in the study.

Table 7

Research Question and Variables Research Question # 1 What is a teacher’s perception of AAVE-speaking students in regard to intellectual capabilities, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her instructional approach with these students in English/Language Arts? Independent variable Teacher’s perception of AAVE-speaking students IV Data Source a. Teacher Perception Survey administered to teachers at the beginning of the study (questions about teacher’s general attitude about AAVE and its role in education) b. Open-ended interview of teachers after initially completing the survey Dependent variable Instructional approach with AAVE-speaking students DV Data Source a. Open-ended interview of teachers after initially completing the survey to include discussion of instructional practice and verbal interaction b. Artifact collection (teacher feedback on written work) Research Question # 2 What is an African American Vernacular English-speaking student’s perception of AAVE, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her motivation and confidence in English/Language Arts? Independent variable African American Vernacular English-speaking student’s perceptions IV Data Source: a. Student Perception Survey administered to students at the beginning of the study (questions about students’ general attitude about AAVE and its role in education) b. Open-ended interview of students after initially completing the survey to include discussion of AAVE-speaking student’ perception of AAVE Dependent variable Motivation and confidence in ELA DV Data Source a. Student Perception Survey administered to students at the beginning of the study and at the end of the study (questions about students’ general attitude about AAVE and its role in education) b. Open-ended interview of students after initially completing the survey to include discussion of motivation and confidence based on how AAVE is received.

Assumptions

From the beginning of the study, there were certain assumptions the researcher made about the research process. First, the researcher assumed that the participants would give honest 96

and accurate feedback in response to the survey and interview questions. While it is possible that participants may have altered their responses due to the sensitive nature of the subject of AAVE, it was assumed that they would be reflective and open in all their responses. The LAS statements were designed with careful consideration as were the interview questions that allowed participants to lead the discussion through open dialogue. The researcher also assumed that the artifacts submitted for review would contain authentic feedback that reflected true commentary between teacher and student. However, it was possible that participants submitted artifacts that contained commentary that was altered to reflect more positively on their feedback and interaction with AAVE-speaking students. The researcher assumed that the items included in the research instruments would reveal relationships and themes between perceptions of AAVE and academic achievement in ELA by AAVE-speaking students. It was assumed that these themes would result in findings significant to the manner teachers viewed and approached instructing

AAVE-speaking students in ELA. The researcher also assumed that there was a subconscious negativity towards AAVE that may have influenced the motivation and achievement of AAVE- speaking students in ELA. The researcher expected to learn that teachers did not believe AAVE had any value academically and discouraged its use in the classroom. The researcher also expected to learn that AAVE-speaking students felt their home language was viewed as an incorrect form of SE, and this influenced their abilities in ELA and their negative perceptions of

AAVE.

Trustworthiness

To increase the dependability of the research project, the researcher used member checks, an audit trail, and triangulation procedures. A key part of the transformative mixed methods design was for the researcher to use a cyclical design that included community throughout the 97

research process (Jackson et al, 2018; Mertens, 2010). The researcher was expected to make efforts to establish trust and a partnership with the community, and member checks or transcript reviews was one method to accomplish this (Mertens, 2007). The researcher used member checks once the written transcript was available to ensure that the respondents’ perceptions, experiences, and thoughts reflected their original intent. Each respondent was asked to read the written transcript to assure it was accurate to strengthen the credibility of the study (Shenton,

2004). To protect the dependability of the study, the researcher maintained an audit trail. An audit trail “allows any observer to trace the course of the research step-by-step via the decisions made and procedures described” (Shenton, 2004, p. 72). The researcher created a log that documented all research activities that included the IRB approval letter for this study, the research proposal, all signed and dated assent and consent forms, the surveys and results, the interview guide, copies of the audio files from the interviews, transcription of the audio files, and notes on emerging themes. Finally, triangulation methods were used in this study to promote conformability. Triangulation involved using a variety of data sources to strengthen limitations found in singular data sources and overcome bias (Creswell, 2013; Shenton, 2004). The researcher used a mixed methods design that began with the collection and interpretation of

(survey) quantitative data followed by the collection and interpretation of qualitative data (open- ended interviews). These data sets were used to analyze teachers’ and students’ perceptions of

AAVE and the relationship between these perceptions and teacher instruction and student motivation. The inclusion of both teachers’ and students’ experiences was another example of triangulation that was supported by the transformative framework.

98

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to explore how teachers’ perceptions of African American

Vernacular English (AAVE) determined how they instructed AAVE-speaking students in

English Language Arts (ELA) classes. This study also sought to explore the perceptions of

AAVE-speaking students and how these opinions affected their motivation and confidence in

ELA classes. The researcher determined this study to be significant to the dialogue and solutions for the achievement gap given the documented disproportionate scores in reading of African

American students on standardized tests as compared to their White peers. The goal of this research was to revisit the discussion on students’ home language and how that language should be treated in the instruction of AAVE-speaking students. The transformative mixed methods paradigm informed this study by framing the disproportionate pattern of low reading achievement by African American students as a social justice issue that requires immediate and thoughtful action to reverse this pattern. Viewing language from the perspective of power also gave the researcher the opportunity to analyze teachers’ instructional practices and beliefs to make changes that may help them and their AAVE-speaking students begin to close the achievement gap. This chapter describes the instrument validity and reliability of the Language

Attitude Scale (LAS), gives characteristics of the sample population, describes the findings of the study, and provides a narrative summary of the results for each research question. The LAS was analyzed by teacher and student groups. In order to maintain clarity and give each groups’ results equal attention, this chapter analyzes all of the teacher survey and interview data followed by the student survey and interview data using the same procedures.

99

Instrument Validity and Reliability

Reliability for the LAS survey items was previously established by Champion et al.,

(2012) who created the modified version of the original LAS that this study used. The internal consistency of the LAS was established through the calculation of an alpha coefficient. In the

Champion et al., (2012) study, 136 pre-service teachers were given the survey, and it “was assessed for internal reliability and was found to be highly reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha value of .93” (Champion et al., 2012, p. 84). This modified version of the LAS was chosen for use in this study because of its modern language statements that maintained historical alignment to the ground-breaking Taylor (1973) study. The Taylor (1973) study had already established reliability and validity for the original LAS by testing 117 items with 186 teachers across the

United States to judge item sensitivity based on the response patterns on each item. Based on whether or not an item was determined to be positive or negative, 25% of teachers with the most positive attitudes towards AAVE were compared to 25% of teachers with the most negative attitudes towards AAVE using a t-test (Taylor, 1973).

All of the items selected for the two forms of LAS elicited statistically significant

response differences at or beyond the .05 confidence level and, indeed, were among those

items which elicited the highest t-scores for all of the items within a given content and

Pro Black English/Con Black English category. Also, t-values for items were closely

matched across forms of LAS. (Taylor, 1973, p. 175-176)

Based on the results, two sets of 25 items were selected for each form of the LAS. This research study used a modified version of Form 1 of the LAS with teacher and student participants.

100

Characteristics of the Sample

The data obtained from the perception surveys came from 10 K-5 ELA teachers and 14

AAVE-speaking students in grades 4-5. Additionally, this study analyzed data from semi- structured interviews from six teachers in grades K-5 and nine students in grades 4-5 who completed the surveys. All interviews and surveys were conducted at the school site. While the time participants took to complete the survey was not recorded, most participants were done within 20 minutes. The interviews ranged from 11- 25 minutes. Each transcript was transcribed professionally, reviewed for clarity, and edited as needed. Careful attention was made to include

AAVE usage when articulated such as the use of “finna” for “about to” during the interviews.

The study took place at an inner-city K-8 community public school. During the 2017-

2018 school year, 342 students were enrolled at the school, and 95.3% of the students identified as African American. One hundred percent of the students were economically disadvantaged.

The school earned an “F” in gap closing measures and in achievement on their state report card where African American students scored 62.8% in ELA, well below the state goal of 83.8%.

The statewide proficiency rate for the English Language Arts test was 63.7%. Students at the school in grade three scored 20%, grade four scored 32.4%, and grade five scored 55.6%.

The school report card described that during the 2017-2018 school year, one hundred percent of the teachers employed at the school held a bachelor’s degree, and 18.5% held a master’s degree. Of the 31 teachers employed at the school, 51.9% were inexperienced teachers.

An inexperienced teacher has 0-3 years of teaching experience according to the state’s

Department of Education. Teacher evaluation data for the school showed that 29.4% of the teachers rated as accomplished, 41.2% were rated skilled, 23.5% were rated developing, and 101

5.9% of the evaluations were not completed. This evaluation system ranked accomplished as the highest rating and ineffective as the lowest (Bolyard, 2015; White 2014).

Ten teachers took the Teacher Perception Survey. Six of these teachers were selected by the principal to be interviewed (see Table 8). Participants’ names were changed to protect their anonymity.

Table 8 Teacher Demographic Data Participant Race Grade Level Years of Years When Experience Trained Ali White 1st 4 2010 to 2012 Beth White 1st 5 2006 to 2010 Cathy White 2nd 16 1997 to 2002 Donna White K 4 2010 to 2014 Earl White 2nd 4 1997 to 2001 Gina White 3rd 3 2012 to 2014 Irene Black 5th 10 2008 to 2010 Kris White 1st 4 2007 to 2012 Jane White 5th 17 1987 to 1992 Leah Black 4th 25 1987 to 1993

The population of this study matched the national statistics that reports Whites make up the majority of teachers in this country (Bettini et al., 2018; Shedrow, 2017; Warren, 2015; Douglas et al., 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). This data also reflected the research that states that urban districts with high poverty minority student populations have higher proportions of inexperienced teachers (Gagnon & Mattingly, 2015; Jacob, 2007; Murnane & Steele, 2007;

Shernoff, Maríñez-Lora, Frazier, Jakobsons, Atkins, & Bonner, 2011; Brill & McCartney, 2008;

Brown & Wynn, 2009). The school report card supported this data when 51.9% of the staff were designated as inexperienced teachers at the school where the study was conducted. Participants were also asked to provide information about the span of years when they received their teacher training. The years a teacher was trained may influence their perception of AAVE usage in the 102

classroom assuming that teachers who trained 20 or more years ago may have had less exposure to curriculum on culture competency and culturally responsive teaching. Of course, it was also true that teachers who were trained more recently may also not have experienced this training.

Research Question 1

The first research question was, “What is a teacher’s perception of AAVE-speaking students in regard to intellectual capabilities, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her instructional approach with these students in English/Language Arts?” To begin to answer this question, the LAS was first analyzed to determine the participants’ positive or negative perceptions about AAVE in general and AAVE in the classroom. The 12 positive and

13 negative statements from the LAS Teacher Perception Survey were identified (see Table 9).

Table 9

LAS Teacher Statements 1 AAVE is a misuse of SE.* 2 AAVE is a clear, thoughtful, and expressive language. 3 AAVE has a faulty grammar system. * 4 Continued usage of AAVE would accomplish nothing worthwhile for society. * 5 Teachers should allow African American students to use AAVE in the classroom. 6 AAVE sounds as good as SE. 7 AAVE is cool. 8 AAVE is as effective for communication as is SE. 9 If use of AAVE were encouraged, speakers of AAVE would be more motivated to achieve academically. 10 In a predominantly African American school, AAVE as well as SE should be taught. 11 Widespread acceptance of AAVE is critical. 12 AAVE should be considered a bad influence on American culture. * 13 AAVE must be accepted if pride is to develop among African Americans. 14 Attempts to eliminate AAVE in schools results in situations that can be psychologically damaging to African American children. 15 When teachers reject the home language of a student, they do him great harm. 16 One of the goals of the American school system should be the standardization of the English language. * 103

17 AAVE should be discouraged. * 18 AAVE should be accepted socially. 19 Acceptance of AAVE by teachers will lead to a lowering of standards in schools. * 20 The scholastic level of a school will fall if teachers allow AAVE to be spoken. * 21 AAVE is an inferior language system. * 22 A teacher should correct a student’s use of AAVE. * 23 One successful method for improving the learning capacity of speakers of AAVE would be to replace their dialect with SE.* 24 AAVE sounds sloppy. * 25 The sooner we eliminate AAVE the better. * *Negative Statements

Statements were scored as follows:

(a) 4 points for strongly agreeing with a positive statement; (b) 3 points for agreeing with a positive statement; (c) 2 points for disagreeing with a positive statement; (d) 1 point for strongly disagreeing with a positive statement; (e) 4 points for strongly disagreeing with a negative statement; (f) 3 points for disagreeing with a negative statement; (g) 2 points for agreeing with a negative statement; and (h) 1 point for strongly agreeing with a negative statement.

When participants agreed with a positive statement, that was considered a positive response. If participants disagreed with a positive statement, that was considered a negative response.

Conversely, if participants agreed with a negative statement, that was considered a negative response. If they disagreed with a negative statement, that was considered a positive response.

Participants received a score from 25 to 100 points on questions 1-25 of the LAS. Final scores of

75 or higher indicated the participant’s positive perception of AAVE while scores of 74 or less indicated a negative perception of AAVE. Participants’ frequency of responses and scale scores were noted (see Table 10). Beth, Gina, and Irene exhibited the most positive overall attitudes towards AAVE in general and AAVE in the classroom. The remaining participants exhibited negative attitudes toward AAVE. 104

Table 10

Individual Teacher Responses on LAS with Scale Score Participant Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Likert Scale Perception Agree Disagree Statements Score of AAVE Ali 0 9 14 2 25 64 Negative Beth 5 9 2 9 25 87 Positive Cathy 2 11 12 0 25 64 Negative Donna 0 13 12 0 25 64 Negative Earl 0 10 14 1 25 62 Negative Gina 10 1 1 13 25 97 Positive Irene 3 9 2 11 25 83 Positive Kris 1 9 15 0 25 68 Negative Jane 2 8 11 4 25 51 Negative Leah 2 7 10 6 25 68 Negative

Jane exhibited the most negative attitude of all the participants receiving 51 out of 100 possible points. The other participants scored anywhere from the low to high 60’s. While the LAS scores did not consider near positives, those participants (Kris and Leah) within 7 points of the lowest positive score of 75 would be ideal early candidates for targeted professional development and classroom supports for AAVE speakers in the researcher’s opinion.

In addition to determining the participants’ perceptions of AAVE as positive or negative, the LAS scores also evaluated their general attitude about AAVE in four categories: 1) the structure and inherent usefulness of AAVE, 2) the consequences of using AAVE in instructional settings, 3) philosophies concerning the use and acceptance of AAVE, and 4) the cognitive and intellectual abilities of AAVE speakers. The Taylor (1973) study analyzed data using these four categories, and this study replicated this practice. While some of the statements could apply to more than one category, the researcher placed each statement in the category that it was assigned in the Taylor (1973) study to be consistent. 105

Structure and inherent usefulness of AAVE. Statements in this category addressed participants’ views on AAVE’s language and grammar structure as well as AAVE’s usefulness as a communication system. Whether responding to a negative or positive statement, participants scoring 3 or 4 exhibited the most positive attitudes towards AAVE in this category. Most of the participants scored negatively in this category with an overall mean of 2.8; in fact, this category ranked as the most negative of the four (see Table 11).

Table 11

Teacher LAS Responses for Structure and Inherent Usefulness of AAVE Participant St. St. St. St. St. St. St. St. Ind. Attitude LAS 1 2 3 6 7 8 21 24 Mean of Mean Score Ali 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2.6 Negative 64 Beth 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3.5 Positive 87 Cathy 3 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 2.9 Negative 64 Donna 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2.5 Negative 64 Earl 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 Negative 62 Gina 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 3.8 Positive 97 Irene 4 4 2 2 3 3 4 4 3.3 Positive 83 Kris 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 2.9 Negative 68 Jane 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 1.9 Negative 51 Leah 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2.3 Negative 68

60% 70% 30% 10% 70% 80% 100% 60% Averages 2.7 3.0 2.4 2.0 3.0 2.9 3.4 2.9 2.8

When presented with the statement that AAVE was a misuse of SE (S # 1), 40% of participants disagreed and 20% strongly disagreed. Of the remaining participants, 30% agreed and 10% strongly agreed with this statement. The group mean for this statement was 2.7. The majority of the participants strongly agreed (30%) or agreed (40%) that AAVE was a clear, thoughtful, and expressive language (S # 2) while the remaining 30% disagreed with this 106

statement. The group mean for this statement was a 3.0, and none of the participants strongly disagreed (1) with this statement. However positive the participants viewed AAVE as a clear, thoughtful, and expressive language, 70% of them agreed that AAVE had a faulty grammar system (S # 3). he group mean for statement 3 was 2.4.

When asked if AAVE sounded as good as SE (S # 6), 80% disagreed, 10% strongly disagreed, and 10% agreed. The group mean for statement 6 was 2.0, the lowest in this category.

Even participants that normally were supportive of AAVE disagreed that AAVE sounded as good as SE, except for Beth who agreed with statement six. Gina who consistently had positive views of AAVE agreed with this statement, earning her only two or disagree in this category and on the entire LAS. Jane was the only one who strongly disagreed or marked 1 for this statement.

Seventy percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that AAVE “was cool” (S # 7).

Statement 7 had a group mean of 3.0. Cathy and Kris marked their only 4’s in this category, strongly agreeing that AAVE “was cool.” For Kris, this was the only 4 or strongly agree she marked on the survey.

When asked if AAVE was as effective for communication as SE (S # 8), 70% of the participants agreed and 10% strongly agreed with a 2.9 group mean score. Statements 2 and 8 both received positive responses from participants, so their perceptions of AAVE as a faulty grammar system were viewed as a contradiction. The same ambivalence was seen in the statement that AAVE was an inferior language system (S # 21) with 60% of participants disagreeing and 40% strongly disagreeing. Statement 21 had the highest disagreement rating in this category at 100% with a mean score of 3.4. The majority of the participants also disagreed

(30%) and strongly disagreed (30%) that AAVE “sounded sloppy” (S # 24) with the remaining 107

40% agreeing that it did. The group mean of this statement was 2.9. Sixty percent of participants did not believe that AAVE sounded sloppy, and 60% of them did not believe that AAVE was a misuse of SE. But 90% of them did not believe AAVE sounded as good as SE. It appeared that when presented with statements that had direct ties to ELA instruction or SE, participants supported these statements as the caretakers of ELA standards and SE would.

Consequences of using AAVE in instructional settings. The importance of AAVE use in the classroom and its perception in general were of critical importance to this study, so the statements in this category were key to answering Research Question 1. This category saw the most positive attitudes towards AAVE by the participants (see Table 12).

Table 12

Teacher LAS Responses for Consequences of Using AAVE in Instructional Settings Participant St. St. St. St. St. St. St. St. Ind. Attitude of LAS 4 9 12 13 14 15 19 20 Mean Mean Score Ali 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3.0 Positive 64 Beth 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4.0 Positive 87 Cathy 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 Negative 64 Donna 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3.0 Positive 64 Earl 3 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 3.0 Positive 62 Gina 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0 Positive 97 Irene 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4.0 Positive 83 Kris 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.0 Positive 68 Jane 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2.0 Negative 51 Leah 3 1 3 2 2 3 4 4 4.0 Positive 68

100% 50% 100% 60% 70% 60% 80% 80% 3.2 Averages 3.3 2.6 3.3 2.7 2.9 2.8 3.2 3.2

The group mean in this category was 3.2. Most of the participants disagreed (70%) that the continued use of AAVE would accomplish nothing worthwhile for society (S # 4) with 30% strongly disagreeing. The group mean for this statement was 3.3 and reflected the same responses from participants as statement 21 did. Just as participants were not supportive of the 108

idea of AAVE being an inferior language system, they also did not support the idea that AAVE would accomplish nothing worthwhile for society. But when asked if use of AAVE were encouraged, and speakers of AAVE would be more motivated to achieve academically (S # 9), participants were divided in their responses with 20% strongly agreeing, 30% agreeing, 40% disagreeing, and 10% strongly disagreeing. This statement had the lowest mean of 2.6 in this category. Leah was the only one to strongly disagree with this statement.

Statement 12 had an overall mean score of 3.3 with 70% disagreement and 30% strong disagreement that AAVE should be considered a bad influence on American culture (S # 12).

Participants’ responses to statement 12 were identical to their responses to statements 4 and 21.

They appeared to reject statements that declared or implied the inferiority of AAVE. To demonstrate these patterns further, when asked if AAVE must be accepted if pride were to develop among African Americans (S # 13), 50% of participants agreed and 10% strongly agreed. Statement 13 had a group mean of 2.7. When asked if attempts to eliminate AAVE in schools resulted in situations that could be psychologically damaging (S # 14) to African

American children, 70% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed. Even Jane agreed with this statement though she strongly disagreed with statement 9 and 13 which indicated ambivalence.

Statement 14 had a group mean score of 2.9.

Statement 15 had a group mean of 2.8. Participants agreed that teachers’ rejecting a student’s home language caused great harm to the student (S # 15) with 30% strongly agreeing and 30% agreeing. This supported their agreement with statement 14 that attempts to eliminate

AAVE in schools will result in situations that could be psychologically damaging to African

American children. Teachers’ agreement with statements 14 and 15 also supported their disagreement that AAVE is an inferior language system, for to suggest that AAVE was an 109

inferior language system would imply that the speakers of AAVE were also inferior, and the great harm that that belief has caused AAVE-speaking students has been well documented

(Adenika & Berry, 1976; Douglas et al., 2008; Bowie & Bond, 1994; Goodman & Buck, 1997;

DeMeis & Turner, 1978; Godley et al., 2006; Beneke & Cheathem, 2015).

When asked if acceptance of AAVE by teachers would lead to a lowering of standards in schools (S # 19), 40% disagreed and 40% strongly disagreed. Said another way, forty percent of participants disagreed and 40% strongly disagreed that the scholastic level of a school would fall if teachers allowed AAVE to be spoken (S # 20). Statements 19 and 20 both had mean scores of

3.2. The individual and collective mean scores described in this category were of particular interest since they directly related to how teachers’ beliefs and views about AAVE shaped how they engaged with AAVE-speaking students. The data in this category demonstrated that teacher’s attitudes towards AAVE were mostly positive.

Philosophies concerning the use and acceptance of AAVE. Statements in this category addressed the participants’ beliefs about the use of AAVE in the classroom and perception and acceptance of AAVE in general and by society (see Table 13). The overall individual mean score was 2.7 in this category.

Table 13

Teacher LAS Responses for Philosophies Concerning the Use and Acceptance of AAVE Participant St. St. St. St. St. St. St. St. Ind. Attitude of LAS 5 10 11 16 17 18 22 25 Mean Mean Score Ali 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 4 2.4 Negative 64 Beth 3 3 4 2 4 4 2 4 3.3 Positive 87 Cathy 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2.4 Negative 64 Donna 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2.5 Negative 64 Earl 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2.6 Negative 62 Gina 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.9 Positive 97 Irene 3 1 3 3 4 4 2 4 3.0 Positive 83 110

Kris 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2.5 Negative 68 Jane 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 1.8 Negative 51 Leah 3 3 2 2 4 4 3 3 3.0 Positive 68

60% 30% 50% 30% 90% 90% 20% 100% 2.7 Averages 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.3 3.3 3.3 2.3 3.4

This category was important because of its potential influence on teachers’ perceptions of AAVE and AAVE-speaking students. In many cases, teachers use SE only as they do in the classroom because of their perceived duties to society and industry, so understanding teachers’ philosophies concerning the use and acceptance of AAVE were essential to this study since those influences would likely be seen in the classroom. Participants were asked if teachers should allow African

American students to use AAVE in the classroom (S # 5). Fifty percent of them agreed with the statement, 10% strongly agreed, 30% disagreed, and 10% strongly agreed. The group mean for statement 5 was 2.6. When asked if in a predominantly African American school, AAVE as well as SE should be taught (S # 10), 40% of the participants disagreed and 30% strongly disagreed with this statement. This statement had the lowest mean score of 2.0 in this category with three strongly disagree responses.

Statement 11 had a group mean of 2.6. Participants were divided on whether widespread acceptance of AAVE was critical (S # 11). Twenty percent of them strongly agreed with this statement, 30% agreed, 40% disagreed, and 10% strongly disagreed which conflicted with participants’ responses to statement 18 below that asked a similar question. When presented with the statement that one of the goals of the American school system was the standardization of the

English language (S # 16), 70% strongly agreed with this statement. Participants were presented with a statement that said AAVE should be discouraged (S # 17), and 50% of them disagreed 111

with the statement, 40% strongly disagreed, and 10% agreed. Their support of AAVE continued when 40% of the participants strongly agreed that AAVE should be accepted socially (S # 18), and 50% agreed with this statement. Statements 17 and 18 both had an overall mean score of 3.3.

It was clear that the participants believed that AAVE was as effective for communications as SE, and 100% of them disagreed that AAVE was an inferior language system, yet 80% of the participants agreed that a teacher should correct a student’s use of AAVE

(S # 22) with 10% disagreeing and 10% strongly disagreeing. Statements 16 and 22 both had mean scores of 2.3. Sixty percent of participants disagreed that the sooner AAVE was eliminated the better (S # 25), and 40% of them strongly disagreed with this statement. The overall mean average of statement 25 was 3.4. Any statements that generalized AAVE to how society perceived it in the current study received support from the participants when the statement was viewed as a negative such as 60% of participants disagreeing that the sooner AAVE was eliminated the better, or 90% of participants disagreeing that AAVE should be discouraged, or

100% of teachers disagreeing that AAVE should be considered a bad influence on American culture. But when there was a reference to AAVE sounding as good as SE, 90% of participants disagreed, and 60% of them agreed that one of the goals of the American school system should be the standardization of the English language, so the power and expectations of society cannot be understated because this power and these expectations influenced teachers’ perceptions of

AAVE in the classroom due to spoken and unspoken societal bias.

Cognitive and intellectual abilities of AAVE speakers. This category addressed participants’ ideas on what they thought might help AAVE-speaking students be more successful in school.

There was only one question in this category. This statement was critical to understanding 112

Research Question 1 because what participants believed about the cognitive and intellectual abilities of AAVE-speaking students influenced how they instructed these students and the expectations they had for them as far as rigor and providing challenging educational experiences.

The research clearly identifies the negative images associated with AAVE-speaking students as being less successful than SE speakers and less intelligent (Blodgett & Cooper, 1973;

Morgan,1994; Billings, 2005; Franklin & Hixon, 1999; Cross, DeVaney, & Jones, 2001).

Unfortunately, these beliefs have become cemented in social and educational environments and are very dangerous to the development, opportunities, and success of AAVE-speaking students.

Thus, participants’ attitudes in this category were of critical importance.

Statement 23 had an individual and group mean score of 2.7 with 40% of participants disagreeing that a successful method for improving the learning capacity of AAVE-speakers would be to replace their dialect with SE. Sixty percent of the participants agreed that a successful method for improving the learning capacity of speakers of AAVE would be to replace their dialect with SE. As previously discussed, participants supported SE in instruction for

AAVE-speaking students though they recognized and showed support for AAVE as a language system.

Question 26 on the LAS asked participants to what extent AAVE in education was presented in their teacher training programs. They selected responses from four options: not at all, very little, often, or extensively. None of the participants selected often or extensively. Forty percent of them indicated their level of AAVE training as not at all, and 60% indicated they had very little training. Unfortunately, these results were typical of teacher education programs in the

United States. Teacher preparation programs do not provide minimal or extensive teacher 113

training in AAVE, language diversity, culturally responsive teaching, implicit bias training, language power dynamics, or any courses that prepare teachers working in predominately urban

African American school districts to support AAVE-speaking students to meet ELA standards and objectives.

Question 27 asked what course or courses in teacher training discussed AAVE in education. Cathy and Gina identified urban studies and urban education courses as those where they encountered some discussion about AAVE in education. Urban studies and urban education courses often address issues in education and the impact of poverty on achievement that plague disenfranchised groups like African Americans along with other areas critical to urban development. Gina also mentioned a language/speaking class as a course where a discussion about AAVE occurred; but it is not clear if this was a teacher education course or an ELA instruction course. Beth listed psychology as the course that mentioned something about AAVE in education. Leah indicated receiving no training at all in AAVE in question 26, but listed Black

Awareness, Black History, and English I and II as courses where some discussion about AAVE in education were encountered. The remaining participants did not answer the question or indicated non-applicable as a response.

Question 28 asked participants to express their overall opinion about the use of AAVE in the school setting. Ali, Beth, and Donna did not answer. Response excerpts were highlighted in various colors to express similar and new ideas. After several rounds of this process, the following codes were identified: acceptance, acceptance with conditions, speech is fine, SE in the classroom, bias, and disconnection. The researcher then reviewed the highlighted codes to narrow them down to themes. The themes that emerged from the data were acceptance, speech 114

vs. standards, and isolation. It was possible for a participant’s response to reflect more than one theme. In those cases, the excerpts were coded accordingly. If participants expressed acceptance of AAVE, their comments were labeled acceptance even if they attached conditions to their approval. Leah stated, “The issue is when there are not enough teachers that look like them while they are expressing their language. Limits could be placed on their ‘expressiveness’ if you will.”

Leah felt that teachers from other races would not be as understanding of AAVE-speaking students. She expressed a common concern found in the literature on teachers’ language attitudes towards AAVE; however, there was no absolute evidence that African American teachers would show or would always show more tolerance towards AAVE in general or in the classroom. Both of the African American teachers scored negatively on the Teacher Perception Survey given in this study. Similar results have occurred in other studies on teachers’ perceptions of AAVE.

Some results show African American teachers viewing AAVE less negatively than their White peers while others showed them viewing AAVE negatively (DeMeis & Turner, 1978; Champion et al., 2012; Washington & Miller-Jones, 1989; Koch et al., 2001; Payne et al., 2000).

Comments labeled speech vs. standards made a distinction between spoken AAVE and

ELA standards around testing, writing objectives, etc. Cathy stated, “However for classroom settings and due to the standardized tests that students, teachers, schools, and school systems are held to, I believe that SE should be the only acceptable English for the classroom setting.”

Cathy’s response and others’ responses also provided some written evidence of the distinction that some of them made between the speech of AAVE-speaking students and the formal standards-driven curriculum where AAVE speech was fine or acceptable in informal situations but not acceptable in the classroom where SE was the only language used for instruction, which 115

is an example of language bias. This sentiment about AAVE speech was supported by participants’ responses on the survey, especially where comparisons between AAVE and SE were made. When asked, for example, if AAVE sounded as good as SE (S # 6,) all of the participants disagreed, except Beth who agreed. When asked if one successful method for improving the learning capacity of speakers of AAVE would be to replace their dialect (S # 23) with SE, Cathy, Earl, and Jane agreed and Irene strongly disagreed, but everyone else agreed.

Comments labeled isolation described students whose AAVE was not recognized by the teacher as occurring and/or the distance between AAVE-speaking students and teachers who limited their expression because they did not share their language and/or culture. Kris stated,

“Interesting, for my grade level I don't encounter AAVE very often.” However, the researcher chose the study site due to its student population where AAVE was spoken by a large portion of the population. This assumption was verified by the principal and other participants in the study.

That Kris had not noted the difference in her students’ home language and/or had not acknowledged it represented a disconnection in awareness and understanding of the students she instructed. In addition and as previously mentioned, African American students entering school are likely to exhibit some AAVE features and throughout their elementary school years (Zurer-

Pearson et al., 2013). The sample size in this study cannot be generalized to others, but future research including multiple participants from urban and rural areas may provide more insight on this issue.

The researcher proposed to conduct a one-way ANOVA to test for differences in perception based on teachers’ years of experience and race, but this study did not have the sample size to comfortably base conclusions about how the differences in teachers’ race and 116

years of experience influenced their perception of AAVE. However, these variables, especially race, were evaluated in other language attitude studies. Some of the results from similar studies, assuming that their conclusions were accurate, were described in lieu of statistical difference results for this study and for information purposes. The Taylor (1973) study found that African

American teachers had slightly more positive attitudes towards AAVE, and teachers who worked at predominately African American populated schools also had more positive than negative attitudes towards AAVE. Teachers who worked at predominately White populated schools generally had more negative attitudes towards AAVE overall. Taylor (1973) also found that teachers with 3-5 years’ of experience had more positive attitudes towards AAVE than beginning teachers and those with ten or more years of experience. In the Jones (2011) study, a Tukey’s

HSD (honestly significant difference) post-hoc test revealed there was a statistically significant difference between African American and White teachers in their views of AAVE (p = .024 <

.05). Jones (2011) believed that African American teachers were more sympathetic in their views of AAVE because of personal connections with AAVE and AAVE speakers. The Tukey’s HSD test also revealed there was a statistically significant difference between African American and

White teachers in instructional ideas for AAVE speakers (p = .000 < .05). Jones (2011) explained that differences in instructional ideas between these two groups may be attributed to how each group approaches instructing AAVE-speaking students. African American teachers may have more personal knowledge about AAVE and experience addressing its use in the classroom than White teachers.

African American teachers may also be more aware of strategies such as code switching than White teachers, and they may be more comfortable using different instructional strategies 117

with AAVE-speaking students than White teachers were. In the Champion et al., (2012) study, researchers found a significant effect of race on participants’ perceptions of AAVE (p = < .03).

A post-hoc Least Significant Difference (LSD) test revealed a statistically significant difference between African American and White pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards AAVE. As these studies indicate, race has been shown to affect teachers’ perceptions of AAVE usage in the classroom. These results were significant in light of the fact that the majority of teachers in the

United States are White, so addressing language bias and providing training on language diversity and culture are extremely urgent needs for pre- and in-service teachers.

According to the transformative framework, a relationship must exist between the researcher and the participants where trust and a respect for an individual’s realities are present

(Mertens, 2007; Mertens, Bledsoe, Sullivan, & Wilson, 2003). During the interview data analysis, the ideas and perceptions of the participants led the coding process, and 25 codes were identified from their discussion (see Appendix G). The researcher wanted the identification of prominent themes to be organic, so the categories where the participants commented the most frequently were selected as the prominent themes. The prominent themes that emerged from the teacher interviews were as follows: enforcing ELA standards, implicit bias, code switching, societal expectations, and contradiction. These themes also supported the results and analysis of the Teacher Perception Survey discussed earlier in this chapter. Information about student interviews, codes, and themes will be discussed later in this chapter.

Enforcing ELA Standards. Participants often referred to the expectations placed on them as ELA teachers to teach the standards and prepare students to succeed on state standardized tests and progress from grade to grade to explain their emphasis on SE instruction. 118

Participants viewed themselves, consciously or subconsciously, as the gatekeepers of SE because they were ELA teachers. They felt they had a duty to prepare AAVE-speaking students using

ELA objectives and curriculum. Donna stated:

You know how like I said for example, you know they would...you have...my students in

third grade, they would use it at recess. And then when they came back in the classroom,

they knew that they were not using “finna" or using a at the end of their words because

that is how my classroom...the structure of my classroom was.

Beth stated:

Well, I guess it just serves as a model for Standard English and for what we want to see

on the English portion of their testing, and you know, what schools expect from them.

Like, I think it's really important to help them understand that there is this other language

that schools expect them to know.

Throughout the interview sessions, several of the participants distinguished AAVE speech from written work. They were more receptive and tolerable to students’ use of AAVE with their peers, speaking informally to the teacher, and when expressing themselves freely, but insisted that students use SE in formal writing that would likely be assessed on state tests.

Earl stated:

Yeah, only in the sense of writing if you really think about it. If they're...if they write the

word brother instead of...if they write the word brotha instead of brother, I, in my mind,

I'm going to have to correct them.

Gina stated: 119

But I think in terms of specifically speech, I think...I don't... I don't feel like... I don't feel

like they would say that I correct their speech, or they felt any sort of way about that. You

know what I mean? Because I let them do Turn-in Talks, and then speak in a group, and I

don't... I'd rather have them tell me like an idea than like correcting them on their speech.

But if it's like a formal thing, where you're writing like a research something, you know

like...I feel like that's...we have to again be like these are the conventions.

Implicit Bias. Several participants expressed concern about how people outside the school setting would perceive and treat AAVE speakers. Their comments suggested that AAVE- speaking students would be looked upon in a negative manner and stereotyped by people and industries that believed SE was the language that provided opportunities and would consider

AAVE as substandard. Participants implied that AAVE-speaking students would face discrimination and further marginalization if they used AAVE in a society that expected them to use SE at work and during interviews. Irene stated:

They write the way they speak. So, the only way I think it will affect them academically

is if they cannot turn it off and began to write in a way that's [un] professional, and what

the world considers, I guess, correct English when they're writing because the perception

of them will be, ‘Oh they're dumb; they're stupid. They don't know anything. This is

garbage,’ type of deal and they are not on level per se.

Participants’ comments acknowledged that there is an underlying bias toward AAVE and

AAVE-speaking students. Ironically, teachers did not view their preference for SE only during instruction and in writing and their assignment of AAVE to informal conversations or to the 120

“playground” as Donna expressed as examples of implicit bias. Beth is the only teacher who actually used the term “implicit bias” during the interview.

Implicit bias is a negative concept, so any other of the 25 codes (see Appendix G) that were also inherently negative were identified as sub-themes of implicit bias such as negative reference/stereotype, impact on student motivation, disconnect, hip hop/slang reference, and spoken language. Teachers who did not acknowledge the existence of their student’s home language or who were out-of-touch with their students’ language realities, and consequently, did not fully understand their students’ issues and needs were identified as disconnected. Both

African American teachers described a disconnected teacher as one that had low expectations for

African American students and allowed them to speak and behave as they wished with little consequence. If a participant referred to AAVE as slang and/or associated it with hip hop, it was coded as a negative because AAVE and Ebonics has historically and incorrectly been equated with youth slang and urban hip-hop vernacular in the media (Thompson, 2000; Whitney, 2005;

Godley et al., 2006; Swindler-Boutte, 2015). Even though some AAVE speakers use slang and hip-hop vernacular in their dialogue, slang’s faddish, short cycle and temporary appearance do not belong in the same category as the older, more defined AAVE as described in chapter two.

When asked if there was any place in the ELA classroom for AAVE, participants described its acceptance in spoken language expressions such as poetry, rap lyrics, or plays where vernacular use was likely to occur. This label was seen as a negative because it only valued AAVE in the classroom in spoken language in the same way AAVE speech was tolerated only in informal conversations. If participants referred to AAVE using a stereotype or in a negative way, their comment was coded as negative reference/stereotype. In addition, if 121

participants made negative comments or mentioned stereotypes about African Americans in general, they were also assigned this code. The researcher assigned impact on student motivation to this theme because all of the codes listed had the potential to influence how students viewed themselves and their motivation in ELA class. Again, these results cannot be generalized to others.

Code Switching. When participants described students using their home language and being able to switch and use SE depending on the circumstances, their comments were coded as code switching. Also, if participants described occasions in the classroom where they knowingly or unknowingly used or promoted code switching with their AAVE-speaking students, their comments were labeled code switching. While most of the participants did not use the word code switching, many of them described code switching’s importance for AAVE-speaking students’ success. Earl said, “So, you have to have a business side and maybe a school side and then you have a personal side. So, I try to again lead by example.” Leah said:

And it's a time and place, but as long as they know how to switch it up, I think

academically when you teach it, you just need to show them those differences, you know.

Let them see the Standard English and let them rewrite it in their own way. And then let

them look at what they've written and have them practice writing it the correct way. I just

think just looking at more examples and playing around with the language, doing more

with the language will be an interesting thing.

Societal Expectations. Several of the participants expressed that they had obligations to prepare AAVE-speaking students for future career and educational opportunities. Their 122

comments centered around the expectations society would have for AAVE-speaking students to be prepared to speak and write in SE in professional settings. Gina stated:

I think it is my responsibility to tell them that they're going to be perceived in certain

ways because as much as I don't agree with it, it's what happens, and like any kind of

high school situation, college situations, business, politics, whatever you're in

like...people are going to judge you, you know and discriminate and all those kinds of

things.

Earl stated:

It's not to put them down. It's not to tell them that they should never speak that way; it's

just they have to get used to...it all goes in the writing and expressing themselves, you

know in a business setting.... preparing them for a business setting things like that.

Contradiction. The discrepancies and ambivalence that surfaced in the Teacher

Perception Survey analysis also occurred in the interview sessions. Participants seemed to be torn between their expected duties as ELA teachers and students’ rights to expression in their home language. Participants, for example, may have expressed the importance of freedom of expression for AAVE-speaking students, but later in the interview, they contradicted themselves by stating that they corrected students’ use of AAVE in the classroom. The researcher asked,

“What is your responsibility as a teacher to African American speaking students?” Donna stated,

“To make sure that they are comfortable within their culture and that they feel safe in their classroom.” She contradicted herself when she said, “The way my principal described it to me in

Detroit he's like, ‘It's part of their culture, so it's okay for them to use it.’ Okay, like that's fine.

I'll let them use it, but you don't want them to use it in the classroom.” Donna stated that her 123

responsibility to her AAVE-speaking students was to make sure they were comfortable within their culture and to make them feel safe in the classroom. She described being told by a previous principal that AAVE usage was part of her students’ cultures, and it was okay for them to use it.

But she still did not want them to use it in the classroom, which would not be an example of making AAVE-speaking students feel comfortable within their culture. Donna repeated her objection of AAVE use in the classroom during the interview allocating AAVE speech to the playground and recess. She also supported the vocal and written divide of AAVE.

Irene was asked the same question. She said, “I would say that my responsibility is to embrace the things that they know and enhance the things that they don't know. So, they are ready for whatever comes to them in the world.” She contradicted herself by saying:

No, I don't think it [use of AAVE to teach SE] will make a difference just because we

can't be so stuck on this is our language because a lot of people come here with uh,

Spanish. I mean...a lot of people don't embrace our language, but they embrace Spanish.

But we have to be cognizant of what's the...what's the majority...what's accepted by the

majority just because it's the world we live in.

Irene’s spoke of her students as being like her children and part of her village. These were very personal references that demonstrated her deep fondness for her students. She spoke of embracing the details her students knew and enhancing the details they did not know, so they would be ready for the world. But when asked if AAVE should be used to teach ELA standards,

Irene objected and went on to express how African Americans could not be stuck on AAVE as their language because they were not the majority and had to accept the language the majority used. She stated that AAVE was not embraced like Spanish was in society. Embracing the things 124

her AAVE-speaking students knew would be their home language and valuing it on the same level as SE when used to teach students how to code switch; something Irene described frequently during her interview. Her comments were in stark contrast with one another, particularly coming from one who identified AAVE as her home language.

Research Question 2

The other experts in the study were African American students who were speakers of

AAVE in grades 4-5 (see Table 14). Students’ names were changed to protect their anonymity.

The student population also represented the community of concern required as part of the transformative mixed methods framework that guided this study. African American students in general and those who speak AAVE have ties to historical discrimination and marginalization as outlined in chapter two.

Table 14

Student Perception Survey Demographics Participant Race Grade Tonya Black 5th Shay Black 5th Paula Black 5th Roger Black 5th Halimah Black 4th Bailey Black 4th Shawna Black 4th Brianna Black 4th Willow Biracial 4th Brandon Black 4th Jessica Biracial 4th Jaylen Black 4th Wesley Black 5th Mylah Black 5th

125

The second research question was, “What is an African American Vernacular English- speaking student’s perception of AAVE, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her motivation and confidence in English/Language Arts?” To answer this question, the LAS was analyzed to determine the students’ positive or negative perceptions about AAVE in general and AAVE in the classroom. The statements from the LAS Student Perception Survey were the same as the teachers’ (see Table 15) with slight changes in wording to accommodate the students’ Lexile levels. Students’ statements were evaluated using the same process that teachers’ statements were scored. Students earned a score from 25 to 100 points based on their responses on the Student Perception Survey. A score of 75 or higher indicated the participant’s positive perception of AAVE while a score of 74 or less indicated a negative perception of

AAVE.

Table 15

LAS Student Statements 1. AAVE is a wrong use of SE. * 2. AAVE is a clear and strong language. 3. AAVE uses bad grammar. * 4. AAVE’s use does not benefit society. * 5. Teachers should let students use AAVE in class. 6. AAVE sounds as good as SE. 7. AAVE is cool. 8. AAVE is as good as SE for communication. 9. AAVE use motivates AAVE speakers to succeed in school. 10. Schools with mostly Black students should teach AAVE and SE. 11. Wide public acceptance of AAVE is needed. 12. AAVE has a bad influence on society. * 13. Acceptance of AAVE develops pride among Black students. 14. Attempts to not allow AAVE in schools can result in mental harm to Black children. 15. Teachers who deny a student’s home language causes him/her great harm. 16. One of the goals of schools is to make sure all students use standard English. * 17. AAVE should be discouraged. * 18. AAVE should be accepted by the public. 19. Teachers accepting AAVE leads to low standards in schools. * 126

20. The instruction levels of schools will fall if AAVE is able to be spoken. * 21. AAVE is a bad language. * 22. Teachers should correct a student’s use of AAVE. * 23. AAVE speakers can improve in school by replacing AAVE with SE.* 24. AAVE sounds sloppy. * 25. The sooner we eliminate AAVE the better. * *Negative Statements Participants’ response frequencies, scale scores, and their perceptions of AAVE were noted (see Table 16). Brandon and Mylah showed the most positive overall attitudes towards

AAVE in general and AAVE in the classroom. The remaining participants exhibited negative attitudes toward AAVE.

Table 16

Individual Student Responses on LAS with Scale Score Participant Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Likert Scale Perception of Agree Disagree Statements Score AAVE Tonya 6 7 11 1 25 51 Negative Shay 1 7 6 11 25 57 Negative Paula 11 3 5 6 25 72 Negative Roger 3 10 6 6 25 71 Negative Halimah 7 9 5 4 25 66 Negative Bailey 0 3 11 11 25 67 Negative Shawna 5 7 5 8 25 44 Negative Briana 0 11 14 0 25 62 Negative Willow 1 7 11 6 25 68 Negative Brandon 8 9 4 4 25 76 Positive Jessica 4 8 9 4 25 71 Negative Jaylen 1 12 12 0 25 63 Negative Wesley 4 6 6 9 25 60 Negative Mylah 4 11 2 8 25 84 Positive

Shawna exhibited the most negative attitude of all the participants receiving 44 out of 100 possible points. The other participants scored points anywhere from the low 50’s to low 70’s.

While the LAS scores did not consider near positives, three of the participants, Paula, Roger, and

Jessica, scored within 4 points of the lowest positive score of 75, indicating that with education 127

and support, they could view AAVE more positively. The researcher also evaluated students’ general perceptions about AAVE in four categories: 1) the structure and inherent usefulness of

AAVE, 2) the consequences of using AAVE in instructional settings, 3) philosophies concerning the use and acceptance of AAVE, and 4) the cognitive and intellectual abilities of AAVE speakers. It was possible for some of the statements to apply to more than one category, but the researcher placed each statement in the category that addressed its main theme.

Structure and inherent usefulness of AAVE. The way students viewed the language and grammar structure of AAVE as well as its appropriateness as a communication system were the focus in this category. As the data demonstrated, the majority of students had negative perceptions of AAVE in this category with an overall individual mean score of 2.7 (see Table

17).

Table 17

Student LAS Responses for Structure and Inherent Usefulness of AAVE Participant St.1 St. 2 St. 3 St. 6 St. 7 St. 8 St. 21 St. 24 Ind. Attitude LAS Mean of Mean Score Tonya 3 4 1 2 2 2 1 1 2.0 Negative 51 Shay 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 4 2.5 Negative 57 Paula 3 4 1 3 4 2 4 4 3.1 Positive 72 Roger 3 2 2 4 3 3 4 2 2.9 Negative 71 Halimah 2 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 3.3 Positive 66 Bailey 3 2 4 2 1 1 3 4 2.5 Negative 67 Shawna 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 1.9 Negative 44 Briana 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 Negative 62 Willow 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.6 Negative 68 Brandon 4 4 2 3 3 2 4 2 3.0 Positive 76 Jessica 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 2.9 Negative 71 Jaylen 2 4 3 2 2 2 3 3 2.6 Negative 63 Wesley 4 3 4 4 1 1 4 4 3.1 Positive 60 Mylah 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3.1 Positive 84

Averages 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.0 3.2 3.0 2.7 71% 57% 50% 57% 64% 21% 86% 64%

128

In order to be identified as positive, students had to have an individual average of 3.0 or higher.

In this case, only Paula, Halimah, Brandon, Wesley, and Mylah had positive attitudes about the structure and inherent usefulness of AAVE. What was interesting about this data was that with the exception of Brandon and Mylah, all of the other students mentioned had negative overall scores on the LAS, which demonstrated that students could have differing attitudes in each category about AAVE just as teachers had.

When asked about the statement that AAVE was a wrong use of SE (S # 1), 71% of participants strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement. Fifty-seven percent of the participants strongly agreed or agreed that AAVE was a clear and strong language (S # 2) while the remaining 43% disagreed with this statement. The overall group mean of statement 2 was 2.9 which had no 1s or strong disagreement. However, when asked if AAVE used a bad grammar system (S # 3), participants were torn with 50% of them agreeing that it was, which conflicted with the majority of participants disagreeing that AAVE was a wrong use of SE. It also showed a contradiction with 57% of participants agreeing that AAVE was a clear and strong language. In statement 3, the group mean was 2.6.

When asked if AAVE sounded as good as SE (S # 6), 36% agreed, 21% strongly agreed,

29% disagreed, and 14% strongly disagreed. This positive outlook continued with 64% of the participants in the study agreeing and strongly agreeing that AAVE was cool (S # 7). Students’ ratings declined for statement 8 which had a group mean of 2.0. When asked if AAVE was as good as SE for communication (S # 8), 79% of the participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement with the remaining 21% agreeing AAVE was as good as SE for communication. The majority of participants’ negative perceptions of AAVE not being as good 129

as SE for communication did not match with 57% of students agreeing that AAVE was a clear and strong language from statement 2. Participants also did not agree that AAVE was a bad language (S # 21) with 86% disagreeing and strongly disagreeing. Statement 21 received the most positive response in this category with an overall mean of 3.2. The majority of the participants also disagreed (21%) and strongly disagreed (43%) that AAVE “sounded sloppy” (S

# 24) with the remaining 36% agreeing that it did sound “sloppy.” Statement 24 had a mean of

3.0. When looking at the other data in this category, students’ perceptions shifted in opposite directions depending on what they were asked as the overall group mean demonstrates. When asked to evaluate AAVE independent of SE in statements, their responses were mostly positive including disagreeing with negative statements, but when faced with a statement comparing

AAVE to SE, they were torn or chose SE, denying AAVE as being as good as SE for communication since it used bad grammar.

Consequences of using AAVE in instructional settings. Statements in this category asked students to consider what could happen if AAVE were used in the classroom and the educational environment. It also evaluated how AAVE should be viewed by society. The overall mean for this category was 2.6 with 10 of the students having negative attitudes about the consequences of using AAVE in instructional settings (see Table 18).

Table 18

Student LAS Responses for Consequences of Using AAVE in Instructional Settings Participant St. St. St. St. St. St. St. St. Ind. Attitude LAS 4 9 12 13 14 15 19 20 Mean of Mean Score Tonya 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2.5 Negative 51 Shay 4 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 2.1 Negative 57 Paula 4 4 4 2 1 3 3 3 3.0 Positive 72 Roger 2 2 4 3 2 2 1 4 2.5 Negative 71 Halimah 2 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 2.0 Negative 66 130

Bailey 4 2 4 2 1 1 4 3 2.6 Negative 67 Shawna 2 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1.6 Negative 44 Briana 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2.6 Negative 62 Willow 4 3 4 2 1 1 3 4 2.8 Negative 68 Brandon 2 3 4 4 4 3 2 3 3.1 Positive 76 Jessica 2 4 4 2 4 2 3 4 3.1 Positive 71 Jaylen 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2.6 Negative 63 Wesley 4 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2.4 Negative 60 Mylah 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3.4 Positive 84

Averages 2.7 2.4 3.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.6 36% 43% 93% 50% 43% 43% 57% 71%

Most of the participants agreed (64%) AAVE’s use did not benefit society (S # 4) with 36% strongly disagreeing. The group mean for statement 4 was 2.7. This strong disagreement with statement 4 may explain why when students were asked if AAVE use motivated AAVE speakers to succeed in school (S # 9), 57% of them disagreed and strongly disagreed with the statement.

The group mean for this statement was 2.4. Students who had consistently viewed AAVE negatively in other categories of the LAS continued that pattern in this category. However, these opinions did not influence students to believe that AAVE was a bad influence on society (S # 12) with 57% of them strongly disagreeing and 36% disagreeing with this statement. This statement had the highest group mean in this category at 3.5. But when asked if acceptance of AAVE developed pride among Black students (S # 13), participants were divided with 50% of them agreeing and 50% of them disagreeing. The group mean for this statement was 2.4.

When asked if attempts to not allow AAVE in schools could result in mental harm to

Black children (S # 14), 57% of the participants disagreed (36% strongly disagreed, and 21% agreed). The mean score for this statement was 2.2. When students were asked if teachers who denied a student’s home language caused him/her great harm (S # 15), 57% of students disagreed with the statement. Students’ responses to this statement were consistent with statement 14. 131

None of the students strongly agreed with the statement, but 43% of them agreed with it. The mean score for statement 15 was 2.1. Conversely, when asked if acceptance of AAVE by teachers would lead to low standards in schools (S # 19), 43% of students disagreed, and 14% strongly disagreed. Statement 19 had a group mean of 2.5. Just as students did not believe that

AAVE use lowered standards in schools, 71% of them also disagreed or strongly disagreed that the instruction levels of schools would fall if AAVE was able to be spoken (S # 20). The group mean for statement 20 was 2.9. When comparing students’ responses in statement 20 to those in statement 19, which is closely related in subject, participants mostly remained consistent though they may have moved from strongly agree to agree or vice versa. Similarly, some participants may have strongly disagreed with statement 19 but disagreed with statement 20 or reversed.

These patterns demonstrated that the students did not believe that AAVE usage was appropriate for the classroom though they may not necessarily have believed it led to the lowering of standards or instruction in school. Participants’ responses in this category also reflected the recurring contradictions displayed in both this research sample and others when it comes to

AAVE. The participants’ responses in this category were heavily influenced by the context that

AAVE was presented, leading them to show positive perceptions that quickly turned to negative opinions when presented with how AAVE should influence the instructional setting.

Philosophies concerning the use and acceptance of AAVE. The statements in this category focused on the beliefs and values about the use and acceptance of AAVE in schools and in society (see Table 19). The group mean for this category was 2.6. Ten of the participants had a negative perception of AAVE in this category.

132

Table 19

Student LAS Responses for Philosophies Concerning the Use and Acceptance of AAVE Participant St. St. St. St. St. St. St. St. Ind. Attitude of LAS 5 10 11 16 17 18 22 25 Mean Mean Score Tonya 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1.8 Negative 51 Shay 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 4 2.4 Negative 57 Paula 4 3 4 1 4 4 1 1 2.8 Negative 72 Roger 4 2 3 2 4 3 4 4 3.3 Positive 71 Halimah 4 3 4 1 1 4 3 2 2.8 Negative 66 Bailey 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 3.0 Positive 67 Shawna 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1.9 Negative 44 Briana 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2.4 Negative 62 Willow 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 2.9 Negative 68 Brandon 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 1 3.3 Positive 76 Jessica 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4 2.8 Negative 71 Jaylen 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2.4 Negative 63 Wesley 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1.6 Negative 60 Mylah 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 3.6 Positive 84

Averages 2.9 2.8 2.5 1.9 3.1 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.6 65% 57% 43% 21% 71% 64% 43% 43%

When asked if teachers should allow African American students to use AAVE in the classroom (S # 5), 29% of students agreed with the statement, and 36% strongly agreed. Of the remaining participants, 21% disagreed, and 14% strongly disagreed. The group mean for this statement was 2.9. When asked if schools with mostly Black students should teach AAVE and

SE (S # 10), 36% of the participants agreed and 21% strongly agreed with this statement, which conflicted with their disagreement that attempts to not allow AAVE in schools can result in mental harm to Black children. Participants’ support of statement 10 also conflicted with their disagreement that teachers who deny a student’s home language causes him/her great harm. The group mean of statement 10 was 2.8. 133

Participants’ support of statements 5 and 10 suggested that African American students do value AAVE and would like to see it given more respect and importance in ELA instruction.

Students’ responses to statement 10 also challenged their previous disagreement that AAVE use motivated AAVE speakers to succeed in school. But when asked if wide public acceptance of

AAVE was needed (S # 11), 57% of the participants disagreed with this statement. The group mean for statement 11 was 2.5. Seventy-nine percent of the participants agreed with the statement that one of the goals of the American school system was to make sure all students used standard English (S # 16). Statement 16, which is a negative statement, did not have any 4’s or strongly disagree ratings. Statement 16 also had the lowest group mean at 1.9 in this category.

The results for statement 16 while contradictory were not surprising given the messages that students have been receiving since they entered school that AAVE was not the accepted language of communication. Consequently, it made sense that students overwhelmingly believed their teachers were supposed to make sure they used Standard English even if it meant their teachers’ denial of their home language.

Participants were presented with a statement that said AAVE should be discouraged (S #

17), and 21% of them disagreed with the statement, and 50% strongly disagreed. The group mean of 3.1 for this statement was the highest in this category. But when asked if AAVE should be accepted by the public (S # 18), 64% strongly agreed or agreed, which challenged their responses to statement 11 with the majority of them believing wide public acceptance of AAVE was not needed. Because students supported the idea that one of the goals of the American school system was to make sure all students used Standard English, it was no surprise that 57% of them agreed teachers should correct a student’s use of AAVE (S # 22). The group mean for 134

this statement was 2.3. Student participants seemed to view the public or society from dual lens depending on the context of the question. This duality would continue as seen in the 57% of participants who agreed and strongly agreed that the sooner we eliminate AAVE the better (S #

25). The group mean for this statement was 2.6.

Cognitive and intellectual abilities of AAVE speakers. This category only had one question that evaluated what students thought needed to be done to help AAVE-speakers be more successful in school. Seventy-nine percent of students agreed that AAVE speakers could improve in school by replacing AAVE with SE (S # 23). The overall student perception in this category was negative with a group and individual mean of 1.8, the most negative of all four categories. Eleven of the participants received a negative score for this statement, which was aligned with their overall negative LAS scores. These responses supported students’ previous responses that held SE as the better form of communication and the standardization of SE as one of the goals of school. Students have heard this commentary from their earliest days of instruction and have embraced this concept and have accepted SE as the medium for success in school. Since students were not explicitly taught to love and appreciate their home language through culturally responsive teaching, and it was not valued as a form of communication in the classroom, AAVE-speaking students did not independently appreciate it.

Question 26 asked if students had been encouraged to use AAVE in class. They selected responses from four options: not at all, very little, often, or all the time. Thirteen of the 14 student participants selected not at all in response to this question. Bailey selected all of the time, but the majority of students, 92.8%, were not encouraged to use AAVE in the classroom at all, 135

which supported the data around the standardization of English as one of the goals for school, and AAVE not being as good as SE for communication.

Question 27 asked if encouraged to use AAVE in class, what class allowed it? Ten of the participants left the answer blank. Tonya and Shay wrote, “No; not at all.” and “None.” respectively. Roger wrote, “I didn’t know about it,” describing his lack of knowledge about

AAVE as a language system. Only one student, Paula, indicated that she had been allowed to use

AAVE in English and science though her response to question 26 indicated that she had not been encouraged to use AAVE in class at all. Likewise, Bailey left the response field blank to this question, though he indicated in question 26 that he had been encouraged to use AAVE in the classroom “all the time.” The large number of blanks to this question along with the two students who indicated no encouragement to use AAVE in the classroom, suggested that students were not encouraged to use AAVE in the classroom and were, in fact, taught to use SE while in school if they were to be successful academically.

Question 28 asked participants to express their overall opinion about the use of AAVE in school. The researcher did not edit students’ remarks for grammar and punctuation unless it was absolutely necessary to clarify the meaning as seen in the misspelling of a word. Any further corrections would only uphold the narrative about AAVE use in the classroom the researcher was challenging. Furthermore, the participants were young students who might make mistakes when trying to express themselves. Each response was reviewed for perceptions students expressed, patterns in thought, and excerpts were coded as positive if they were completely positive about AAVE use in school. Those comments that had positive and negative thoughts were labeled as positive negatives. If, for example, a student expressed a positive view of AAVE 136

in the beginning of their response but turned it into a negative in the middle or at the end, it was labeled as positive negative. It was also possible for a negative comment to begin the response and end with a positive; it would still be labeled as positive negative. Finally, if a student’s response about AAVE use in school was completely negative, it was labeled as negative. Roger,

Halimah, Bailey, Brandon, Wesley, and Mylah responded positively to the question. Paula,

Briana, Willow, Jessica, and Jaylen responded in the positive negative to the question. Tonya,

Shay, and Shawna responded in the negative to the question.

The researcher also coded the participants’ remarks based on repetitive thoughts and patterns. The positive remarks were coded as pride and/or authenticity. The positive -negative remarks were coded as passive aggressive, and the negative remarks were coded as rejection.

Comments labeled pride expressed positive feelings about AAVE as representative of African

American culture and language dignity. Roger, Halimah, and Wesley’s comments spoke of or implied a sense of pride in AAVE. Comments labeled as authenticity spoke of AAVE as being a legitimate language system like other languages that offered freedom of expression. Bailey,

Brandon, and Mylah’s comments supported this code. Comments also could be coded in more than one category, such as Halimah’s, “My opinion is that we should use AAVE because its proper.” This comment was positive, showed pride, and expressed that AAVE was an authentic language.

Comments that were positive but followed by subtle negative remarks that suggested

AAVE was bad or harmful somehow were labeled as passive aggressive. The researcher believed this duality was subconscious and not intentional on the part of the students who were too young to have independently developed such negative thoughts about AAVE. Take for example Paula’s 137

comment, “In my opinion AAVE in school should also be use because is the smart way to say things from right to rong.” The student believed that AAVE should be used in school, but its use was to show the “right” way of speaking SE against the wrong way of speaking AAVE.

Similarly, Jessica’s statement, “My opinion is to have it in a respectful way,” stated that AAVE could be used in school as long as it was “in a respectful way,” suggesting that AAVE might not be respectful, or its use may somehow be disrespectful. Comments coded as rejection expressed an absolute rebuff of AAVE use in the classroom as in Shay’s comment, “My opinion about

AAVE used in school is that you shouldn't use AAVE in school years at all.” Tonya, Shay, and

Shawna’s comments supported this code. The gaps displayed in the survey and open-ended question continued during the interview sessions and during the transcript analysis process.

The same transcription and coding processes used for teachers were repeated for the student interviews. Students were treated as the experts and how they expressed their realities led to the codes that emerged. If students used specific language during the interview such as using the word “proper” to describe SE and/or “not proper” to describe AAVE, the researcher included that language to determine and define codes. The researcher narrowed the comments down to 15 codes (see Appendix H). The researcher let the students’ emphasis and attention direct the prominent themes selected. The five themes that emerged as most important to students were as follows: SE only for instruction, proper vs. not proper, formal vs. informal, society/school expectations, and correction is the way. These prominent themes also supported students’ views that one of the goals of the American school system was the standardization of English discussed during the LAS survey analysis. 138

SE Only for Instruction. Student participants repeatedly pointed to SE as the language of instruction, writing, and testing. They viewed its usage as necessary to succeed in school and pass state standardized tests. Students also often included speech in this arena. Unlike their teachers who were more tolerable of AAVE speech according to the data, students felt that

AAVE was not appropriate during instructional time, and some thought it should not be spoken at all during school hours. This will be explained in more detail when discussing proper vs. not proper language and formal vs. informal language. Paula said, “Because if you write something like aint...You can't write how you talk because it's not gone make sense in your writing."

Brandon said:

Because if they did that like on a test... if they're doing that on a test...if they do that, then

that's going to make them mess up on their tests if they use like if they writing something,

and they put. This is not... this aint what the person said.

Another code that was included as a sub-theme of SE only for instruction was hiding

AAVE. Almost all of the students described hiding AAVE in school to avoid being corrected by the teacher or to adhere to SE in the classroom. Jessica said:

Because when I'm at home, I just like feel (slang for deep understanding and/or

confidence) my body and feel what I wanna say, but when I'm at school, I'll be more

quieter, and I listen so I can pass my grade.

While none of the participants used the words “hiding AAVE,” what they described was knowing they should not use AAVE around teachers even sometimes if they were talking to their friends because they felt they would be corrected and directed to use SE. Hence, students made 139

conscious efforts to speak SE to their teachers even if students were not always accurate with their language.

Proper vs. Not Proper. Students were very much aware of language that was considered “proper” and language that was considered “not proper.” It was very interesting that these elementary school children had determined that SE was “proper” and useful in school and beyond, and AAVE was not. Even if they tried to find a space for AAVE in their academic lives, it was never viewed equally to SE as “proper.” Shay stated, “If my teacher were to use AAV

[sic] like in general just talking to us in class, it would make me feel like that's what I been saying all this time, and I haven't been using the right words.” Tonya said, “But. They should talk proper.” The researcher asked her what proper was. She said, “Proper means when you talk...when you talk SE." Given the culture of correction towards AAVE in the school environment, it was not surprising, however. This theme and its responses were also aligned with students not believing that AAVE was as good as SE for communication on the LAS student survey.

Slang not AAVE was the other code paired with proper vs. not proper language. A students’ referral of AAVE as slang, indicated that the student was not aware of the difference between AAVE and slang, but more importantly, it indicated they understood one language (SE) was acceptable and the other (AAVE) was not. Several of the students thought of AAVE as being slang, which fundamentally is rejected as proper communication in school and professional environments.

Formal vs. Informal. This theme had a similar thread to proper vs. not proper with a slight difference. When students distinguished between speech and written work, they viewed the 140

former as “informal” language and the latter as “formal” language. Further, when students used the terms formal and informal, the researcher coded their comments accordingly. Students also often made a distinction between their home language and the formal SE required in school, and those comments were coded in this category. Wesley said, “Well, it's not bad grammar. She just... she doesn't mind us talking like that. But we can get bad grades by writing like that.” Shay stated, “Some African...us African-Americans, we use it on a regular basis but like when it's come...when it's school hours, we use like SE and formal language.” Other codes related to this theme were AAVE used in school with friends/peers, AAVE is for the home, and AAVE allows me greater expression. The first two codes supported the theme of AAVE being an informal language system used with individuals one had a close, personal relationship with like family and friends. The last code described the comfort and freedom some students felt when using

AAVE that they did not describe when using SE.

School/Societal Expectations. Students’ comments in this category revealed why teachers corrected students and/or why students accepted being corrected for errors in SE.

Students understood that the school had a responsibility to prepare them to pass state standardized tests and progress from grade to grade. Students also had a sense of society’s expectations for those seeking employment and higher education to communicate using SE.

They seemed to accept that if they communicated using SE, they would have access to opportunities later in life that they would not have access to if they communicated in AAVE.

Jaylen stated: 141

Cause they want you to grow up and not be like that. They want you to grow up be...like

be normal. If you had a job and talking to your boss like that, then he's... he's going to fire

you, so. Yeah. Cause soon he gone get irritated.

Roger said, “Because when she get like older...and...and try to go to college, and she's speaking to them, they probably not gon understand what she is saying. So, she gon have to learn Standard

English.”

Some of the other codes related to this theme were being smart, denial, and negative reference/stereotype. These codes were negative in that they suggested something bad about

AAVE. Students were asked questions about an excerpt the researcher read using AAVE. They were asked about the language used to explore their attitudes about the sounds of AAVE, but a few students focused on the tone and perceived the person as having an attitude or a smart mouth. Comments that described the speaker in the excerpt as defiant or brash were coded as being smart. Other students focused on what they perceived as someone in a rush, and their comments focused on that. Even when the researcher clarified that students should focus on the language, they still held to their perceptions. Interestingly, there were few comments about the grammar used where plural nouns were paired with singular verbs, for example. Some students also related to the context of someone trying to go somewhere and being detained and described their experiences. The code denial was used to identify excerpts where students denied they or other students in the school spoke AAVE even when the researcher had heard several AAVE features being used by the participants. If students used words like “finna,” “aint,” or “bout to,” used singular verbs with plural subjects, dropped the ending letters of certain words such as brotha for brother, or any other patterns that identified AAVE, the researcher identified them as 142

speakers of AAVE (Swindler-Boutte, 2015; Spears & Hinton, 2010; Mordaunt, 2011; Zurer-

Pearson et al., 2013; DiOrio, 2011; Beneke & Cheathem, 2015; Lewis, 2008). Thus, students negating their use of AAVE or contradicting its presence in the school were coded as denial.

Finally, if students used a negative reference or stereotype to describe AAVE or AAVE speakers, it was assigned to this category. Student excerpts assigned to these codes, however, were low and only involved a few students.

Correction is the Way. Students seemed to accept that learning SE and instruction in

ELA classrooms meant that they would be corrected when and if they used AAVE in writing and speech. They were resolved that this was the process by which SE was taught and learned. Since students expected AAVE to be adjusted in ELA classes, they did not view a teacher’s correction as unusual or inhibiting. If students’ comments spoke of correction as the way to be successful in school, on state standardized tests, to get good grades, etc., they were coded in this category.

Jessica stated, “Yes, because I would rather like say, ‘Can I go to the bathroom or something’ instead of say, ‘I'm bout to go to the restroom.’” Tonya said, “Teachers should correct people cause that's what they're here foh, for them to learn and correct." Students’ comments in this category supported their disagreement that a teacher’s denial of a student’s home language was harmful to them on the LAS. It also supported the majority of students who believed that teachers should correct a student’s use of AAVE. The other code paired with this category was correcting me. If students expressed displeasure at being corrected for using AAVE by their teachers, their comments were labeled correcting me. Students did not want to be corrected when they were talking to their friends, if they accidentally slipped into AAVE usage when reading or writing, and when they were not being disrespectful or saying anything harmful. One student 143

commented that “it was rude” for teachers to correct students while another did not feel that the teacher should correct him if he was not speaking directly to her. Five of the nine participants commented about not being corrected by teachers. This was a deviation from the students’ consistent support of SE correction during instruction.

Summary

This chapter described the results from the current study that explored two research questions. The first research question was, “What is a teacher’s perception of AAVE-speaking students in regard to intellectual capabilities, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her instructional approach with these students in English/Language Arts?” The results indicated that while teachers viewed AAVE as a clear, thoughtful, and expressive language system, they still felt that they had to correct students’ use of AAVE in the classroom, particularly written expression, because of the expectations that students use SE on state standardized tests and in future employment and education endeavors. During the transcript analysis, the duty to enforce SE as the language of communication also appeared in the five prominent themes. These themes along with the LAS scores on the Teacher Perception Survey indicated that the majority of teachers had negative attitudes toward AAVE use in the classroom, particularly in the structure and usefulness of AAVE category.

The second research question was, “What is an African American Vernacular English- speaking student’s perception of AAVE, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her motivation and confidence in English/Language Arts?” The results demonstrated that most of the students had negative perceptions of AAVE usage in the classroom based on their LAS scores on the Student Perception Survey, particularly in the cognitive and intellectual abilities of 144

AAVE speakers category. Students believed that SE usage was expected in class, so they responded positively to teachers correcting them and did not believe that AAVE was as good as

SE for communication. Students were motivated to use SE in order to succeed in school and on standardized tests. In fact, their confidence was influenced by how well they mastered SE. The results also suggested that students had more positive attitudes towards AAVE in general as long as there was no comparison between it and SE. Students’ perceptions were repeated during the interview as the prominent themes demonstrated. Both teacher and student participants revealed contradictions and discrepancies between ideas and concepts about AAVE in the classroom and in general, which speaks to the complex nature of this subject. Chapter five includes a synopsis of the research and presents a summary of the findings. Conclusions and recommendations for future research are also included.

145

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Many researchers have explored the reasons for the achievement gap experienced by

African American students (Morales, 2016; Williams, 2011; Barton & Coley, 2009; Connor &

Craig, 2006; Cowan-Pitre, 2014). Some of them point to the negative attitudes teachers have towards the home language of African American Vernacular English-speaking (AAVE) students as a factor (Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Conner, & Jackson, 2013; Champion et al., 2012; Good &

Nichols, 2001; Sirota & Bailey, 2009; Beneke & Cheathem, 2015). Research shows there is a relationship between teachers’ perceptions and expectations of African American students and their self-esteem and motivation (Godley et al., 2006; Beneke & Cheathem, 2015; Holliday,

1985; Godley & Escher, 2012). Because teachers’ expectations and beliefs are so influential to students’ performance and self-concept, it is critical that their attitudes be known to determine if any relationship exists between these attitudes and their instruction of AAVE-speaking students.

This chapter discusses the findings of this research study that sought to understand how teachers’ perceptions of AAVE impacted how they instructed AAVE-speaking students. This study connected with previous research related to teachers’ perceptions of AAVE usage in the classroom. This study also sought to understand how students’ perception of AAVE impacted their motivation and confidence in English Language Arts (ELA). This chapter includes a review of the study, a discussion of findings for each research question, a conclusion, recommendations, and ideas for future research opportunities.

Review of the Study

The purpose of this research study was to explore how teachers’ perceptions or opinions of AAVE determined how they instructed AAVE-speaking students in ELA classes. In addition 146

and to address a limitation in the research, this study included elementary AAVE-speaking student participants. This study sought to understand how the students’ perceptions of AAVE guided their motivation and confidence in ELA classes. The theoretical framework for this research elaborated on the transformative mixed methods design because of its emphasis on discovering and presenting the realities of the participants while paying attention to historical inequities and marginalized groups (Mertens, 2010; Mertens, 2007; Mertens, 1999). This research study also hoped to show how the transformative paradigm could be used to bring attention to and promote social justice for those traditionally marginalized and underrepresented in society (Barnhardt et al, 2018; Jackson et al., 2018; Mertens, 2010; Mertens, 2007; Mertens,

1999).

The theoretical basis for this study was the culturally responsive teaching (CRT) paradigm that asks teachers to embrace the cultural and linguistic diversity students bring to the classroom as valued assets that should inform instruction along with students’ interests and learning styles (Walter, 2018; Mackay & Strickland, 2018; Bassey, 2016; Harmon, 2012; Gay

2002). The transformative mixed methods design and culturally responsive teaching promote change in practices and attitudes. This study supported these ideas in its research design by collecting data from a modified Language Attitude Survey (LAS). The researcher also conducted semi-structured interviews with teacher and student participants at the school site to gain deep understanding of their perspectives and realities; a feature this study shares with phenomenological research.

Discussion

Because teachers generally lack knowledge about language dialects and have negative perceptions about students’ home languages, research shows students’ learning is negatively 147

impacted (Adenika & Berry, 1976; Douglas et al., 2008; Bowie & Bond, 1994; Goodman &

Buck, 1997; DeMeis & Turner, 1978; Godley et al., 2006; Beneke & Cheathem, 2015). Given the belief that AAVE-speakers are less intelligent and capable of success than their Standard

English-speaking (SE) and White peers (Blodgett & Cooper, 1973; Morgan,1994; Billings, 2005;

Franklin & Hixon, 1999; DeMeis & Turner, 1978; Ferguson, 2003; Sirota & Bailey, 2009), it was important to determine what teachers’ views were about AAVE and its use in the classroom as a step towards closing the achievement gap. Research Question 1 hoped to address this issue.

Research Question 1. What is a teacher’s perception of AAVE-speaking students in regard to intellectual capabilities, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her instructional approach with these students in English/Language Arts?

The findings of this mixed methods study showed that teachers had negative attitudes toward AAVE as indicated by their LAS scores on the Teacher Perception Survey. Seventy percent of teacher participants had a negative score on the LAS. Only 30% of the 10 participants had positive scores. These scores were consistent with similar studies where most of the participants had a negative attitude towards AAVE. In the Bowie & Bond (1994) study, 41% of the 75 pre-service teachers’ responses toward AAVE were negative, 32% were positive, and

27% were indifferent. The current study did not include a no opinion or indifferent category, but both studies used a modified LAS with 25 positive and negative statements to gauge participants’ perceptions and attitudes towards AAVE. In the Champion et al., (2012) study that used the same modified LAS, 85% of the 136 pre-service teachers viewed AAVE negatively. In the Newkirk-

Turner et al., (2013) study, 38 pre-service teachers completed a 25 question Likert scale survey about their opinions about students’ use of AAVE in school and their feelings about their preparation for teaching linguistically different students in school. Sixty-one percent of the 148

participants believed AAVE to be an inadequate language system for education, and 71% felt that AAVE negatively impacted students’ performance in ELA and other subjects. The negative perception teachers had of AAVE use in the classroom also affirmed the researcher’s assumption that teachers did not believe AAVE had any value academically and discouraged its use in the classroom. The negative attitudes of teachers in this study towards AAVE differed somewhat from the Taylor (1973) findings where participants showed more positive or neutral attitudes toward AAVE in three of the four categories except for the structure and usefulness of AAVE category. Twenty percent of the participants had neutral feelings in this category, 40% had negative feelings, and 40% had positive feelings. Teachers in the current study also exhibited the most negative perceptions of AAVE in this category with only 30% of participants ranking positive.

Teachers in the current study did have some positive perceptions of AAVE. Eighty percent of them ranked positive in the consequences of using AAVE in instructional settings category. Teachers in the Taylor (1973) study also had the most positive responses in this category with 57% of them responding positively, 25% responded negatively, and 17% responding neutrally in this category. Other positive perceptions of AAVE in this study were seen in 70% of participants agreeing that AAVE was a clear and thoughtful language system.

Eighty percent believed it was as effective as SE for communication. One hundred percent of the participants disagreed that AAVE was an inferior language system, and 90% agreed that it should be socially accepted. But when presented with the statement that AAVE had a faulty grammar system, 70% of the teachers agreed. When presented with the statement that AAVE sounded as good as SE, 90% of the participants disagreed. While the percentages in the current study demonstrated an increase from the Bowie & Bond (1994) study, the teachers’ attitudes 149

were consistent with results from that study where 61% of the participants agreed that AAVE used a faulty grammar system, and 75% disagreed AAVE sounded as good as SE. In the current study, 60% of participants agreed that teachers should allow African Americans to use AAVE in the classroom, but 70% of them believed that one of the goals of schools was the standardization of English, which was a higher percentage than the 60% of participants who supported the standardization of English in schools in the Bowie & Bond (1994) study. Contradictions like these occurred throughout the current study. Similarly, the Taylor (1973) study also found that teachers had differing views of AAVE depending on the attribute. That is, the teachers had different attitudes toward AAVE depending on what aspect of the language was being discussed such as the structure of AAVE. Taylor (1973) did not see these as conflicts, just the existence of multiple attitudes towards the subject. However, this researcher saw conflicting thoughts as exactly that, particularly when the discussion of SE did not elicit such contradictions. These attitudes demonstrated the ambivalence and discrepancies the researcher described in this study.

The researcher was challenged to understand how 90% of participants could disagree that

AAVE sounded as good as SE when 70% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that

AAVE “was cool.” Typically, when something is labeled as cool, it is highly favored or a popular choice, but AAVE was not viewed in this light, making it difficult to understand how participants disagreed that AAVE sounded as good as SE while viewing AAVE “as cool.”

However, their responses may be explained by an incorrect though popular misconception that

AAVE is slang (Thompson, 2000; Whitney, 2005; Godley et al., 2006; Swindler-Boutte, 2015).

Many popular musicians, celebrities, and even marketing campaigns use slang, popularizing it in 150

ways that cross cultural and language boundaries. Given this context, participants’ responses to

AAVE sounding “cool” were more understandable.

Participants appeared supportive of AAVE but when presented with statements that compared AAVE to SE or statements that preferred SE to AAVE, they rejected AAVE as in 70% of participants agreed that attempts to eliminate AAVE in schools resulted in situations that could be psychologically damaging to African American children. Sixty percent of teachers agreed that when teachers rejected the home language of a student, they did him great harm. But

80% of participants agreed that teachers should correct a student’s use of AAVE. Thirty percent of participants agreed that in a predominantly African American school, AAVE as well as SE should be taught, but when asked if teachers should allow African American students to use

AAVE in the classroom, 60% of teachers supported the idea. Teachers agreement with the psychological harm that trying to eliminate AAVE in schools could cause contradicted their agreeing that students’ use of AAVE in schools should be corrected. Teachers agreement that rejecting a student’s home language could cause harm conflicted with their support of correcting a student’s home language. This same ambivalence was presented in the Bowie & Bond (1994) study when 63% of the participants thought it was harmful to students when their native language was rejected, but only 39% of them thought attempts to eliminate Black English could be psychologically damaging to African American students. This level of ambiguity was troublesome because it could cause great harm and confusion to AAVE-speaking students who receive mixed messages from the authority figures in the classroom. These contradictions also shed light on the power dynamics described in the transformative framework that teachers were subtly or directly promoting. 151

The transformative framework asks that issues of power be analyzed to determine their impact on current conditions for marginalized groups. Teachers seemed to view themselves as the guardians of ELA standards, so they used their power and authority to establish a preference for SE over the AAVE of their students. Teachers felt strongly that they had a duty to enforce

ELA standards due to job expectations and standardized testing, which might account for their ambivalence. Teachers’ personal values and job and social expectations clashed, and when this occurred, they often referred back to their duties as ELA teachers. This conflict and discrepancy in ideas also supported the transformative ontological assumption where the researcher recognized that one’s view of reality is a social construct that was influenced by culture, race, gender, and social and economic values. The participants displayed these multiple realities at any one given time (Mertens, 2007) depending on the context and implications presented. These issues of power and preference were not confined only to the LAS results. These patterns also revealed themselves during the interview coding process.

The interview sessions revealed the following prominent themes: enforcing ELA standards, implicit bias, code switching, societal expectations, and contradiction. During the coding process, these themes were the most described by the participants except for the contradiction category where the researcher observed discrepancies in teachers’ thoughts or behaviors. Enforcing ELA standards was the theme with the most teacher excerpts. Any discussion the participants had about their duty to prepare students for ELA standards and objectives using SE was coded in this category. Most of those interviewed expressed the expectations and responsibilities their jobs placed on them. Whether teachers articulated it or not, they acted as the gatekeepers for SE instruction. Participants often mentioned the pressures of preparing students to pass state standardized tests in reading and writing. All the participants 152

believed that students could only pass these tests if they had a firm grasp of SE, so they justified their correction of AAVE usage in the classroom, particularly in writing for this reason. Their insistence that written work be in SE is an example of the power dynamics that might be occurring between teachers and their AAVE-speaking students that may explain the relationship between teachers’ perceptions and how they instructed their students. These comments aligned with the results of the LAS data in this study where teachers accepted AAVE as a language but preferred SE for instruction.

The second themes that had the most comments were code switching and implicit bias.

Ironically, these themes connect with one another. That is, if there was no implicit bias, there would be no need to code switch. While all participants made some reference to code switching, very few of them made deliberate efforts to teach their students what code switching was and why it was necessary they learn how to code switch. Participants expressed that they were aware of how AAVE was negatively viewed in society and were concerned with how their AAVE- speaking students would be viewed if they did not know how to code switch in professional environments such as job interviews and in higher education. Participants did not view themselves, however, as being biased and viewed bias as occurring outside of the classroom and school. Participants’ positive responses on the LAS to statements that supported AAVE socially demonstrated their beliefs in their lack of bias.

The third most discussed subject was societal expectations. Participants commented on society’s beliefs or conventional wisdom that anticipated that AAVE-speakers would use SE as their language of communication in society. Teachers tolerated students using AAVE in informal, familiar settings with peers and at home, but did not accept it in formal, professional 153

settings like school or job sites. Their insistence on correcting AAVE-speaking students’ speech and writing in the classroom was in part motivated by their understanding of society’s expectations. Participants indicated that businesses and individuals would look poorly upon

AAVE-speaking people in higher education and the job sector. They did not wish this to happen to their students but expected it to be the case because of the implicit bias and stereotypes directed at AAVE and AAVE speakers. Knowing the potential negative reception their AAVE- speaking students would receive in society, teachers appeared to feel an external pressure to prepare students for future academic or job success by making sure they could effectively speak and write in SE. Most of the participants seemed to believe that being able to communicate in SE would give their African American students more opportunities in the future because of its status as the language of power (Godley & Escher, 2012). This acknowledgement could be viewed as motivation for their insistence on correcting AAVE usage in class, believing they were preparing their students for the future.

The final prominent theme that emerged from the interview coding sessions was contradiction. Ambiguity occurred throughout this research study. The researcher pointed out during the analysis of the LAS data several conflicting events such as 70% of participants agreeing that AAVE was a clear, thoughtful, and expressive language, and 80% of them agreeing that AAVE was as good for communication as SE, but then 90% of participants disagreeing that

AAVE sounded as good as SE. The interview sessions also revealed ambivalence such as a teacher expressing how she corrects students for using AAVE “without a value judgment,” but correcting the students’ home language is a value judgment, and therefore, a contradiction.

Another example is when one of the participants described knowing his students felt comfortable using AAVE and wanted them to feel comfortable in the classroom, so he would allow it during 154

informal times even if they were speaking to him. Later in the interview, however, he spoke about correcting students’ speech because there were “no standards that go towards, like you said

Ebonics and that type of speaking.” If the teacher wanted students to feel comfortable in the classroom and allowed them to use AAVE in informal circumstances, he would not later describe correcting their speech because it did not meet the ELA standards. Comments like these were coded as contradictions. One participant’s comments were coded as a contradiction because when she was asked what her responsibility was to AAVE-speaking students, she stated, “To make sure that they were comfortable within their culture and felt safe in their classroom.” She also described AAVE being okay on the playground but not accepting it in class when students were writing. Her comment sheds light on the larger issue of how AAVE speech and writing were perceived by participants.

All of the participants separated AAVE speech from writing where AAVE speech was more tolerated and AAVE use in writing was not tolerated at all. This idea was repeated throughout the interviews. Most of the teachers stated that many of their AAVE-speaking students wrote the way they spoke. SE speakers write the way they speak too, but there is no wrong or right attached to their writing; however, the same is not true for AAVE-speaking students. Their written speech is stigmatized, and their written work is rejected if it contains

AAVE speech. Teachers’ agreement on the LAS statement that one successful method for improving the learning capacity of speakers of AAVE would be to replace their dialect with SE confirmed their disapproval of AAVE in speech and written work. The idea of replacing students’ language with SE was a prominent theme of the interview sessions. This pattern underscores the importance and urgency of addressing the subject of language diversity and 155

culturally responsive teaching in teacher educator programs because if these monolingual messages were presented by teachers during the study, they were present and influencing decision-making in the classroom for AAVE-speaking students.

Research Question 2. What is an African American Vernacular English-speaking student’s perception of AAVE, and what relationship does this perception have to his or her motivation and confidence in English/Language Arts?

Language attitude research studies including the perspectives of African American students are extremely scarce, limiting the researcher’s ability to look for patterns and connections to the literature. The research findings for this study showed that students had negative attitudes toward AAVE as their LAS scores revealed on the Student Perception Survey.

Only 14% of the participants had positive scores. The LAS scores evaluated their general attitude about AAVE in four categories. Interestingly, students were more positive than teachers were in the structure and usefulness of AAVE category with 43% ranking positive in this category.

However, they were still negative overall in this category. Likewise, students were more negative than teachers were in the consequences of using AAVE in instructional settings category with only 29% of them ranking positive. The research showed that students’ perceptions shifted in opposite directions depending on what they were asked. When asked, for example, to evaluate

AAVE independent of SE in statements, students’ responses were mostly positive including disagreement with negative statements. Ninety-three percent of students, for example, disagreed and strongly disagreed that AAVE had a bad influence on society, and 86% of students disagreed and strongly disagreed that AAVE was a bad language. But when faced with a statement that compared AAVE to SE, directly or indirectly, students were divided or chose SE, such as when 156

79% of them agreed or strongly agreed that AAVE speakers can improve in school by replacing

AAVE with SE or 50% of students agreeing that AAVE used a bad grammar system. This divide or rejection of AAVE may be due to the emphasis teachers put on SE during instruction.

Teachers insisted that students speak and communicate in writing using SE in class, and students have been coached to believe and accept this as it was constantly repeated during the teacher and student interview sessions.

Students also had negative perceptions in the philosophies concerning the use and acceptance of AAVE category, and the cognitive and intellectual abilities of AAVE speakers category. Only 29% of them positively supported the philosophies concerning the use and acceptance of AAVE category, and only 21% of them positively supported the cognitive and intellectual abilities of AAVE speakers category. Seventy-nine percent of the students agreed that one of the goals of schools was to make sure all students used Standard English, and 79% of them agreed that AAVE speakers could improve in school by replacing AAVE with SE. Fifty- seven percent of students disagreed that AAVE use motivated them to succeed in school, and

57% of them disagreed that attempts to not allow AAVE in schools could result in mental harm to Black children.

From the time AAVE-speaking students enter kindergarten, they have been told and/or shown that their home language was unacceptable for instructional purposes and their speech was only tolerable during informal conversations with family and friends. In fact, research shows that AAVE-speakers decrease their vernacular features from kindergarten to fifth grade. The first

AAVE recession occurs in first grade, the second occurs in third grade, and the third reduction happens in fourth grade (Van Hofwegen & Wolfram, 2010; Craig & Washington, 2006). This 157

demonstrates the programming of AAVE-speaking students to discard their language and accept

SE as the language of progress and success. Students’ responses on the LAS that preferred SE in the classroom supported these findings. Students have accepted this idea as part of their realities and are learning to live in two worlds as most African American people do. This duality, which appears as ambivalence, was indicated when students believed that teachers should let students use AAVE in class, and when they agreed that schools with mostly Black students should teach

AAVE and SE. Students’ negative perceptions about AAVE were tied to their experiences in the

ELA classroom. That is, when AAVE was contrasted against SE in school and instruction, students supported SE and rejected AAVE. Thus, students’ agreeing that “the sooner AAVE was eliminated the better” supports its rejection in the classroom by teachers and students. That explanation was plausible given students’ disagreement that AAVE had a bad influence on society or that AAVE should be discouraged. If students did not agree that AAVE was a bad language and that it did not sound “sloppy,” why were they trying to eliminate it through teacher correction and the standardization of the English language? If AAVE was spoken in their homes and in their communities, where did students learn AAVE was unprofessional and not appropriate? They learned to eliminate AAVE in school instead of code meshing or codeswitching, and that is a major problem that has the potential to interfere with students’ identities, self-concept, and achievement. Student discussion during the interviews further supported this idea.

Because research studies rarely include the perspectives of AAVE-speaking students, and even fewer studies include AAVE-speaking elementary students as participants, it was important to make sure students’ perspectives were heard and given full consideration as experts on their experiences. When reviewing their transcripts during the coding process and whenever possible, 158

the researcher used students’ words and phrases to assign codes to excerpts. After several rounds of this process, several codes emerged as prominent themes. The five prominent themes identified were: SE only for instruction, proper vs. not proper, formal vs. informal, society/school expectations, and correction is the way.

The SE only for instruction theme garnered the most code applications. Excerpts in this category described SE as the language for instruction. Students expressed needing to learn SE to pass standardized tests and earn good grades. Most of them believed that SE and AAVE could not coexist; students had no direct exposure to code meshing and code switching, which could have potentially changed students’ views of AAVE. Students understood that SE was the expected language of communication in school and did not think that AAVE was appropriate for school unless they were talking to their friends. All the students except for one made comments about this topic. Students heavily identified with SE. Their discussion in this theme aligned with the results of the LAS where they supported SE over AAVE. When asked what their home language was, most of them said SE despite their use of AAVE features during the interview. A few of the students said they spoke AAVE and SE. A couple of students insisted that they spoke

SE as a home language but later in the interview acknowledged that they spoke AAVE also.

This admittance may be explained by students believing they should uphold SE as their language with an adult stranger who was interviewing them. One of the students volunteered that she only spoke AAVE because she grew up hearing people speak it, but had she grown up not hearing it, she would have chosen to speak SE. This student’s remark emphasizes the work educators must do to make sure that students are not ashamed of who they are and their linguistic traditions 159

because of school interactions and experiences. Culturally responsive teaching must become standard practice in schools of the 21st century and beyond.

The next two themes—proper vs. not proper and formal vs. informal were similar in scope with slight differences. Most of the students used these terms in their interviews to make distinctions about language. Students viewed “proper” language as spoken and written SE, and

AAVE was viewed as “improper” in speech and in writing. One research study saw students using these same terms to describe AAVE and SE (Godley & Escher, 2012). Several students indicated that teachers would not understand students if they did not speak SE because they would not know what they were saying if they spoke AAVE. Some of them explained students had to speak and write in “proper” English to pass state standardized tests and get good grades.

Similarly, students viewed AAVE as “informal” language and SE as “formal” language.

Students described using AAVE in informal situations like talking with family and friends but used “formal” language or SE with teachers and during instruction. Several students described

“informal” language as not being appropriate in school. Thus, when the researcher read a scenario using AAVE, the students viewed it as being informal and did not believe that teachers would accept that type of language in class. Some students gave examples of how teachers corrected their use of AAVE with SE, so if students used “finna,” the teacher corrected them with “about to.” Some students described the “dangers” of using too much “informal” language or AAVE. They indicated if students used AAVE too much, it could affect their schoolwork and their job opportunities. Just like their teachers, students viewed spoken AAVE as “improper” and informal and viewed SE as “proper” English. This conviction was a part of the culture at this school site as nearly every teacher interviewed vocalized this belief as well as every student interviewed. Comments in these categories supported students’ views that AAVE was not as 160

good as SE for communication, and that AAVE speakers could improve in school by replacing

AAVE with SE.

Just as teachers discussed society’s expectations for students in the future, students held similar beliefs that they expressed in the school/society expectations theme. Students indicated that they needed to speak and write in SE because they were expected to do so in school to pass important tests and earn good grades. They also believed that society expected them to use SE to get into college and/or obtain a job. Similarly, in the Godley & Escher (2012) study, tenth grade

African American students expressed the need to speak SE outside of school, particularly in job settings and on interviews. Of the 51 students in the study, 47% argued for using SE and not slang under these circumstances. Students in both studies expressed not getting or keeping job opportunities if they spoke AAVE during the hiring process or to keep a job. A point of interest was that none of the students spoke about the importance of on-the-job performance to the hiring and retention process. That is, “students' arguments in favor of using SE in work settings seemed to be driven more by a perception of negative judgments of AAVE by mainstream society than by reasons such as clear communication or professional effectiveness” (Godley & Escher, 2012, p. 708). Furthermore, very few of the students in the Godley & Escher (2012) study spoke about the bias and racism inherent in judging individuals by their language usage in employment or interview settings, and none of the students in this study spoke about or noticed this either. It could be argued that since 100% of the students in this study and the Godley & Escher (2012) study were identified as economically disadvantaged, they may have felt unable to question this discrimination due to the desire and pressure to obtain employment, even in the distant future.

Thus, students may feel compelled to accept this bias just to secure work, and that acceptance 161

can lead to their mistreatment and abuse of power by those in authority. Clearly, AAVE- speaking students have been presented with a “model of success” using SE by their teachers and possibly their family members who were also taught this same philosophy. In this approach, acceptance of bias and discrimination towards AAVE-speaking students becomes the norm and is justified by sometimes, well-meaning individuals.

Though the participants in this study were much younger than those in the Godley &

Escher (2012) study, they had already clearly identified that their home language was viewed negatively outside of their communities where AAVE was openly spoken. AAVE-speaking students are coached and taught early in school that speaking their home language is undesirable and not appropriate for the school or professional environment, so it is not surprising that they are likely to carry this belief and adopt it as their own (Beneke & Cheathem, 2015). For these reasons, students expressed acceptance and understanding of why teachers had to correct them.

They rarely questioned their teachers’ correction of them, and most saw correction as an act of kindness by teachers who were supposed to correct. This understanding may also explain why the majority of students agreed that AAVE use did not benefit society and why they did not agree that wide public acceptance of AAVE was needed. It was clear that social and school expectations had been communicated to students at school because teachers acknowledged they were aware of these expectations and worked to prepare students to succeed by promoting SE as the language of professionals. The importance of required and consistent training in culturally responsive teaching (CRT) cannot be overstated. If teachers had been exposed to training in CRT that caused them to constantly reflect on their biases towards AAVE, their communication with their students about AAVE and culture would produce significantly better academic, social, and personal outcomes for AAVE-speaking students. Students would be able to articulate 162

perspectives about discrimination, racism, and bias because they would be exposed to these conversations about their own history and community experience and in activities and work as social justice activists themselves. Under these circumstances, they would potentially develop positive self-images and language identities. The society/school expectation theme like all the others worked together as on a continuum or progression of ideas with slight variations. The final theme correction is the way also existed on this continuum.

Students had already demonstrated their acceptance and belief that teachers should correct their AAVE usage in class on the LAS survey, so it was not remarkable that they should also describe this during their interviews. These themes overlapped, so it is clear that students saw SE instruction as correction of their AAVE. None of the students discussed or described using code switching or code meshing as options because they were not aware of these opportunities that would preserve their use of AAVE and prompt them to use code switching or code meshing as the circumstances dictated. Though some teachers described code switching behaviors during the interviews, it was clear from students’ responses that teachers had not made concerted efforts to teach code switching to students, or there would have been mention about it from students. Students’ only discussed needing to be corrected and understanding why they were corrected. One student said it was the teacher’s job to correct them; that is what they were there to do. This sentiment was shared by another student who explained that teachers had to judge them.

Conclusion

While the data from this study was not generalizable, this research provided an important insight about AAVE usage in the classroom that will add to the research literature on teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of AAVE. The inclusion of elementary school AAVE-speaking 163

students filled a missing void in the literature on students’ perceptions and attitudes towards

AAVE. Both teacher and student participants held negative views of AAVE usage in the classroom. Their responses from the LAS showed that teachers and students preferred SE to

AAVE as the language of instruction. When presented with statements that presented SE as a better language and communication system than AAVE, participants tended to agree with these.

Both groups, for example, believed that one successful method for improving the learning capacity of speakers of AAVE was to replace their dialect with SE. Both teachers and students supported the idea that one of the goals of the American school system was the standardization of the English language. Even on the open-ended question on the surveys, both students’ and teachers’ responses were negative towards AAVE use with most of them not seeing it as appropriate for the ELA classroom where SE was required for written assignments and verbal communication with the teacher. Participants’ confirmed their negative perceptions of AAVE during the interview when the prominent themes of SE only for instruction, formal vs. informal language, proper vs. not proper, and correction is the way for students and enforcing ELA standards for teachers emerged during the coding process. During the interviews, teachers and students discussed teacher correction of AAVE quite often, confirming their negative views of

AAVE in the classroom and preference for SE. AAVE-speaking students have spent a lot of time having their language corrected in school. At some point, they began to view their language from the same negative perspectives of their teachers. But some data showed that teachers and students did have some positive views of AAVE.

Teachers’ responses on the LAS showed that they disagreed with any statements that portrayed AAVE as inferior or substandard. All disagreed that continued usage of AAVE would 164

accomplish nothing worthwhile for society, and they disagreed that AAVE was a bad influence on American culture. Similarly, students were not prepared to completely disconnect with AAVE and rejected statements that described it as bad or having a negative impact on society. Students’ responses on the LAS demonstrated that most of them disagreed that AAVE was a bad language, and most of them disagreed that AAVE was a bad influence on society. Of course, since AAVE is so closely tied to its speakers, it made sense that students would not support statements that characterized their language, and by proxy, them as bad. Most teachers and students also believed that AAVE was a clear and strong language, and they did not believe that the instruction levels of the school would fall if AAVE was able to be spoken. But these beliefs often conflicted with participants’ other survey and interview data.

Contradictions and ambivalent reactions were prominent in the data. When teachers, for example, were presented with statements on the LAS that had a direct bearing on their duties and expectations as ELA teachers, they tended to uphold those though they contradicted with other statements they supported. Students showed a similar ambivalence when SE was put in instructional contexts against AAVE. Many of the teachers and students, for example, agreed that AAVE was a clear and strong language but also agreed that it had a faulty grammar system.

Most of them agreed that one of the goals of American schools was to make sure all students used SE, but most teachers and students agreed that teachers should allow African American students to use AAVE in the classroom. Both groups did not believe that AAVE was a misuse of

SE, but most of the teachers agreed that AAVE was as effective for communication as SE, and most of the students disagreed that AAVE was as effective for communication as SE.

Contradictions like these appeared throughout the data analysis. 165

One of the prominent interview codes that emerged was contradictions, which described conflicting ideas made by teachers about AAVE use in the classroom. The positive beliefs about

AAVE that teachers’ LAS and interview data suggested clearly had not been communicated to students who might have viewed AAVE use differently if teachers adopted a culturally responsive teaching approach about AAVE in the classroom as they described during the interviews. Also, teachers talked about the importance and need for students to code switch, but it was obvious that it needed to be explicitly taught and practiced because teachers’ overdependence on correction as a teaching strategy, and students’ acceptance and belief that they had to be corrected by their teachers suggested code switching was not formally in place and had not been communicated to students.

The findings from this study can help educators understand how interwoven SE and implicit bias are in the classroom. This bias was accepted by teachers and students who easily believed that SE was the “formal” and “proper” way to engage and communicate in school, and

AAVE was the “informal” and “improper” way to speak outside of school and the instructional space only with those closest to AAVE-speaking students. Thus, students had less motivation to succeed in school because of AAVE when it had been designated as improper English that would not help them succeed in school or life by extension. While students indicated that they wanted teachers to let them use AAVE in the classroom, they did not view its use as motivation to succeed in school according to this data. Furthermore, the push to replace students’ home language with SE as the only and best way to educate them did not allow these young students to fully develop a love and appreciation for their home language, and it did not allow their teachers to study and learn about AAVE to understand how including it in the classroom as culturally 166

responsive teachers could not only empower and motivate students, it could provide the foundation for instruction that helped improve student success and close the achievement gap.

The findings of this study can also help educators to understand the degree and depth of influence ELA standards and societal expectations held over teachers and students. The interviews revealed teachers and students felt pressured by expectations on standardized tests and future employment options for students where SE language was expected. For both teachers and students, a bright, successful future for AAVE-speakers was predicated on their mastery of SE according to the interview data. Students in the fourth and fifth grades should be dreaming of who and what they want to become. Instead, the students in this study were concerned with speaking properly enough to get an interview in the future and to maintain a job if hired. Such pressure is unnatural and undermines the confidence and potential of AAVE-speaking children that more privileged children who have grown up speaking SE never experience.

Recommendations

There is a critical need for all teachers who may encounter African American students who are likely to use patterns of AAVE in their speech to not only be aware of these speech patterns and how to use them in instruction, but they must also learn more about the value of language, self-esteem, and motivation as they relate to the academic outcomes of African

American students. Implicit bias awareness and training must become a regular topic in pre- and in-service teacher training. An important component of the transformative framework is to use the research findings to develop plans of action for the community participating in the study to end oppression and restore justice (Mertens, 2017; Barnhardt et al., 2018; Jackson et al., 2018).

This focus is something that distinguishes this framework from others. AAVE-speaking students and their teachers need immediate and targeted assistance to begin to close the achievement gap 167

and heal the negative impact of implicit bias. Therefore, in the interest of social justice and promoting effective change that will benefit AAVE-speaking students, parents, community, and teachers, the following recommendations are offered:

Recommendation 1. One of the details that stood out to the researcher was the lack of knowledge that teachers and students had about AAVE. Most of the participants had not heard of the term AAVE prior to the study and had not been exposed to its history at all. The lack of exposure to AAVE in teacher training programs was a common theme expressed by teacher participants. Of course, if students were not exposed to AAVE as a language system at home, they certainly should be at school where cultural competency, equity, and individualized instruction are touted as the norm. To increase the number of teachers in urban school districts prepared to use AAVE speech patterns to teach ELA standards, teacher education programs must make a serious commitment to develop and implement a series of courses where students learn about language diversity, features of AAVE, and code-switching and code meshing instructional techniques. These courses should be mandatory for teachers who wish to work in urban districts where they are likely to teach students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. These courses should include field observations, visits, and practicums in urban school districts to increase students’ exposure and interaction with AAVE-speaking African American students.

Teachers who successfully complete the courses should be given certificates of completion they can share as part of their job applications, and they should be given priority hiring in urban districts that have partnerships with the university.

Teacher education programs should also offer the courses to in-service teachers and administrators as continuing education units for license renewal. Having courses like these 168

would better prepare teachers to successfully teach, inform, and motivate AAVE-speaking students. Teachers would be less likely to see correction of students’ AAVE usage as an instructional strategy when they have been given actual techniques to implement. Teachers would feel more comfortable discussing language and power dynamics after this training and be prepared to help their students develop code switching practices that do not negate their home language and culture. Instead, they will view SE instruction as an expansion in critical thinking and speaking skills.

Recommendation 2. In higher education, collaboration between college departments on collective programming have been limited for far too long. The linguistics department rarely offers courses to education majors even though those courses would be valuable to these students. Courses in student motivation and confidence are not offered by the psychology department for education majors. Implicit bias training may not be offered at the university level at all, so students do not receive the exposure to it that might make a difference in their personal and professional lives. In an effort to support Recommendation 1, higher education professionals must collaborate on curriculum and programming that crosses departments and programs to provide high-quality educational experiences for future and current educators. If linguists and education professors collaborated, they could design and offer a user-friendly program to pre- and in-service educators that presented the history of AAVE, its typical features, and instructional techniques that support code switching and code meshing for AAVE-speaking students. Educators would feel supported and prepared to help AAVE-speaking students excel knowing these efforts are in place. Since most educators receive their training through traditional teacher preparation programs, the number of individuals able to be trained and prepared through 169

these collaborative efforts are very high. African American students who continue to endure the achievement gap and fall behind their peers deserve to know educators are doing all that they can to resolve what has become a social justice issue.

Recommendation 3. One of the themes repeated by both teachers and students during this study was the disapproval of AAVE as a legitimate communication system. Both groups delegated AAVE to informal conversations with people who the speakers were comfortable with whether that be family or friends, but it was expected that the communication would not go beyond speech. There was no expectation that AAVE would be used in formal writing because it was viewed as inferior and not proper for that purpose. There has to be some work in the public sector to help remove the implicit bias that is associated with AAVE in general and in school settings. If this bias were directly addressed, it would go a long way towards helping educators develop a healthier perception about AAVE, and it would go a long way towards boosting students’ self-perception and acceptance of AAVE as a viable language system that is not incorrect or improper English. The public would also benefit from this exposure and reconsider any implicit bias they may have harbored towards AAVE and AAVE-speakers. Instead, all parties would be able to provide the missing context of the achievement gap through training and education about the history of AAVE including its origins and features. This training would also include the educational history of African American people in this country. Providing this very important historical information is key to reversing the negative stereotypes associated with

AAVE and opening the door to authentic cultural responsiveness. Organizations committed to educating the public such as schools, libraries, colleges and universities, social service agencies, and others should collaborate to develop public service campaigns that address the 170

aforementioned areas. Successful campaigns would not only improve the perception of AAVE- speaking people and the status of AAVE as a legitimate communication system to the public at large, but its success can be used as a framework to discuss issues of power and language dynamics in society with an eye towards promoting equity and social justice.

Recommendation 4. Teachers must receive immediate training in culturally responsive teaching to change their negative views of AAVE. They must receive consistent and deliberate training on the history and origins of AAVE and the education of African American people in the

United States to understand the climate where AAVE and the achievement gap were born. This training will help remove the stigma of AAVE as lazy and unintelligent speech, and teachers would be more prepared to view it as a valuable and necessary part of the classroom for AAVE- speaking students that cannot and should not be separated from the students who speak it. Then, teachers would be more prepared to receive training on using language and culture in instruction as well as strategies such as contrastive analysis, code switching, and code meshing for use with their AAVE-speaking students. These techniques take care to preserve students’ home language and culture by adding to their communication skills. They do not seek to replace AAVE as typically occurs during SE instruction, but students are taught about language contexts for writing and speaking to understand how to shift their language according to the context of the situation. Students are also shown and discuss in detail the fundamental differences and similarities between AAVE and SE in order to get to an understanding of context and how it influences language (Wheeler & Swords, 2004). The two languages are seen as equal and legitimate. AAVE-speaking students can benefit from these techniques because they will remove the negative stigma of AAVE being wrong or substandard English that often transfers to the 171

people who speak the language. They will be exposed to the intricacies of their language that make it unique and different, not deficient. They will be able to express themselves more freely and feel less hampered with speaking “right” under this tutelage because the proper vs. improper language paradigm is removed along with all the subtle and subconscious psychological barbs that overcorrection and SE only create. Students will also learn how to become advocates for social justice after consistent exposure to these techniques. They will challenge the status quo on behalf of themselves and other disenfranchised groups, an intended outcome of culturally responsive teaching and the transformative paradigm.

This training will benefit teachers because it will give them the background and information they need to be authentically “educating the whole child,” a claim made by many educators and schools that has yet to produce significant positive outcomes for AAVE-speaking students. The researcher challenges those claiming to educate the whole child who do not acknowledge or understand the importance of the linguistic uniqueness and diversity of AAVE- speaking students. Following this recommendation, teachers will gain the education about language and culture they currently lack to make educated judgments about whether students made mistakes in reading and writing or if they were using typical vernacular features in their reading and writing. If the latter is the case, teachers will have the tools and resources to assist students with understanding context and usage, so they move from eliminating AAVE usage in the classroom to embracing it to teach and enhance the learning of ELA standards. Given this new approach, the achievement levels of students will start to improve, and the frustration levels of ELA teachers will begin to decline as they begin to reach and teach their AAVE-speaking students. 172

Future Research Opportunities

The small teacher and student sample size in this research were appropriate and effective for this transformative mixed methods study. However, these findings cannot be generalized to other K-5 teachers of AAVE-speaking students nor can they be generalized to African American students in grades 4-5. Future research on this topic can include multiple participants from urban and rural areas to compare perceptions of AAVE usage in school as this may provide more insight on the issue. In addition, using a newly developed instrument, classroom observations, and interviews designed for AAVE-speaking students in grades K-8, future research will also determine if AAVE-speaking students’ perceptions of AAVE improve, decline, or stay the same as they get older with a longitudinal study.

In chapter two, the researcher described that from 1800-1850, free Blacks were not allowed to attend school in urban areas such as Charleston, Baltimore, New Orleans, Louisville, and even Cincinnati (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002). It would be particularly interesting to analyze current and historical achievement gaps experienced by African American students in these areas to determine what, if any, impact the denial of education to this group had on their current and past performances. This research would attempt to determine if there is a correlation between achievement and these historical occurrences. This study would require considerable access to archived records if available. Researchers may find it necessary to start from a particular point and trace the history of African American students to modern times to try to understand current progress and conditions. A good starting point for this research would be laws and legislation about educating free and/or enslaved Blacks for the area.

In addition, teacher participants were asked to identify the grade level they taught. Future research studies can determine if certain grade levels are more positive or negative towards 173

AAVE. The data gained from this study can be used to identify and provide training to teachers that would improve their skills in teaching AAVE-speaking students. Of course, this training can also provide successful outcomes for students. The data gathered from this study can also be used to develop support groups with grade levels having the most positive perceptions of AAVE usage in the classroom serving as mentors to other teachers needing further assistance and feedback.

Another future research opportunity on this topic can include parental input because

AAVE-speaking parents may be able to provide rich content on their experience as AAVE- speakers and how AAVE is treated in schools. It would be interesting to know how parents’ view

AAVE in the classroom and their perspectives on SE. Perhaps this research may include instruction on the origins of AAVE and its speech patterns to a group of parents to see if their attitudes about AAVE were positively influenced by their training. Similarly, teacher participants may also be provided with training on common AAVE features and how to integrate these into

ELA instruction to determine if their attitudes toward AAVE showed improvement using a pre- and post-survey. This study would also determine if their students’ understanding of ELA objectives improved as a result of their teachers’ training. Students’ attitudes about ELA class and toward AAVE would also be monitored before and after instruction to determine if they improved.

174

REFERENCES

Adenika, T. J., & Berry, G. L. (1976). Teachers' attitudes toward the education of the Black

child. Education, 97(2), 102-114.

Alase, A. (2017). The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A guide to a good

qualitative research approach. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies,

5(2), 9-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.2p.9

Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (Eds.). (1995). The post-colonial studies reader. New

York: Routledge.

Baker-Bell, A. (2013). I never really knew the history behind African American language:

Critical language pedagogy in an advanced placement English language arts class.

Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(3), 355-370.

Barnhardt, C. L., Reyes, K., Vidal Rodriguez, A., & Ramos, M. (2018). A transformative mixed

methods assessment of educational access and opportunity for undocumented college

students in the southeastern United States. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(4),

413-436. doi:10.1177/1558689816652764

Barton, P. E., & Coley, R. J. (2009). Parsing the achievement gap II (Policy Information

Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.

Barton, P. E., & Coley, R. J. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap: When progress stopped

(Policy Information Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.

Bassey, M. O. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching: Implications for educational

justice. Education Sciences, 6(35), 1-6.; doi:10.3390/educsci6040035 175

Baugh, J. (1983). A survey of Afro-American English. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12, 335-

354.

Baugh, J. (2015). Use and misuse of speech diagnostics for African American students.

International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(4), 291-307.

doi:10.1080/19313152.2015.1082416

Beneke, M., & Cheatham, G.A. (2015). Speaking up for African American English: Equity and

inclusion in early childhood settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(2), 127

134. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/drsuw/Downloads/AAVE/Speaking%20up%20for%

African%20American%20English.pdf

Bettini, E. A., Walraven, C., Billingsley, B., & Williams, T. O. (2018). Special Educators of

Color Are Underrepresented Across States: A Challenge for Leaders. Journal of Special

Education Leadership, 31(1), 3–15.

Billings, A.C. (2005). Beyond the debate: Attitudes about Black and standard American English.

Journal of Black Studies, 36(1), 68-81.

Blackford, K., & Khojasteh, J. (2013). Closing the achievement gap: Identifying strand score

differences. American Journal of Educational Studies, 6(2), 5 – 15.

Blake, R., & Cutler, C. (2003). AAE and variation in teachers’ attitudes: A question of school

philosophy? Linguistics and Education, 14(2), 163-194.

Blodgett, E. G., & Cooper, E. B. (1973). Attitudes of elementary teachers toward black

dialect. Journal of Communication Disorders, 6, 121-133. doi:10.1016/0021-

9924(73)90016-6

Bolyard, C. (2015). Test-based teacher evaluations: Accountability vs. responsibility.

Philosophical Studies in Education, 46, 74-82. 176

Boutte, G.S. (2015). Four things to remember about African American language: Examples

from children’s books. Young Children, 70(4), 38-45.

Boutte, G.S., & Johnson, Jr. G.L. (2013). Funga alafia: Toward welcoming, understanding, and

respecting African American speakers’ bilingualism and biliteracy. Equity & Excellence

in Education, 46(3), 300-314.

Bowie, R.L., & Bond, C.L. (1994). Influencing future teachers’ attitudes toward Black English:

Are we making a difference? Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 112-118.

Brandon, L., Taliaferro Baszile, D. M., & Berry, T. R. (2009). Linguistic moments: Language,

teaching, and teacher education in the U.S. Educational Foundations, 23(1/2), 47-66.

Brill, S., & McCartney, A. (2008). Stopping the revolving door: Increasing teacher retention.

Politics & Policy, 36(5), 750. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2008.00133.x

Brown, K. M., & Wynn, S. R. (2009). Finding, supporting, and keeping: The role of the principal

in teacher retention issues. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 8(1), 37-63.

doi:10.1080/15700760701817371

Brown-Jeffy, S., & Cooper, J.E. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant

pedagogy: An overview of the conceptual and theoretical literature. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 38(1), 65-84.

Bryant, A., Triplett, N., Watson, M., & Lewis, C. (2017). The browning of American public

schools: Evidence of increasing racial diversity and the implications for policy,

practice, and student outcomes. Urban Review, 49(2), 263. doi:10.1007/s11256-017-

0400-6

Bullock, H.A. (1970). A history of Negro education in the South. New York: Praeger

Publishers. 177

Butina, M., Campbell, S., & Miller, W. (2015). Conducting qualitative research introduction.

Clinical Laboratory Science, 28(3), 186-189.

Carpenter-Ford, A. (2013). “Verbal ping pong” as culturally congruent communication:

Maximizing African American students’ access and engagement as socially just teaching.

Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(3), 371-386.

Center on Educational Policy. (2010). A call to action to raise achievement for African

American students. 1-19.

Champion, T.B., Cobb-Roberts, D., & Bland-Stewart, L. (2012). Future educators’ perceptions

of African American Vernacular English (AAVE). Online Journal of Education

Research, 1(5), 80-89. Retrieved from http://onlineresearchjournals.org/IJER/pdf

2012/aug/Champion%20et%20al..pdf

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018). Development Process. Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/

Connor, C.M., & Craig, H.K. (2006). African American preschoolers’ language, emergent

literacy skills, and use of African American English: A complex research. Journal of

Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 771-792.

Cowan-Pitre, C. (2014). Improving African American student outcomes: Understanding

educational achievement and strategies to close opportunity gaps. The Western Journal

of Black Studies, 38(4), 209-217.

Craig, H.K., Connor, C.M., & Washington, J. A. (2003). Early positive predictors of later

reading comprehension for African American students: A preliminary investigation.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in School, 34, 31-43. 178

Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2006). Malik goes to school : Examining the language skills

of African American students from preschool-5th grade. Mahwah, N.J.: Psychology

Press.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed

methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed

methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research designs: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cross, J. B., DeVaney, T., & Jones, G. (2001). Pre-Service teacher attitudes toward differing

dialects. Linguistics and Education, 1(2) 211-227. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00051-1

Curry, M. (2010). African Americans and education: A contested history. Soul: A Critical

Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society, 12(3), 197-215.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to

equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Davis, S. (2003). “Is this Negroish or Irish?” African American English: The antebellum writings

of Francis Lieber and the origins of controversy. American Speech, 78(3), 285-306.

Dee, T. & Jacob, B. (2010a). Evaluating NCLB. Education Next, 10(3), 54-61.

Dee, T.S. & Jacob, B.A. (2010b+). The impact of no child left behind on students, teachers, and

schools. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall%

202010/2010b_bpea_dee.PDF

DeMeis, D. K., & Turner, R. R. (1978). Effects of students' race, physical attractiveness, and

dialect on teachers' evaluations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 377-86.

doi:10.1016/0361-476X (b78)90012-7 179

Dillard, J. L. (2008). A sketch of the history of Black English. Southern Quarterly, 45(2), 53-

86.

DiOrio, Christopher W. "Narrativizing Success: Attitudes toward African American Vernacular

English in the Composition Classroom." (2011). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones.

Paper 66.

Douglas, B., Lewis, C.W., Douglas, A., Scott, M.E., & Garrison-Wade, D. (2008). The impact of

white teachers on the academic achievement of African American students: An

exploratory qualitative analysis. Educational Foundations, 47-62.

Duncan, G., & Magnuson, K. (2005). Can family socioeconomic resources account for racial

and ethnic test score gaps? The Future of Children, 15(1), 35-54.

Erickson, R. J. (1997). The laws of ignorance designed to keep slaves (Blacks) illiterate and

powerless. Education, 118, 206-220.

Ferguson, R.F. (2003). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test score

gap. Urban Education, 38(4), 460-507.

Finlay, L., & Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2017). Raising the Curtain: The Importance of Transparency

in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Psychology, 4(2), 126-138. doi:10.1037/QUP

0000062

Fisher, D., & Lapp, D. (2013). Learning to talk like the test: Guiding speakers of African

American Vernacular English. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 634-648.

Fleischman, R., Tyson, T., & Oldroyd, D. (2014). The U.S. Freedmen’s Bureau in Post-Civil

War Reconstruction. Accounting Historians Journal, 41(2), 75–109. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.findlay.edu/10.2308/0148-4184.41.2.75 180

Floyd, C. D. (2010). Black Language and Equity in Education. Journal of Equity in Education

Volume, 1(1). Retrieved from http://digitalpubs.nyu.edu/jee/article/viewFile/15/5

Flynn, S. V., & Korcuska, J. S. (2018). Credible phenomenological research: A mixed-methods

study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 57(1), 34-50. doi:10.1002/CEAS.12092

Fogel, H., & Ehri, L.C. (2006). Teaching African American English forms to standard American

English-speaking teachers: Effects on acquisition, attitudes, and responses to student use.

Journal of Teacher Education, 57(5), 464-480.

Franklin, G., & Hixon, M. W. (1999). Your dialect could place you on the wrong side of the

intelligence bell curve. Negro Educational Review, 50(3-4), 89-100.

Gagnon, D. J., & Mattingly, M. J. (2015). Rates of beginning teachers: Examining one

indicator of school quality in an equity context. Journal of Educational Research, 108(3),

226–235.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for Culturally Responsive Teaching. Journal of Teacher

Education, 53(2), 106–16.

Godley, A., & Escher, A. (2012). Bidialectal African American adolescents’ beliefs about

spoken language expectations in English classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult

Literacy, 55(8), 704-713.

Godley, A.J., & Minnici, A. (2008). Critical language pedagogy in an urban high school English

class. Urban Education, 43(3), 319-346.

Godley, A.J., Sweetland, J., Wheeler, R.S., Minnici, A., & Carpenter, B.D. (2006). Preparing

teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms. Education Researcher, 35(8), 30-37.

Goldenberg, B. M. (2014). White teachers in urban classrooms: Embracing Non-White students’

cultural capital for better teaching and learning. Urban Education, 49(1), 111. 181

Good, T. L., & Nichols, S. L. (2001). Expectancy effects in the classroom: A special focus on

improving the reading performance of minority students in first-grade classrooms.

Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 113-126.

Goodman, K. S., & Buck, C. (1997). Dialect barriers to reading comprehension revisited. The

Reading Teacher, (6). 454-459.

Gorski, P. C. (2011). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on

authenticating the class discourse in education. Counterpoints, 402, 152–173.

Green, L. (2004). Research on African American English since 1998: Origins, description,

theory, and practice. Journal of English Linguistics, 32(3), 210-229.

Gupta, A. a. (2010). African-American English: Teacher beliefs, teacher needs and teacher

preparation programs. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 10(2), 152-164.

Hallinan, M. T. (2001). Sociological perspectives on Black-White inequalities in American

schooling. Sociology of Education, 74(4), 50-70.

Hansberry-Williams. (2006). “You gotta reach’em”: An African American teacher’s multiple

literacies approach. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 346-351.

Harmon, D. A. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching though a historical lens: Will history

repeat itself? Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 12–22.

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.

Harrison, R. (2007). New representations of a 'misrepresented bureau': Reflections on recent

scholarship on the Freedmen's Bureau. American Nineteenth Century History, 8(2), 205-

229. doi:10.1080/14664650701387946 182

Harrison-Jones, L. (2007). "No child left behind" and implications for Black students. Journal of

Negro Education, 76(3), 346-356.

Hartney, M. T., & Flavin, P. (2014). The political foundations of the Black–White education

achievement gap. American Politics Research, 42(1), 3–33.

(Haynes) Walker, K.L. (2011). Deficit thinking and the effective teacher. Education and Urban

Society, 43(5), 576-597.

Henfield, M. S., & Washington, A. R. (2012). “I want to do the right thing but what is it?”:

White teachers’ experiences with African American students. Journal of Negro

Education, 81(2), 148–161.

Hester, E.J. (20100. Narrative correlates of reading comprehension in African American

children. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 37, 73-85.

Holliday, B.G. (1985). Differential effects of children's self-perceptions and teachers'

perceptions on Black children's academic achievement. The Journal of Negro Education,

54(1), 71-81.

Hoover, M.R. (1990). A vindicationist perspective on the role of Ebonics (Black language) and

other aspects of ethnic studies in the university. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(2),

251-262.

Hopkins, C. E. (2008). What's all the fuss about Ebonics? Lessons learned from the origins and

controversies of Black English Vernacular. Virginia English Bulletin, 58(2), 51-55.

Horton, A. (2004). The academic achievement gap between Blacks and Whites: The latest

version of blaming the victim? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,

10(2), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1300/J137v10n02pass:[_]03 183

Jackson, K. M., Pukys, S., Castro, A., Hermosura, L., Mendez, J., Vohra-Gupta, S., Padilla, Y.,

and Morales, G. (2018). Using the transformative paradigm to conduct a mixed methods

needs assessment of a marginalized community: Methodological lessons and

implications. Evaluation and Program Planning, 66, 111–119.

Jacob, B. A. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future

Of Children, 17(1), 129–153.

Jefferson, T. (1832). Notes on the state of Virginia. Boston: Lilly and Wait. [Online Text]

Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/03004902/

Johnson, F.L. (2002). Unacknowledged African origins of U.S. English usage: “Origin

unknown” and other peculiar etymologies. The Howard Journal of Communications,

13, 207-222.

Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm

whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Retrieved from

http://mintlinz.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/83256376/Johnson%20Mixed%20methods%20

2004.pdf

Jones. C.L. (2010). No child left behind fails the reality test for inner-city schools: A view from

the trenches. Cumberland Law Review, 40(2), 397-461.

Jones, T. M. (2011). A study of teachers’ views on students’ use of African American

English in the English language arts classroom. (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (Order No. 3461058).

Koch, L.M., Gross, A.M., & Kolts, R. (2001). Attitudes towards Black English and code

switching. Journal of Black Psychology, 27(1), 29-42.

Labaree, R. V. (2009). Research guides: Organizing your social sciences research paper: 184

Quantitative methods. University of Southern California. Retrieved from

http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/quantitative.

Ladd, H. F. (2017). No child left behind: A deeply flawed federal policy. Journal of Policy

Analysis & Management, 36(2), 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21978

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding

achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.

Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project.

Levine, M., & Murray, A.G. (2014). Coming from behind: A historical perspective on Black

education and attainment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(5), 447-454.

Lewis, C.W., James, M., Hancock, S., & Hill-Jackson, V. (2008). Framing African American

students’ success and failure in urban settings: A typology for change. Urban Education,

43(2), 127-153.

Lewis, LaWanda. (2008). African American English. The University of Maryland McNair

Scholars Undergraduate Research Journal, 1(1), 155-165. Retrieved from

https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/10100

Linn, M., & Pichè, G. (1982). Black and White adolescent and preadolescent attitudes toward

Black English. Research in the Teaching of English, 16(1), 53-69. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40170878

Louden, M.L. (2000). African-Americans and minority language maintenance in the United

States. The Journal of Negro History, 85(4), 223-240.

Mackay, H., & Strickland, M. J. (2018). Exploring culturally responsive teaching and student

-created videos in an at-risk middle school classroom. Middle Grades Review, 4(1). 185

Mayoh, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2015). Toward a conceptualization of mixed methods

phenomenological research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 91-107.

doi:10.1177/1558689813505358

McBee-Orzulak, M.J. (2015). Disinviting deficit ideologies: Beyond “that’s standard,” “that’s

racist,” and “that’s your mother tongue.” Research in the Teaching of English, 50(2),

176-198.

McGrady, P. B., & Reynolds, J. R. (2013). Racial mismatch in the classroom: Beyond Black-

White differences. Sociology of Education, 86(1), 3-17. doi:10.1177/0038040712444857

McKim, C. A. (2017). The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study.

Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 1-21. doi:10.1177/1558689815607096

McLaren, J. (2009). African diaspora vernacular traditions and the dilemma of

identity. Research in African Literatures, 40(1), 97-111. doi:10.2979/RAL.2009.40.1.97

Mertens, D. M. (1999). Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for

evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(1), 1-14.

Mertens, D. M., Bledsoe, K. L., Sullivan, M., & Wilson, A. (2003). Utilization of mixed methods

for transformative purposes. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed

methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 193–214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mertens, D.M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of

Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/

viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.5472&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Mertens, D.M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 468-

474. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077800410364612 186

Mertens, D.M. (2012). Transformative mixed methods: Addressing inequities. American

Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 802-813.

Mertens, D. M. (2017). Transformative research: personal and societal. International Journal for

Transformative Research, 4(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijtr-2017-0001

Morales, E. E. (2016). Prospective Teachers from Urban Environments Examine Causes of the

Achievement Gap in the United States. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(2),

101–112.

Mordaunt, O.G. (2011). Bidialectalism in the classroom: the case of African-American English.

Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 34(1), 77-87.

Morgan, M. (1994). Theories and politics in African American English. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 23, 325-345.

Murnane, R. J., & Steele, J. L. (2007). What is the problem? The challenge of providing effective

teachers for all children. The Future Of Children, 17(1), 15–43.

Nash, R. L. (1970). Toward a philosophy of speech communication education for the Black

child. Speech Teacher, 19(2), 88-97.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). NAEP and No Child Left Behind. Retrieved

from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nclb.aspx

National Center for Education Statistics (2015). A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading

Trial Urban District Assessment. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of

Education, Washington, D.C.

Ndemanu, M.T. (2015). Ebonics, to be or not to be? A legacy of Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Journal of Black Studies, 46(1), 23-43. 187

Newkirk-Turner, B. L., Williams, M. C., Harris, T., & McDaniels, P. W. (2013). Pre-Service

teachers' attitudes toward students' use of African American English. Researcher: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(2), 41-57.

Ohio Department of Education. (2017). Third Grade Reading Guarantee. Retrieved from

http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Literacy/Third-Grade-Reading-

Guarantee

Paschall, K. W., Gershoff, E. T., & Kuhfeld, M. (2018). A two decade examination of

historical race/ethnicity disparities in academic achievement by poverty status. Journal of

Youth & Adolescence, 47(6), 1164–1177.

Payne, K., Downing, J., & Fleming, J.C. (2000). Speaking Ebonics in a professional context:

The role of ethos/source credibility and perceived sociability of the speaker. Journal of

Technical Writing and Communication, 30(4), 367-83.

Patton-Terry, N., Mills, M.T, Bingham, G.E., Mansour, S, & Marencin, N. (2013). Oral narrative

performance of African American prekindergartners who speak nonmainstream

American English. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 291-305.

Price-Curtis, W. (1981). Black progress toward educational equity. Educational

Leadership, 38(4), 277-280.

Qutoshi, S. B. (2018). Phenomenology: A philosophy and method of inquiry. Journal of

Education and Educational Development, 5(1), 215–222.

Ramirez, J. D. (2005). Ebonics: The urban education debate. (2nd ed). Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters. 188

Reardon, S. F., & Robinson, J. P. (2007). Patterns and trends in racial/ethnic and socioeconomic

academic achievement gaps. In Helen F. Ladd & Edward B. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of

research in education finance and policy (pp. 499–518). New York: Routledge.

Rhodes, C. M. (2017). A Validation Study of the Culturally Responsive Teaching

Survey. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 45–53.

Rickford, J. R. (2005). Using the vernacular to teach the standard. Ebonics: The urban education

debate, 18-40.

Rowley, R. L., & Wright, D. W. (2011). No "White" child left behind: The academic

achievement gap between Black and White students. Journal of Negro Education, 80(2),

93-107.

Ruef, M., & Fletcher, B. (2003). Legacies of American slavery: Status attainment among

southern Blacks after emancipation. Social Forces, 82(2), 445–480. https://doi.org/

10.1353/sof.2004.0024

Sampson, D., & Garrison-Wade, D.F. (2011). Cultural vibrancy: Exploring the preferences of

African American children toward culturally relevant and non-culturally relevant lessons.

Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 43(2), 279-309.

Schmeichel, M. (2012). Good teaching? An examination of culturally relevant pedagogy as

an equity practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(2), 211-231.

Shedrow, S. J. (2017). Cross-Cultural Student Teaching: Examining the Meaning-Making of One

White, Female, Middle-Class Preservice Teacher. Journal of International Students, 7(2),

270–290.

Shepherd, M.A. (2011). Effects of ethnicity and gender on teachers’ evaluation of students’

spoken responses. Urban Education, 46 (5), 1011-1028. 189

Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.

Education for Information, 22, 63-75. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/drsuw/Downloads

/Strategies_for_Ensuring_Trustworthiness_in_Qualita.pdf

Shernoff, E. S., Maríñez-Lora, A. M., Frazier, S. L., Jakobsons, L. J., Atkins, M. S., & Bonner,

D. (2011). Teachers supporting teachers in urban schools: What iterative research designs

can teach us. School Psychology Review, 40(4), 465.

Sirota, E., & Bailey, L. (2009). The impact of teachers' expectations on diverse learners'

academic outcomes. Childhood Education, 85(4), 253-256.

Smitherman, G. (1994). Black talk: Words from the hood to the amen corner. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Smitherman, G. (1997). Black language and the education of black children: One mo once. Black

Scholar, 27(1), 28-35.

Smitherman, G., & Baugh, J. (2002). The shot heard from Ann Arbor: Language research and

public policy in African America. The Howard Journal of Communications, 13, 5-24.

South Carolina & Cooper, T. (1840). The statutes at large of South Carolina: Acts relating to

Charleston, courts, slaves, and rivers. (Vol. 7). D.J. McCord (Ed.). Columbia, SC:

A.S. Johnston.

Spears, A.K., & Hinton, L. (2010). Languages and speakers: An introduction to African

American English and Native American languages. Transforming Anthropology, 18(1),

3-14.

Sun, M. (2018). Black Teachers’ Retention and Transfer Patterns in North Carolina: How Do

Patterns Vary by Teacher Effectiveness, Subject, and School Conditions? AERA

Open, 4(3). 190

Sung, K. K., & Allen-Handy, A. (2019). Contradictory origins and racializing legacy of the 1968

bilingual education act: Urban schooling, anti-Blackness, and Oakland’s 1996 Black

English Language education resolution. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race,

Religion, Gender & Class, 19(1), 44–80.

Sweetman, D., Baidee, M., & Creswell, J. W. (2010) Use of the transformative framework in

mixed methods studies. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 441-454. Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/drsuw/Downloads/Use_of_the_Transformative_Framework_in_Mixed_M

etho.pdf

Swindler-Boutte, G. (2015). Four things to remember about African American Language:

examples from children’s books. Young Children, 70(4), 38-45.

Tamura, E. H. (2002). African American Vernacular English and Hawai'i Creole English: A

comparison of two school board controversies. Journal of Negro Education, 71(1-2), 17-

30.

Taylor, O. (1973). Teachers‟ attitudes toward black and nonstandard English as measured by the

Language Attitude Scale. In R. W. Shuy & R. W. Fasold. (Eds.), Language attitudes:

Current trends and prospects (pp. 174−201). Washington, DC: Georgetown University

Press.

Taylor, O. (1998). Ebonics and educational policy: Some issues for the next millennium.

Journal of Negro Education, 67(1), 35-42.

The Nation’s Report Card. (2015). About the 2015 Reading Assessment. Retrieved from

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/about?grade=4

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.

Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-93. 191

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2015, December 02). Fact Sheet: Congress

acts to fix No Child Left Behind [Press Release]. Retrieved from

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/03/fact-sheet-congress-

acts-fix-no-child-left-behind

Thompson, F. T. (2000). Deconstructing Ebonic myths: the first step in establishing effective

intervention strategies. Interchange, 31(4), 419–445.

Thompson, G.L. & Allen, T.G. (2012). Four effects of the high stakes testing movement on

African American k-12 students. The Journal of Negro Education, 81(3), 218-227.

Turner, D. W., III (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice

investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760. Retrieved from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/qid.pdf

Tyler, K.M., Boykin, A.W., & Walton, T.R. (2006). Cultural considerations in teachers’

perceptions of student classroom behavior and achievement. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 22, 998-1005.

United States Department of Education. (n.d.) Every student succeeds act (ESSA). Retrieved

from https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=policy

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002, 2003, 2005,

2007, 2009, 2011, 2013,2015, and 2017 Reading Assessments.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–

2015 Reading Assessments. 192

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992 and 2017 Reading

Assessments.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Schools and

Staffing Survey (SASS), "Public School Teacher Data File," 2011–12.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). The state of racial diversity in the educator workforce.

Retrieved on July 14, 2017, from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-

diversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf

Van Hofwegen, J., & Wolfram, W. (2010). Coming of age in African American English: A

longitudinal study. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(4), 427–455.

Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., and Rahman, T. (2009). Achievement Gaps:

How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, (NCES 2009-455). National Center

for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Washington, DC.

Vetter, A. (2013). “You need some laugh bones!”: Leveraging AAL in a high school classroom.

Journal of Literacy Research, 20(10), 1-34.

Walter, Jennifer S. 2018. “Global perspectives: Making the shift from multiculturalism to

culturally responsive teaching.” General Music Today 31(2): 24–28.

Warren, C. A. (2015). Conflicts and Contradictions: Conceptions of Empathy and the Work of

Good-Intentioned Early Career White Female Teachers. Urban Education, 50(5), 572–

600. 193

Washington, V.M., & Miller-Jones, D. (1989). Teacher interactions with nonstandard English

speakers during reading instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 280-

312.

Wassink, A.B., & Curzan, A. (2004). Addressing ideologies around African American English.

Journal of English Linguistics, 32(3), 171-185.

Watson, M., & Shapiro, R. (2018). Clarifying the multiple dimensions of monolingualism:

Keeping our sights on language politics. Composition Forum, 38.

Wheeler, R. S., & Swords, R., (2004). Codeswitching: Tools of language and culture transform

the dialectally diverse classroom. Language Arts, 81(6), 470-479.

White, T. (2014). Evaluating teachers more strategically. Using performance results to

streamline evaluation systems. Policy Report, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement

of Teaching.

Whitney, J. (2005). Five easy pieces: Steps toward integrating AAVE into the classroom. The

National Council of Teachers of English, 94(5), 64-69.

Williams, A. (2011). A call for change: Narrowing the achievement gap between White and

minority students. The Clearing House, 84(2), 65-71.

Williams, G.W. (2018). History of the Negro race in America from 1619 to 1880. (Vol.2)

Frankfurt: Books on Demand. (Original work published 1833)

Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: The Guilford Press.

Young, C.Y., Wright, J.V., & Laster, J. (2005). Instructing African American students.

Education, 125(3), 516-526.

Zhao, Y. (2016b). From deficiency to strength: Shifting the mindset about education inequality.

Journal of Social Issues, 72(4), 716–735. 194

Zeigler, M.B., & Osinubi, V. (2002). Theorizing the postcoloniality of African American

English. Journal of Black Studies, 32(5), 588-609.

Zurer-Pearson, B., Connor, T., & Jackson, J.E. (2013). Removing obstacles for African

American English–speaking children through greater understanding of language

difference. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 31-44. Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/drsuw/Downloads/AAVE/Removing%20Obstacles%20for%20African%2

0American%20English–Speaking%20Children.pdf

195

APPENDIX A

Institutional Review Board

Date: October 23, 2017

To: Christine Denecker

CC: Suweeyah Salih

RE: African American Vernacular English: Teacher Perception, Instruction, and Student Motivation

Project Expiration date: October 23, 2018

The University of Findlay Institutional Review Board (IRB) has completed its review of your project utilizing human subjects and has granted authorization. This study has been approved for a period of one year only. The project has been assigned the number 1133 .

In order to comply with UF policy and federal regulations, human subject research must be reviewed by the IRB on at least a yearly basis. If you have not completed your research within the year, it is the investigator’s responsibility to ensure that the Progress Report is completed and sent to the IRB in a timely fashion. The IRB needs to process the re-approval before the expiration date, which is printed above.

Understand that any proposed changes may not be implemented before IRB approval, in which case you must complete an Amendment/Modification Report.

Following the completion of the use of human subjects, the primary investigator must complete a Certificate of Compliance form indicating when and how many subjects were recruited for the study.

Please refer to the IRB guidelines for additional information. Please note that if any changes are made to the present study, you must notify the IRB immediately. Please include that number on any other documentation or correspondence regarding the study.

Thank you very much for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact IRB at (419) 434-4640 or email [email protected].

Sincerely,

Susan W. Stevens, EdD., AT Chair, Institutional Review Board Cc: IRB Office 196

APPENDIX B

CONSENT FOR A MINOR TO ACT AS A HUMAN PARTICIPANT

Parent/Legal Guardian permission form Date: Project Title: African American Vernacular English: Teacher Perception, Instruction, and Student Motivation Principal Investigator: Dr. Christine Denecker Participant’s Name: ______First ______Last

What is the study about? There is a difference in the reading scores of African American and White students. Research studies have explored reasons for these differences. Some researchers suggest that the differences may be traced to the teacher’s opinion of African American Vernacular English (AAVE). AAVE is a type of language spoken in some African American homes and communities. The purpose of this research is to understand how teachers’ opinions of AAVE- speaking students relates to how they instruct these students in English classes. If you agree to let your student participate in this study, he/she will complete a language attitude survey, participate in an interview if selected, and complete an interview transcript review. During the interview transcript review, students will look over a typed transcript of their interview for clarity and accuracy purposes. Why are you asking my child? Your student is being asked to participate in this study because he/she may speak AAVE, and it is important that the researcher learns from their point of view. Most of the research on this topic does not include student input, and if students are used, they are usually middle or high school students. Students in grades 3-5 are at an important place in their education because they may still have strong ties to their home language, or the way they speak. To add to the research on this topic, this study will include the point of view of AAVE-speaking students to understand how their opinions of AAVE relates to their motivation and confidence in English class. The researcher will make every effort not to interrupt your student’s day, but he/she may miss some class time to participate.

What will you ask my child to do if I agree to let him or her be in the study? Students will take an anonymous 25-statement survey on their feelings about AAVE in general and their thoughts about its role in the classroom. The researcher will randomly select students to participate in a one-on-one interview to further investigate this topic. Interviews will be taped for 197

accuracy purposes. Once a typed transcript of the interview is available, the researcher will meet with the student to make sure it is accurate. These activities will take place at the school during the school day. The survey will take no longer than 15-20 minutes. The interview will be no longer than 45 minutes. Interview transcript reviews will take place at the school and should take no longer than 30 minutes. There is a minimal psychological/social risk as students will be discussing their teachers that they will be interacting with during school and may worry that they will get in trouble. They may feel uncomfortable discussing how their teachers instruct. They may also feel uncertain when speaking about AAVE and its negative perceptions and stereotypes. However, please be assured that your student does not need to worry about this as their survey and interview are completely confidential and will not be viewed by the teacher at all. Students’ names are also not used to maintain confidentiality. Is there any audio/video recording of my child? The one-on-one interview will be audio recorded for accuracy. Because your child’s voice will be potentially identifiable by anyone who hears the tape, confidentiality for things said on the tape cannot be guaranteed although the researcher will try to limit access to the tape as described below. The researcher will limit access to the tape to the principal (Dr. Christine Denecker) and secondary (Suweeyah Salih) investigators. Teachers and administrators will not have access to the recordings at all. What are the dangers to my child? Your student may feel some discomfort discussing their teacher’s instruction and views about AAVE. They may also feel uncertain when speaking about AAVE due to its negative perceptions and stereotypes. This study does not anticipate or expect any injuries. There will be no compensation given for injury. You can choose not to let your student participate in the study. If you have any concerns about your child’s rights, how they are being treated, or if you have questions about this project or benefits or risks associated with being in this study, these can be answered by CHRISTINE DENECKER at (419) 434-6661. You may also contact SUWEEYAH SALIH at [email protected]. The Institutional Review Board at The University of Findlay has determined that participation in this study poses minimal risk to participants. If you have any questions about your child’s rights as a human subject please contact the IRB chair, at [email protected].

Are there any benefits to my child as a result of participation in this research study? There are no direct benefits to participants in this study. However, participants in this study may be able to explore their knowledge and feelings about the way they speak and provide their voices to this subject, which is not always sought in the research. Their participation also may provide information that is useful in reading instruction for students who speak AAVE in the future. Are there any benefits to society as a result of my child taking part in this research? This study may add to the research on the relationship between teacher perception of AAVE- speaking students and instruction of students who speak this way. This research may begin action to change stereotypes and language bias in education and change the way educators view and use AAVE in the classroom for the benefit of AAVE-speaking students and their teachers. This research has the potential to change the way teacher training programs prepare educators of students whose way of speaking differs from the language of instruction in schools. 198

Will my child get paid for being in the study? Will it cost me anything for my kid to be in this study? There are no costs to you or payments to you or your child as a result of participation in this study. How will my child’s information be kept confidential? Reasonable efforts will be made to keep the personal information in your student’s research record private and confidential. Your student’s name will not be used in any written reports or publications that result from this research. Research data will be stored in password secure accounts on a password protected computer for three years. Data will be deleted after three years. Transcripts and consent and assent forms will be secured for three years. They will be destroyed after three years. All information obtained in this study is strictly confidential unless disclosure is required by law. As a licensed educator, the researcher has a legal duty to report abuse that might supersede these confidentiality promises. Since the survey may be administered electronically, please note that absolute confidentiality of data provided through the Internet cannot be guaranteed due to the limited protections of Internet access. Students will be asked to please be sure to close their browser when finished so no one will be able to see what they have been doing. What if my child wants to leave the study, or I want him/her to leave the study? You have the right to refuse to allow your child to participate or to withdraw him or her at any time, without penalty. If your child does withdraw, it will not affect you or your child in any way. If you or your child chooses to withdraw, you may request that his/her data that has been collected be destroyed when possible. What about new information/changes in the study? If significant new information relating to the study becomes available, which may relate to your willingness to allow your child to continue to participate, this information will be provided to you when possible.

Voluntary Consent by Participant: By signing this consent form, you are agreeing that you have read it, or it has been read to you, and you fully understand the contents of this document and consent to your child taking part in this study. All of your questions concerning this study have been answered. By signing this form, you are agreeing that you are the legal parent or guardian of the child who wishes to participate in this study described to you by Suweeyah Salih, Student Investigator.

______Date: ______Participant's Parent/Legal Guardian’s Signature

______Date: ______Participant's Parent/Legal Guardian’s Signature

199

APPENDIX B

RESEARCH ASSENT FORM Required for children 7-17 years old

Project Title: African American Vernacular English: Teacher Perception, Instruction, and Student Motivation

IRB #: Principal Investigator: Dr. Christine Denecker Date: We are doing a research study. We are studying what English teachers think about the way you speak. We want to learn if the English you speak changes how they teach you reading. We want you to join the study because you may speak English differently than how it is taught in school. If you join this study, in three visits you will:

• complete a survey (15-20 minutes). • participate (if selected) in a recorded interview (45 minutes). • check your interview script for correctness (30 minutes).

It may feel odd to talk about the way you speak. We don’t know if being in the study will help you. We may learn something that will help other children who speak the way you do with reading. Your participation will not affect your grades, and teachers won’t know what you say. Also, the researcher isn’t here to grade you or try to get you to speak differently.

You don’t have to join this study. It’s up to you. You can say okay now and change your mind later. Just tell us. No one will be mad.

Before you say yes, we will answer any questions you have. If you want to be in this study, sign your name. You’ll get a copy of this form.

______(Sign your name here) (Date)

200

APPENDIX B

Institutional Review Board Adult Research Consent Form

Date:

Project Title: African American Vernacular English: Teacher Perception, Instruction, and Student Motivation

PRIMARY INVESTIGATOR(S) AND CO-INVESTIGATORS: Dr. Christine Denecker is the primary investigator and can be reached at 419.434.6661 or [email protected] Suweeyah Salih is the co-investigator and can be reached at 216.501.0987or [email protected]

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: African American students continue to score well below their white peers in reading. Many reasons have been given to explain this. Several researchers have speculated that the reason for the achievement gap in reading may be attributed to the teacher’s perception and beliefs about African American Vernacular English (AAVE). The purpose of this research is to understand and evaluate how teachers’ perception of AAVE-speaking students use of AAVE relates to how they approach instructing these students in English/Language Arts (ELA) classes. This study will also include the perspective of AAVE-speaking students to understand and evaluate how their perception of AAVE relates to their motivation and confidence in ELA. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURES: Once your consent form has been returned, you will anonymously take a 25-statement survey about your feelings about AAVE in general and your thoughts about its role in the classroom. The researcher will randomly select teachers to participate in a one-on-one interview to further investigate this topic. Interviews will be taped for accuracy purposes. Once a typed transcript of the interview is available, the researcher will show it to you to make sure it is accurate. These activities will take place at the school during the school day. DURATION/TIME ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR INVOLVEMENT: The survey will take no longer than 15-20 minutes. The interview will be no longer than 45 min – 1 hour. Interview transcript reviews will take place at the school and should take no longer than 30 minutes. Artifact collection by the teacher will take no longer than 30-45 minutes. Participation in this study will be no more than three hours. POTENTIAL RISKS OR DISCOMFORTS: There is a minimal psychological and social risk that you may feel uncomfortable discussing race and issues of power around language. You may also feel discomfort talking about students you interact with regularly and may worry about being judged because of your beliefs. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: You may not directly benefit from participating in this study. This research may initiate action to change stereotypes and language bias in education and may 201

change the way educators view and use AAVE in the classroom for the benefit of AAVE- speaking students and their teachers. The findings of this study may be valuable to school districts, teachers, students, parents, and teacher preparation programs as these stakeholders may be more willing to accept AAVE in instruction and may be more receptive to using AAVE in instruction, which may produce significant gains for AAVE-speaking students. The researcher hopes that changes in in-service education will expand to include required courses in AAVE and linguistics for teachers, which may promote more acceptance of AAVE in the classroom. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY: You can choose not to participate in the study. CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA: Reasonable efforts will be made to keep the personal information in your research record private and confidential. Should this study be published, no references to teachers, students, or the district will be used. Research data will be stored in password secure accounts on a password protected computer for three years. Data will be deleted after three years. Transcripts and consent and assent forms will be stored in a locked cabinet in a locked house for three years. They will be destroyed after three years. All information obtained in this study is strictly confidential unless disclosure is required by law. As a licensed educator, the researcher has a legal duty to report abuse that might supersede these confidentiality promises. Since the survey may be administered electronically, please note that absolute confidentiality of data provided through the Internet cannot be guaranteed due to the limited protections of Internet access. Teachers will be asked to please be sure to close their browser when finished so no one will be able to see what they have been doing. COSTS AND/OR COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION: There will be no cost for you to participate, and there will be no compensation for participation. CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DISMISSAL FROM THE STUDY: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, without penalty. If you do withdraw, it will not affect you in any way. If you choose to withdraw, you may request that your data that has been collected be destroyed when possible. The researcher reserves the right to dismiss a participant from the study if his or her participation threatens its validity and security in any way. The researcher reserves the right to withdraw the study at any time. COMPENSATION FOR INJURY: This study does not anticipate or expect any injuries. There will be no compensation given for injury. This study does not anticipate or expect any injuries. There will be no compensation given for injury. You can choose not to participate in the study. If you have any concerns about your rights, how you are being treated, or if you have questions about this project or benefits or risks associated with being in this study, these can be answered by CHRISTINE DENECKER at (419) 434-6661. You may also contact SUWEEYAH SALIH at [email protected]. CONTACT PERSONS: For more information concerning this research, please contact CHRISTINE DENECKER at (419) 434-6661. If you believe that you may have suffered a research related injury, contact CHRISTINE DENECKER at (419) 434-6661. If you have further questions about your rights as a research subject, you may contact: IRB Chairperson The University of Findlay Findlay, OH 45840 419 434-4640 [email protected] 202

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: Participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to participate or to withdraw at any time, for whatever reason. In the event that you do withdraw from this study, the information you have already provided will be kept in a confidential manner. If you choose to withdraw, you may request that your data that has been collected be destroyed when possible. Your decision whether to participate or not will not prejudice any present or future relationships with The University of Findlay. NEW FINDINGS: You will be notified of any new information that may change your decision to be included in this study, should any new information become available when possible.

CONSENT: Federal regulations require precautionary measures to be taken to insure the protection of human subjects on physical, psychological, social, and other issues. This includes the use of “informed consent” procedures. Please read carefully.

I, ______(PRINTED NAME OF SUBJECT) have been adequately informed regarding the risks and benefits of participating in this study. My signature also indicates that I can change my mind and withdraw my consent to participate at any time without penalty by contacting the study contact person designated above. Any and all questions I had about my participation in this study have been fully answered.

SUBJECT SIGNATURE: ______DATE I have witnessed the consent process and believe the subject has been fully informed, understands the research study, and has agreed to participate in the study.

WITNESS PRINTED NAME: ______

WITNESS SIGNATURE: ______DATE

YOU WILL BE GIVEN A SIGNED COPY OF THIS FORM TO KEEP.

203

APPENDIX C

Interview #______Date______/_____/______

One-on-One Teacher Interview Script My name is Suweeyah Salih, and I am a doctoral student in the department of education at the University of Findlay. I first want to thank you for agreeing to meet with me today and agreeing to be a part of this study. I am looking forward to learning from you and working with you. You recently completed the Teacher Perception Survey. During this interview, I will ask questions and facilitate a conversation about your thoughts on African American Vernacular English- speaking students and how the language these students speak impacts their success in English/Language Arts instruction. Please remember that there are no right or wrong answers to these questions. They are meant to stimulate conversation because I want to hear your opinion. I want you to be comfortable, honest, and open to expressing your ideas. This session is being recorded, and you may see me taking notes during the interview to make sure I accurately capture your ideas. If I need to, I will ask follow-up questions and clarify your responses. If at any time you need to take a break, please let me know, and we will break for a few minutes. If you have a question about anything we discuss, please, ask me. Remember that like your responses to the survey, this interview is confidential, and your name and personal information are also. Please know that you can change your mind. If you want to stop the interview, just let me know. Let’s test to make sure that the recording device is working. I am going to push the record button and I ask you a test question. What is today’s date? (Checks to see if the recording device is working. Adjustments are made as needed). Now we are starting the interview. Do you have any questions before we begin? Let’s begin with you telling me a little about yourself. Why did you become a teacher? When did you receive your teacher training? Since this is an open-ended interview, the questions below are only samples of topics I wish to explore. There will be follow-up questions asked as needed. 1. When you hear your AAVE-speaking students using their home language in class, what images come to mind? 2. Where do the ideas and images you describe come from? 3. When you hear your AAVE-speaking students using their home language in class, do you correct them? If so, what do you say? Give me an example. How do they respond to your correction? 4. If you do not correct students using AAVE, why don’t you? 5. What do you consider your home language to be? 6. How does the language you speak drive how and what you instruct and your expectations of AAVE-speaking students? 7. What if any impact does student use of AAVE have on them academically? 8. What if any impact does student use of AAVE have on how you instruct them? 204

9. What is your responsibility as a teacher to AAVE-speaking students? 10. Do your AAVE-speaking students respond well to your methods of instruction? If so, what evidence do you have to support this? If not, what evidence do you have to demonstrate this? What do you think can be done to help AAVE-speaking students improve in Language Arts/ELA instruction and on standardized tests? 11. Do you use any of the suggestions you just mentioned with your AAVE-speaking students? If so, do you notice any improvements in knowledge and mastery of Language Arts/ELA standards? 12. If you are not using any of your suggestions, why aren’t you, and what would it take for you to shift your instruction with this population? 13. Does AAVE have any role in the English/Language Arts classroom? If so, in what capacity? If not, why not? 14. Is there anything else we haven’t discussed that you think is important and needs to be included and considered?

Thank you again for your honest perspective. What is going to happen next is that I am going to transcribe the interview and return in a few weeks to do a member check. A member check is when I present you with the typed transcript of our interview. I want to make sure that I recorded all the ideas you had correctly because your thoughts and ideas are very important to my research. I would like to return for a member check in two weeks on ______at ______? Does that date and time work for you? Please contact me via email if this changes. Also, when I return for the member check, I will collect 5-10 artifacts of student work with teacher feedback from you. Here is an instruction sheet explaining what type of artifacts I am collecting.

Read the Artifact Instruction Sheet. Do you have any questions? Finally, I want to begin surveying and interviewing your students. Based on the class list you provided me, I have here (number) of consent and assent forms that they need to take home and have signed by their parents or guardians. The assent form must be signed and dated by the student. I would greatly appreciate if you pass these out to your students, so they can go home today or in the next few days. I cannot include any student in the study without a signed consent and assent form. Would you please store these forms in a locked cabinet in your classroom as students return them? I would appreciate this. It is important that we get student feedback, so please help students understand the importance of the study. My contact information is on the consent form, so their parents or guardians can reach out to me if they have any questions. I really appreciate your help. When I return for the member check on ______at ______, you can give me the forms, and we can schedule a time for me to come in and administer the survey to your students. We can choose interview dates after the student survey is administered. Thank you again. Is there anything else? Thank you for your participation. I will see you in a couple of weeks.

205

APPENDIX D

Interview #______Date______/_____/______

One-on-One Student Interview Script My name is Ms. Salih, and I am a college student. See, I am in school just like you. Tell me your name? It’s nice to meet you. Thank you for meeting me today. I am happy that you are a part of this study. I am excited to learn from you. Do you remember the survey you took? You were asked about the way you speak and your opinion about the way you speak in school. Today, I am going to interview you about the same topic. Do you understand? Do you have any questions? I will ask questions, so I can learn more about your thoughts on the way you speak and how the way you speak relates to your interest and courage in English class. Remember these three things: • There are no right or wrong answers. These questions help us talk about the topic. I want to hear your ideas. You will do most of the talking. I am learning from you by listening. • I want you to be true and say how you really feel. I won’t be mad at what you say. I won’t tell your teachers what you say. Your answers are secret. I won’t tell your name when I write or talk about this subject. • If you need to take a break, please let me know. We will break for a few minutes. If you have a question about anything, please, ask me. I will answer your question. Okay? I am going to record our interview. You may see me writing while you are talking. I will be writing notes on something I heard you say that I want to learn more about. You may say something that makes me ask you another question. Again, there are no wrong or right answers. I just want to know more. Do you understand? Do you have any questions before we begin? Please know that you can change your mind. If you want to stop the interview, just let me know. Okay? Let’s test to make sure that the recorder is working. I am going to push the record button on three, and I am going to ask you a question. One, two three. What is your favorite food? Let’s see if the recorder got that. Let’s rewind and listen. (Any adjustments are made). We are starting the interview. Do you have any questions? Let’s start. Since this is an open-ended interview, the questions below are only samples of topics I wish to explore. The questions in brackets are follow-up questions that will be asked as needed.

1. Does the language you speak at home sound like the language you are taught in school? [How are they the same or different?] 2. Listen to this conversation: “You coming? We bout to go to the stow. Hurray up! We fin to leave you. We aint waiting. You is gon get lef. I been told you bout this! We leaving. Brofer, you irritating. We is gon!” How does she sound? Explain. [What words or pictures would you use to describe how she sounds?] 206

3. Why did you use those words or pictures? [Why did you use those words and those pictures? How did you come up with those?] 4. Is your teacher okay with you speaking the way you do in class? How do you know? [Is your teacher okay with you speaking in class like the conversation you just heard?] 5. Have you ever been corrected for speaking or writing the way you do in English class? How did you feel? If not, should you be corrected for using the language you do in class? [Do you think teachers should correct students when they speak or write in their language? Why or why not?] Remember the letters AAVE? AAVE stands for African American Vernacular English. AAVE is the name used to describe the way you speak. It is the language you speak in your home and neighborhood. It is different from the English you learn in school. These next questions may refer to AAVE. Remember that AAVE is the way you speak. Do you understand? 6. Have you ever stopped speaking AAVE when a teacher came by? Why or why not? [Have you ever been speaking the way you do in your language and stopped so the teacher would not hear you? Why or why not?] 7. Can you think if a time when you felt bad about using AAVE in the classroom? Explain. [Have you ever felt bad or wrong for using your language in class? Why or why not?] 8. Have you ever felt happy about using AAVE in the classroom? Explain. [Can you think if a time when you felt good about using your language in the classroom? Explain.] 9. Does speaking AAVE, affect how well you do in school? Explain. [Does speaking in your language effect your work or grades in school? How or why not?] 10. Can using AAVE ever be useful in the English classroom? If so, in what way? If not, why not? [Can the way you speak ever be used in the English classroom to help you learn? How or why not.] 11. Should teachers use AAVE in the English classroom to teach? Why or why not? [Should your teachers use the way you speak to teach you? Why or why not?] 12. Do you think that you would do better in school and on tests if you used AAVE in class to learn school English? Explain. [Do you think you would do better on your work and tests using the way you speak to learn school English? Why?] 13. If AAVE is accepted and used in the classroom, will this change how you view AAVE and yourself? Please explain. [If your teacher used the way you speak in the classroom, would this change the way you feel about it and yourself as a speaker of AAVE?] 207

14. That’s the end of my questions. Do you have any questions or comments? [Is there anything that you want to say that I may not have asked or thought about?] Thank you again for your honesty. Let me tell you what happens next. I am going to go and listen to our interview. I will type a script of what I said and what you said. I will come back to show you the script in two weeks. I will show the script only to you. I want to read the script with you to make sure that I recorded all your ideas correctly. I don’t want to make a mistake because your ideas are very important to my research. Is it okay that I come back and show you the interview script? Thank you. Is there anything else? Thank you for helping me.

208

APPENDIX E Teacher Perception Survey

ID#:

Race:

Grade Level:

Teaching experience: years

What years were you trained as a teacher? to

*Note: African American Vernacular English is abbreviated AAVE. Standard English (the language of instruction) is abbreviated SE.

Please circle your response in terms of your level of agreement with each statement using a scale of 1 to 4 (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree).

Agreement Table

Item Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree

1. AAVE is a misuse of SE. 1 2 3 4 2. AAVE is a clear, thoughtful, and expressive language. 1 2 3 4 3. AAVE has a faulty grammar system. 1 2 3 4 4. Continued usage of AAVE would accomplish nothing 1 2 3 4 worthwhile for society. 5. Teachers should allow African American students to use 1 2 3 4 AAVE in the Classroom.

6. AAVE sounds as good as SE. 1 2 3 4

7. AAVE is cool. 2 3 4 1 8. AAVE is as effective for communication as is SE. 2 3 4 1 9. If use of AAVE were encouraged, speakers of AAVE 1 2 3 4 would be more motivated to achieve academically. 10. In a predominantly African American school, AAVE as 1 2 3 4 well as SE should be taught. 11. Widespread acceptance of AAVE is critical. 1 2 3 4 12. AAVE should be considered a bad influence on 1 2 3 4 American culture. 13. AAVE must be accepted if pride is to develop among 1 2 3 4 African Americans. 14. Attempts to eliminate AAVE in schools results in 1 2 3 4 situations that can be psychologically damaging to African American children. 15. When teachers reject the home language of a 1 2 3 4 student, they do him great harm. 16. One of the goals of the American school system 1 2 3 4 should be the standardization of the English language. 17. AAVE should be discouraged. 1 2 3 4

209

18. AAVE should be accepted socially. 1 2 3 4 19. Acceptance of AAVE by teachers will lead to a lowering 1 2 3 4 of standards in schools. 20. The scholastic level of a school will fall if teachers allow 1 2 3 4 AAVE to be spoken. 21. AAVE is an inferior language system. 1 2 3 4 22. A teacher should correct a student’s use of AAVE. 1 2 3 4 23. One successful method for improving the learning 1 2 3 4 capacity of speakers of AAVE would be to replace their dialect with SE. 24. AAVE sounds sloppy. 1 2 3 4 25. The sooner we eliminate AAVE the better. 1 2 3 4

To what extent has the AAVE in education been presented to you in your teacher training? Not at all Very little Often Extensively

If AAVE in education has been a topic of class discussion, in what course(s) did you encounter it?

What is your overall opinion of the use of AAVE in the school setting?

210

APPENDIX F

Student Perception Survey

ID#:

Race:

Grade Level:

*Note: African American Vernacular English is the language spoken in the homes and communities of African American people. African American Vernacular English is abbreviated AAVE. Standard English is the English used in school books and taught by the teacher. It is abbreviated SE.

Please circle your response in terms of your level of agreement with each statement using a scale of 1 to 4 (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree).

Agreement Table

Item Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 1. AAVE is a wrong use of SE. 1 2 3 4

2. AAVE is a clear and strong language. 1 2 3 4 3. AAVE uses bad grammar. 1 2 3 4 4. AAVE’s use does not benefit society. 1 2 3 4 5. Teachers should let students use AAVE in class. 1 2 4 6. AAVE sounds as good as SE. 1 2 3 4 7. AAVE is cool. 1 2 3 4 8. AAVE is as good as SE for communication. 2 3 4 9. AAVE use motivates AAVE speakers to succeed in 1 school. 1 2 3 4 10. Schools with mostly Black students should teach 1 2 3 4 AAVE and SE.

11. Wide public support of AAVE is needed. 1 2 3 4 12. AAVE has a bad influence on society. 1 2 3 4

13. Acceptance of AAVE develops pride among Black 1 students. 2 3 4 14. Attempts to not allow AAVE in schools can result in emotional hurt to Black children. 1 2 3 4

15. Teachers who deny the way a student speaks 3 causes him/her great harm. 1 2 4 16. One of the goals of schools is to make sure all 1 2 3 students use Standard English. 4 17. AAVE should be discouraged. 1 2 3 4

211

18. AAVE should be accepted by the public. 1 2 3 4 19. Teachers accepting AAVE leads to low standards in 1 2 3 4 schools. 20. The instruction in schools will lower if AAVE is able 1 2 3 4 to be spoken. 21. AAVE is a bad language. 1 2 3 4 22. Teachers should correct a student’s use of AAVE. 1 2 3 4 23. AAVE speakers can improve in school by replacing 1 2 3 4 AAVE with SE. 24. AAVE sounds sloppy. 1 2 3 4 25. The sooner we eliminate AAVE the better. 3 1 2 4

Have you been encouraged to use AAVE in class? Not at all Very little Often All the time

If encouraged to use AAVE in class, what class allowed this?

What is your opinion of the use of AAVE in school?

212

APPENDIX G

Teacher Interview Codes 25 Codes No. of Excerpts AAVE Speech Less Corrected 10 Circumstantial 9 Code Switching 26 Comfort 13 Contradiction 19 Spoken Language 5 Disconnect 16 Enforcing ELA Standards 35 Family Ties 4 Hip Hop/Slang Reference 7 Impact on Student Motivation 10 Implicit Bias 26 Importance of Written 13 Expression Love for Children 5 Negative Reference/Stereotype 12 Passion for Teaching 6 Personal 16 Connections/Familiarity Receptive to teacher feedback 10 Respect for Language and/or 18 Culture Role Model/Trusted Authority 13 Second Career 4 Societal Expectations 22 State Testing Requirements 8 Teacher Acceptance of AAVE 7 Teacher Training 6 Total 320

213

APPENDIX H

Student Interview Codes 15 Codes No. of Excerpts AAVE Allows Me Greater Expression 23 AAVE is for the Home 15 AAVE Used in School with Friends/Peers 15 Being Smart 13 Correcting Me 13 Correction is the Way 28 Denial 11 Formal vs. Informal 33 Hiding AAVE 20 Negative Reference/Stereotype 13 Proper vs. Not Proper 37 SE is the Standard 21 SE Only for Instruction 43 Slang Not AAVE 7 Society/School Expectations 32 Total 324