terms valued in school and therefore may be unfamiliar to
many teachers and language researchers. She contends
that, “(g)ranted, they may not be words that would be
validated in school, but it may be the case that children’s
vocabularies are greater than we anticipate.... The
problem is that it is not viewed as intelligent but as evidence
of deprivation. It should be looked at as the intelligence of
a child learning from his or her environment in the same
way a child from a college-educated family would” (Delpit in
Goldstein, 2012).
Overcorrecting AAE speakers’ dialect-influenced
pronunciation and grammar while students are reading aloud
(e.g., “Yesterday, I wash my bruvver close”) inhibits reading
development in multiple ways, not least of which is that it
“blocks children’s understanding that reading is essentially
a meaning-making process” and leads children to think that reading is about pronunciation and not
comprehension (Delpit 2006, 59). A more accurate perspective and productive approach would be
to view AAE as a cultural and linguistic resource rather than a dialect subordinate or inferior to SE.
Like all cultural and linguistic resources, AAE is intimately linked to group identity, empowerment,
and positive self-image. This is not to say that teachers should never correct pronunciation or teach
students about SE. Rather, corrective feedback is used judiciously, purposefully, and respectfully.
Pedagogical approaches that support students to become bidialectal, or proficient users of both SE
and AAE (and other dialects of English), are those practices that explicitly acknowledge the value and
linguistic features of AAE, build on students’ knowledge of AAE to improve their learning opportunities,
and ensure that students develop the linguistic resources necessary to meet the expectations of school
contexts (Chisholm and Godley 2011; Delpit 2006; Hill 2009; Thompson 2010). These approaches to
raising dialect awareness include attention to positive and negative stereotypes associated with the
use of SE and AAE, the relationship between language and identity, and language status.
Chisholm and Godley (2011) demonstrate that
instructional approaches that counter widespread
beliefs about language variation and encourage
students to critique these beliefs, as well as research
their own language use, promote substantial student
learning about dialects, identity, and power. They
suggest that “teachers and students often do not
question linguistically erroneous yet publicly taken-
for-granted beliefs about language and dialects
unless language instruction explicitly guides them
to do so” (435). Instructional approaches aimed
at raising student awareness about language
variation require teachers to think critically about
their own beliefs and attitudes regarding the use of
nonstandard varieties of English inside and outside
of the classroom. (See the discussion on culturally
and linguistically responsive teaching elsewhere in
this chapter for more details.)Pedagogical approaches that support
students to become bidialectal,
or proficient users of both SE and
AAE (and other dialects of English),
are those practices that explicitly
acknowledge the value and linguistic
features of AAE, build on students’
knowledge of AAE to improve their
learning opportunities, and ensure that
students develop the linguistic resources
necessary to meet the expectations of
school contexts.A more accurate perspective
and productive approach
would be to view AAE as
a cultural and linguistic
resource rather than a dialect
subordinate or inferior to SE.
Like all cultural and linguistic
resources, AAE is intimately
linked to group identity,
empowerment, and positive
self-image.Access and Equity Chapter 9 | 885