Content uploaded by Tempii Champion
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tempii Champion on Feb 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN 2277-0860; Volume 1, Issue 5, pp 80-89; August, 2012.
Online Journal of Education Research
©2012 Online Research Journals
Full Length Research
Available Online at http://www.onlineresearchjournals.org/IJER
Future Educators’ Perceptions of African American
Vernacular English (AAVE)
Dr. Tempii B. Champion1*, Dr. Deirdre Cobb-Roberts2, Dr. Linda Bland- Stewart3
1Department of Communication Disorders, Long Island University-Brooklyn Campus, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
2Department of Social Foundations of Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
3Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Howard University, Washington, DC, USA.
Downloaded 11 July, 2012 Accepted 18 August, 2012
Teachers are responsible for educating students’. Unfortunately, many teachers, however, are not
prepared to meet the increasing need of the students’ population that they encounter in the classroom.
One area in which teachers do not receive adequate training is language diversity. In particular, African
American Vernacular English is often an unfamiliar language for many educators. This study employed
a language attitude scale to assess the attitudes toward African American Vernacular English of pre-
service teachers in a multicultural, undergraduate education course. The findings revealed that
European American students expressed a belief that African American Vernacular English is a negative
and inferior dialect of English, while African American and Hispanic students expressed more favorable
views of African American Vernacular English. The study suggests that pre-service teachers should
receive training on the different dialects of English that students may speak in the classroom.
Keywords: Language diversity, educators, language attitude scale, pre-service teachers, AAVE.
INTRODUCTION
Currently, minority population account for approximately
24% of the total population, and over the next ten (10)
years, they are projected to increase by 30%. The US
Bureau of Census [1] estimate that by 2050, more than
47% of the total US population will be of non-European
origin. In 1989, the Children's Defense Fund [2] predicted
that by 2030, the populations of Hispanic or Latino
children will increase by 5.5 million and African American
children by 2.6 million, while the population of European
American children will decrease by 6.2 million. The 1990
US census showed that the population of individuals from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (i.e.,
African American, Asian American, Hispanic, and Native
American populations) exceeded 60 million. Nearly a
decade later, the US Bureau of the Census [1] reported
that African American and Hispanic individuals
constituted 15% of population in 1998 and were projected
to comprise, respectively, 15% and 16% of the population
by the year 2000. This report also projected that by 2010,
*Corresponding Author's E-mail: Tempii.Champion@liu.edu.
the number of African Americans would increase to 16%
of the population and Hispanics to 19%. According to the
US Bureau of the Census [1] 12.5% of the population
were identified as Hispanic and 12.3% as African
American; additionally, 3.6% were identified as Asian
native, and 0.9% as Native American. Although these
figures are lower than anticipated, it remains that minority
populations represent a significant proportion of the US
population, which will present important challenges to
future teachers in the education sector with regard to
educating the students’.
In the state of Florida, the office of strategic planning [3]
identified several significant trends in the supply of
minority teachers and the ethnic compositions of their
classrooms. According to this report, the two largest
minority groups represented were African Americans and
Hispanics. From 1977 to 1991, the ratio of African
American teachers to African American students was
25.7:29.4 to one. According to the reported findings for
Fall 1991, 24% of the students in Florida’s public school
classrooms were African American compared with only
14.5% of classroom teachers. Among the total number of
students graduating from teacher education programs at
state universities, the proportion of African American
students is only 2.7%. Unfortunately, more recent data
could not be obtained as the state ceased reporting
teacher shortages in the same manner.
Florida is characterized by a unique diversity of school
districts providing Special Education Service (SES) to
urban and rural populations. The University of South
Florida (USF) serves a large service area of fifteen (15)
school districts. These districts ranges from those among
the largest in both the state and the nation, to those, on
the other extreme, that are among the state’s smallest.
For example, the Florida Department of Education,
Division of Public Schools, Bureau of Education for
Exceptional Students [4] reported that the PL 94-142
entitlement for districts within the USF service area for
the 1996-97 fiscal year ranges from a high of 27,295
exceptional students in Hillsborough County to a low of
167 in Glades School District. In contrast to the
exceedingly large numbers of children served in
Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, more remote districts
(i.e., Hernando, Hardee, Hendry, Glades, Desoto, and
Charlotte), located one to two hours away from Tampa,
serve only a fraction of their numbers. In such rural
areas, although student populations are smaller, student-
teacher ratios are often larger, resulting in far less
desirable working conditions and a consequent exodus of
existing teachers to larger school districts. The diverse
populations of children served by these larger districts
bring to the classroom their different languages and
dialects, including African American Vernacular English
(AAVE). However, the majority of the teachers in such
districts are prepared to teach only students who speak
mainstream English, and there are few teacher education
programs that focus on specific issues related to different
dialect in the classroom. Although existing research has
examined teacher attitudes toward students from different
language and dialect backgrounds, including AAVE, as well
as, the impact of teachers’ attitudes and knowledge of
language diversity on students’ academic performance,
there has been little research exploring how teachers’
attitudes toward dialect diversity may differ at various
stages of teacher training and practice. The primary purpose
of this study is to examine the attitudes of pre-service
teachers at USF toward African American Vernacular
English.
Language
This section presents a brief overview of the definition
and characteristics of African American Vernacular
English followed by a description of studies of language
attitudes toward AAVE. Linguists have defined “African
American Vernacular English” as culturally, an appropriate
term to refer to the language used by some (but not all)
African Americans. This type of English is a systematic
Champion et al. 81
rule-governed dialect of Standard American English (SAE).
AAVE is also known as Black English Vernacular, Ebonics,
Black English, African American English Vernacular, and
nonstandard English. Speakers of AAVE vary in their use
of this dialect. Some individuals speak in AAVE without
exception, while others may code-switch between SAE
and AAVE, depending on the situation and the audience.
Table 1 lists the most salient features of AAVE.
Previous Research of Language Attitudes
AAVE and perceptions of its speakers have been hotly
debated over the last 40 years. Previous studies [5-11]
have proved that African American Vernacular English is
governed by its own rules and that children know these
rules by the time they enter school. Knowledge of these
rules reflects linguistic competence of their dialect as well
as SAE. Seymour et al. [12] demonstrated that African
American children who use AAVE are not in language
disordered or academically or cognitively incompetent.
In spite of such research, the language that African
American children speak in the classroom is devalued in
the school setting because of its lack of conformity with
the teachers’ language and language expectations.
Research findings indicating the disproportionate number
of AAVE speakers in special education raise the question
of whether educators who work in urban areas with this
population are competent to work with children from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds [13,14].
For example, Artiles et al. [14] reported that African
Americans represented 2.54% of children labeled as
mentally retarded, five times the number of Asian/Pacific
Islanders and more than twice the number of European
American children in special education.
The expectations, beliefs, and attitudes of educators
can affect more than referrals to special education
services. They can shape the way other educators
respond to and instruct children. One study found that
when teachers hold high expectations for students they
make demands on those students that improve their
classroom performance. Such demands include
frequently calling on the students, pressing them to
respond to questions, and holding the students to stricter
performance standards [15]. Entwisle and Alexander [15]
also demonstrated that when teachers have low
expectations or a deficit view of children from diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds, teacher-student
interaction is reduced to the management of behavior,
which contributes little to the improvement of academic
performance. The negative attitudes and beliefs of
teachers also can impact the type of literacy instruction
that students receive. Cecil [16] examined teachers’
attitudes toward African American students who spoke
AAVE and Standard English (SE). In a study involving
two groups of children, one of AAVE speakers, the other
of SE speakers, (five children in each, matched for grade,
82 Online J. Edu. Res.
Table 1. Syntactic and Morphological Characteristics of African American Vernacular English
VERB MARKING
Form
Example
Regular past tense marking (-ed) is not obligatory and is
sometimes omitted.
“And this car crash”
Irregular past tense is marked on some verbs and not on others.
“And then them fall”
Regular and irregular third person marking is not obligatory.
“He go yesterday.”
Future tense is often marked with gonna rather than will
“She gonna call the doctor if he got a fever.”
When will is contracted, its pronunciation may be reduced.
When will is required before be in SAE, it may be deleted in AAVE.
“I be home later.”
Contractible forms of copula and auxiliary be verbs are not
obligatory, though uncontractible forms are obligatory.
“He here.”
“Is he here?”
Perfect tense is expressed by been to denote action completed
in the distant past.
“She been gone.”
Habitual state of verbs is marked with uninflected be, compared
with SAE’s use of adverbs and inflected forms of be.
“She be workin’ two jobs.”
Double modals are allowed in AAVE.
“We might could go.”
NOUN INFLECTIONS
Form
Example
Plurals are not obligatory when quantifiers are present.
“He has two dollar.”
Possessives are not obligatory when word order expresses
possession.
“He hit the man car.”
PRONOUNS AND DEMONSTRATIVES
Form
Example
Pronominal apposition (noun followed by pronoun).
“My mother she home.”
Reflexive pronoun forms are regularized so that all reflexive
forms are produced by adding -self to a possessive pronoun
“hisself” and “theyself”
Relative pronouns are not obligatory in most cases (in SAE only
the that form is optional).
“He the one stole it.”
These here and Them there combinations used.
“These her cars.”
Them substituted for forms used in SAE (these, those).
“I want them shoes.”
COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE MARKERS
Form
Example
Endings -er and -est can be added to most adjectives.
“baddest,” “worser”
More and most can be combined with superlative and
comparative markers.
“most smartest”
NEGATION
Form
Example
Double and triple negative markers may be used.
“I don’t got no brothers.”
Ain’t is used as a negative marker.
“Why she ain’t comin’?”
QUESTIONS
Form
Example
Indirect questions are produced with the same form as direct
questions.
“Do you know what is it?”
A clause beginning with “if” in SAE is produced with “do” in and
indirect question in AAVE.
“I want to know do you want to play with us?”
Sources [36-42]
SES, intelligence, and gender), 52 second-grade
teachers were asked to listen to tapes of the recorded
speech of both groups. A Likert scale measured attitudes
toward the dialect spoken by the children, rated from 1
(very low) to 5 (very high) was employed. A t-test
indicated a significant difference between teachers’
attitudes toward the two groups. The author concluded
that the teachers held higher expectations for African
American children who spoke standard English,
perceived children who spoke standard English as more
intelligent than those who spoke AAVE, and assigned
higher reading ability to children who spoke SE.
In another study by Washington et al. [17], the authors
examined interactions between second-grade teachers
with varying degrees of knowledge of AAVE and their
responses to children who spoke AAVE. Two second-
grade African American teachers in two schools in a low-
SES neighborhood were selected for the study. From the
first teacher, a total of 33 students participated; 17 of
which are African American and 16 are Hispanic. From
the second teacher, a total of 26 students participated;
21of which are African American and 5 are Hispanic.
Based on classroom observations of the teachers’, the
authors identified patterns in the teachers’ interactions
during reading sessions with the students who spoke
AAVE. Teacher one, who was less knowledgeable about
AAVE, gave more non-supportive responses to students’
miscues during reading. However, teacher two, who
possessed more knowledge of AAVE, gave more
supportive responses to the students’ in her classroom.
In conclusion, the authors argued that teachers’ ability to
recognize dialect influences on reading and to respond
appropriately is essential for effective reading instruction.
Koch et al. [18] examined African American adults’
perceptions of African Americans who use black English,
standard English, and code switching. In the study,
African American undergraduates were asked to listen to
four audiotapes of an African American speaker using
black English, standard English, and code switching and
to rate the speaker using the revised speech dialect
attitude. The post-hoc test revealed participants’
preference to work with either the standard English
speaker or the code-switching speaker.
Boyd [19] studied classroom climate and teacher
attitudes toward AAVE. The study participants included
72 parents and 504 students from grades 2-6 in
elementary schools. The language attitude scale was
administered to the teachers. To assess student
perception of classroom climate, My Class Inventory was
administered to all student participants. Findings
indicated that teachers overall had a negative attitude
toward AAVE, but that African American teachers held
more favorable views than European American teachers.
Although linguists have asserted that AAVE is a dialect,
many in the education community and beyond have not
accepted AAVE’s legitimacy as a dialect. Students who
Champion et al. 83
speak AAVE are continued to be labeled inferior, as they
were in the 1960s, revealing the continued need to
educate teachers about language and dialect diversity
and legitimacy. In addition, teaching philosophy and
pedagogy should embrace all dialects spoken by
children.
In light of existing research indicating that teacher
attitudes toward AAVE have changed minimally in 40
years and that a disproportionate number of AAVE
speakers are referred to special education, the aim of this
study is to assess pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward
children who are AAVE speakers. The following
hypotheses, based upon existing research on the
attitudes of practicing teachers, guided this study: A) Pre-
service teachers’ attitude of students who speak AAVE
are negative; and B) African American pre-service
teachers view students who speak AAVE more favorably
than pre-service teachers from other ethnic groups.
METHOD
Multicultural Education Class Population
A university located in southeast Florida has offered for
the past eight years, a state mandated course titled
‘Teaching Diverse Populations’. This course is required
for all students in the state of Florida who are interested
in obtaining a bachelor’s degree in education and is a
prerequisite to pursuing admittance to the College of
Education.
As a mandatory course for prospective pre-service
teachers, the course had a high student enrollment. The
student population, although primarily white and female,
was somewhat diverse, in ways both visibly identifiable
(related to race, ethnicity, gender, and age) and less
recognizable (related to social class, exceptionality,
sexual orientation, and religion).
Participants
Participants were 136 undergraduate, pre-service
education majors, selected from two sections of an
undergraduate course titled ‘Teaching Diverse
Populations’. The sample population was 75% female
(n=102) and 23.5% male (n=32); 1.5% (n=2) did not
provide any gender. Participants were predominantly of
European American origin (76.5%; n=104), although
approximately 8.1% (n=11) were African American, 8.8%
(n=12)% Hispanic, and 4.4% (n=6) “other”; 2.2% (n=) left
the category blank.
Instrumentation
The instrument used in this study was a modified version
of the Language Attitude Scale (LAS). [19,20] (See
84 Online J. Edu. Res.
Appendix A.) Surveys required indication of gender,
race/ethnicity, year in school/pre-service program, and
prior teaching experience. To protect participants’
anonymity, names were not required. The instrument
consisted of 25 Likert scale questions, rated on a 4-point
scale: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3), and
strongly agree (4). There were 15 questions examining
the pre-service teachers’ general attitude toward AAVE;
the remaining 10 questions addressed the pre-service
teachers’ perceptions of AAVE as a legitimate dialect for
use in an academic setting. There were three open-
ended questions examining whether AAVE and its
legitimacy as a dialect had been addressed in pre-service
teachers’ educational training. The questionnaire was
assessed for internal reliability and was found to be
highly reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha value of .93.
Procedure
The modified LAS was administered to the participants
on the first day of class for two sections of the Teaching
Diverse Populations course. Participants were instructed
to complete the survey anonymously and were provided
no further information about the survey. Participants were
not given a time limit; however, all participants completed
the survey in approximately 20 minutes. The survey was
returned to the second author for data entry.
RESULTS
The survey results (n=136) were compiled and entered
into Microsoft Excel for later data analysis. Total scores
across all racial groups were used for data analysis. The
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-16)
was used to analyze the data.
As previously stated, 75% of the sample population
was female (n=102), 23.5 % male (n=32), and 1.5% (n=2)
unknown. The students were mainly of European
American origin, 76.5 % (n=104), although approximately
8.1% (n=11) were African American, 8.8% (n=12)
Hispanic, and 4.4% (n=6) “other”; 2.2% (n=) left the
category blank.
The survey data were first analyzed to assess pre-
service teachers’ attitudes toward AAVE. Of the 136
respondents to the survey, 85%, or 116 respondents,
perceived AAVE negatively, supporting our hypothesis
that pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward AAVE are
negative. The data were also aggregated and tested for
differences based on gender; this revealed no significant
difference between men and women in their attitudes
toward AAVE. The survey responses were also examined
for correlation between race or ethnic group and attitude
toward AAVE, using a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) between and within groups to determine the
correlation between ethnicity/race on the mean score.
The data revealed a significant effect of race on
perception of AAVE, F (3,123) = 3.53, p < .03. A post-hoc
LSD test was subsequently conducted to test for
differences between ethnic groups. The results indicated
a difference between African Americans and European
Americans. There was, however, no significant difference
between African Americans and either Hispanics or other
ethnic groups. In addition, the data revealed no
significant difference between Hispanic and European
Americans and other ethnic groups.
DISCUSSION
This study sought to examine the attitudes of pre-service
teachers toward AAVE. Analysis of the data collected
from a modified Language Attitude Scale revealed two
general findings that supported our original hypotheses.
First, the results showed that AAVE is viewed negatively
by USF pre-service teachers, overall and irrespective of
gender. Secondly, the results indicated that African
American pre-service teachers are less likely than their
European American counterparts to view AAVE
negatively. These findings are consistent with the results
of earlier studies examining teacher attitudes toward
AAVE. For example, Boyd [19] demonstrated both that
overall teachers had a negative attitude toward AAVE
and that African American teacher expressed more
favorable responses than European American teachers.
Another study [16] examining teacher attitudes toward
AAVE indicated that teachers held lower expectations of
children who spoke AAVE, considered them less
intelligent than their SAE-speaking peers, and assigned
them a lower expected reading ability than to children
who spoke SAE. Although the present study investigated
pre-service teachers’ perceptions of AAVE and not the
intelligence or aptitude of students who speak AAVE, our
study does offer some, if limited, indication of pre-service
teachers’ perceptions about AAVE-speaking children.
As noted above, the results of the current study
indicated that African American pre-service teachers’
perceptions of AAVE were positive, based on a
statistically significant difference in attitudes of African
American participants compared with those of other
ethnic groups. This finding was consistent with Boyd’s
study of teacher attitudes toward AAVE. However, our
finding appears to contradict a number of other previous
studies, which indicated that African Americans have
negative attitudes toward AAVE. For example, a study by
Koch et al [18] indicated that African American college
students expressed a preference to work with Standard
English speakers and Code Switching speakers over
speakers of African American Vernacular English.
Further, the results of a study by Payne et al [21]
indicated that African American students preferred
listening to Standard English. Finally, Washington et al
[17] found that the degree to which an African American
teacher is knowledgeable about AAVE impacted the
degree of learning encouragement given to children who
speak AAVE. Our results may differ because participants
in this study were enrolled in a course preparing students
to teach diverse populations and may have been more
sensitive to this issue.
Limitations
This study may be limited in both its internal and external
validity. The study’s internal validity may be compromised
by the potential unreliability of participants’ survey
responses. Participants self-reported their responses to
questions related to attitudes toward and training in
AAVE. The participants may have edited their responses
to conform to opinions they deemed more socially
acceptable. The researcher’s race and ethnicity may also
have compromised the study’s interval validity.
Participants may have self-edited their responses to
survey questions in a way that they believed was suitable
given the researcher’s race and ethnicity.
The study’s external validity may also be compromised.
First, the sample population this study was limited to two
sections of the Teaching Diverse Populations course at a
large urban research university in the southeast US. The
course is required in the state of Florida for all
prospective entrants to the college of education and can
be taken at any two-year or four-year institution in the
state. Students enrolled in the course sections included in
the present study were of traditional college age, and the
findings are limited to the responses by this sample
population. If the survey were administered to students
enrolled in the same course at a community college,
where students are typically older, the results may differ
from those presented here. Furthermore, the findings are
limited to the sample population of students required to
enroll in the Teaching Diverse Populations course at an
institution of higher learning located in the state of
Florida. The findings may not apply to other geographic
locations and sample populations that are not required to
take this course. The findings of this study should not be
generalized to all pre-service teachers or colleges of
education. Future research should include a survey of
other states and teacher education programs.
Implications
Research on teacher attitudes about African American
Vernacular English has revealed that teachers’
perceptions of AAVE speakers have remained
consistently negative over the last 40 years. The present
study contributes to the findings of this existing research
on the attitudes of practicing teachers, an examination of
the attitudes toward AAVE of undergraduate pre-service
teachers, that is, teachers in training. This contribution is
Champion et al. 85
significant because the results of this and other studies of
pre-service teachers can inform curriculum in teacher
preparation courses and thereby the attitudes and
behavior of future teachers, especially their attitudes
toward and expectations of speakers of AAVE.
Our study revealed that pre-service teachers, like their
established and practicing counterparts, held a
predominantly negative view of AAVE. In light of existing
research indicating that teacher expectations impact the
quality of students’ learning opportunities [22] and that
low teacher expectation contributes significantly to the
underachievement of African American children [23]
especially in the area of reading [24], these negative
attitudes toward the language spoken by many African
American children should be a grave concern for teacher
education programs, if they aim (as they should) to train
graduates who promote the academic success of all
students, not only speakers of SAE. In response to the
generally low academic achievement observed in African
American student populations, Van Keulan et al. [25]
proposed four key cultural characteristics that negatively
affect the performance of African American students’ in
schools; 1) African Americans have a distinctly different
culture with its own dialect and child rearing practices
[26]; 2) America’s schools do not recognize or utilize
African American students’ competencies for teaching,
learning, and testing; 3) overrepresentation of African
American students in special education is directly related
to cultural discontinuity between students and teachers,
home and school environment, curriculum and learning;
and 4) assessment instruments and practices used to
evaluate African Americans are inherently biased.
Research, including the present study, demonstrating
specifically the negative attitudes held by both current
and future teachers about the linguistic culture of African
American students’ suggests that African American
students’ in general and African American students’ who
speak AAVE in particular are at risk for educational
failure. In order to counter the tendency for failure by
speakers of AAVE, the authors propose that teachers
employ a variety of strategies when working with AAVE
speakers in order to facilitate academic success.
Furthermore, the authors recommend that college of
education teacher training programs should be sensitive
to: a) students’cultural and linguistic backgrounds; and b)
their own expectations of students’ who speak AAVE.
That is, students’ who speak AAVE should be expected
to achieve equally as their SAE counterparts. When
educators understand that culture provides a context for
the teaching and learning of all students’, they recognize
that differences between home and school cultures can
pose challenges for both educators and students García
SB et al. [27] moreover, students’ success and failure can
be understood as the result of a match (or mismatch)
between the in-school learning environment and
students’ learning needs and characteristics García et al.
86 Online J. Edu. Res.
[28]. The theory of cultural discontinuity suggests that in
the case of children of color, there is a mismatch between
the students’ home culture and the school culture.
Children are socialized into language through the
activities and experiences in their everyday lives with
peers and adults, learning how to think about, talk about,
and use language before entering school Heath SB et al.
[29]. That is, as studies on AAVE [5-11] have shown,
children have developed competency in their native
linguistic system before school matriculation. However,
this use of language may conflict with the language used
in either or both the home and school setting. [30]
Therefore, it is important for teachers to be aware of the
characteristics of the language(s) brought by their
students to the classroom to teach bilingual or bidialectal
students effectively.
Furthermore, teachers should be familiar with current
linguistic research and theory related specifically to
language diversity and language deficits, including
studies that have demonstrated both the legitimacy of
AAVE as a dialect and the cognitive and linguistic
competence of children who speak AAVE. Although
speakers of AAVE are frequently attributed with a
linguistic pathology [12], American Speech, Language
and Hearing Association makes clear that, “no dialectal
variety of English is a disorder or a pathological form of
speech or language.” [31] Prior to the publication of the
norm-referenced DELV-NR in July 2005 [32], there was
no standardized assessment tool to help teachers or
clinicians determine language pathology in dialectal
speakers (e.g., African American English, regional
dialects such as Appalachian English Cajun, Haitian
Creole, etc.). However, since its publication, teachers,
and school-clinicians now have access to an assessment
tool which can be used to effectively determine whether a
client’s speech can be attributed to language variations
that reflect dialectal differences from SAE or deficits in
language acquisition.
Yet even with such instruments, the discernment of
dialect features from impaired linguistic development is a
delicate task, and many speech language clinicians
experience difficulty in adequately determining dialect
features, whether present in isolation or in conjunction
with signs of delayed or disordered cognitive and
language development. Because of the potentially grave
consequences of rushed judgment and designation to
special education, teachers are advised to consider best
practices, such as appropriate evaluation of dialectal
speakers. In order to determine if a child indeed has a
developmental impairment, a number of clinical tasks
should occur. These include: (1) gathering a
comprehensive case history of the child; (2) determining
the child’s cognitive and auditory abilities; and (3)
assessing the child’s comprehension and production of
language via observation, language sampling, probing
and administering standardized test(s) as outlined by a
linguist and skilled language pathologist [33-35].
REFERENCES
[1] US Bureau of the Census. Projections of populations by sex, race,
and Hispanic origin, divisions and states: 1993-2020 Series A. 1990.
Washington, US Department of Health and Human Services. data
available online
http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp9_race_et
hnicity. 2004.
[2] Children’s Defense Fund. A vision for America’s future. Washington,
CDF Publications. 1989.
[3] Florida Department of Education. Program for Exceptional Students,
Data Report: Personnel, 2000.
[4] Florida Department of Education. Comprehensive System of
Personnel Development, Planning Data, 2000.
[5] Baratz JC. Teaching black children to read. Washington: Center for
Applied Linguistics, 1969.
[6] Baratz JC. Educational considerations for teaching Standard English
to Negro children. In Fasold RW, Shuy RW, editors. Teaching Standard
English in the inner city. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics;
1970; pp 223-31.
[7] Craig HK, Washington JA. The complex syntax skills of poor, urban,
African American preschoolers at school entry. Language, speech and
hearing services in schools. 1994; 25: 181-90.
[8] Dillard J. Black English. New York: Random House; 1972.
[9] Fasold RW, Wolfram W. Some linguistic features of Negro dialect.
In: Fasold RW, Shuy RW, editors. Teaching Standard English in the
inner city. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics; 1970. pp 41-86.
[10] Ramer A, Rees N. Selected aspects of the development of English
morphology in Black American children of low socioeconomic
background. J. speech and hearing research. 1973;16: 569-77.
[11] Ratusnik DL, Koenigsknecht RA. Influence of age on black
preschoolers’ nonstandard performance of certain phonological and
grammatical forms. Perceptual and motor skills. 1976; 42; 199-206.
[12] Seymour H, Bland-Stewart L, Green LJ. Difference versus deficit in
child African English. Language, speech, and hearing services in
schools. 1998; pp 96-108.
[13] Artiles A, Trent SC. Overrepresentation of minority students in
special education: a continuing debate. J. special education. 1994;
27(4): 410-37.
[14] Artiles A, Harry B, Reschly DJ, Chinn PC. Over-identification of
students of color in special education: a critical overview. Multicultural
perspectives. 2002; 4(10): 3-10.
[15] Entwisle DR, Alexander KL. Factors affecting achievement test
scores and marks of black and white first graders. The elementary
school J., 1988; 88(5): 449-71.
[16] Cecil NL. Black dialect and academic success: a study of teacher
expectations. Reading improvement. 1988; 25: 34-8.
[17] Washington VM, Miller-Jones D. Teacher interactions with
nonstandard English speakers during reading instruction. Contemporary
educational psychology. 1989; 14: 280-312.
[18] Koch LM, Gross AM, Kolts R. Attitudes towards Black English and
code switching. Journal of Black psychology. 2001; 27(1): 29-42.
[19] Boyd G. Teacher attitudes toward African American Vernacular
English: the relationship to student perception of classroom climate
[unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Memphis (TN): The University of
Memphis; 1996.
[20] Ford JP. The prospective foreign language teacher and the
culturally and linguistically diverse learner. Foreign Language Annuals.
1978; 11: 381-90.
[21] Payne K, Downing J, Fleming JC. Speaking Ebonics in a
professional context: the role of ethos/source credibility and perceived
sociability of the speaker. J. technical writing and communication. 2000;
30(4): 367-83.
[22] Winfield L. Teacher beliefs toward at-risk students in inner urban
schools. The urban review. 1986; 4: 253-67.
[23]Gay G. Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and
practice. Ne w York: Teachers College Press; 2000.
[24] Snow CE, Burns MS, Griffin P, editors. Preventing reading failure in
young children. Washington: National Academy Press; 1988.
[25] Van Keulan J, Weddington G, DeBose C, editors. Speech,
language, learning, and the African American child. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon; 1998.
[26] McAdoo HP. Black families. Newbury Park (CA): SAGE
Publications; 1988.
[27] García SB, Guerra PL. Deconstructing deficit thinking: working with
educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education
and urban society. (1988; 362:150-68.
[28] García SB, Wilkinson CY, Ortiz AA. Enhancing achievement for
language minority students: classroom, school, and family contexts.
Education and urban society. 1995; 27: 441-62.
[29] Heath SB. Ways with words: language, life and work in
communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University; 1983.
[30] Ladson-Billings G. Crossing over to Canaan: the journey of new
teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2001.
[31] American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).
Demographic profile of the ASHA membership [unpublished raw data].
Rockville (MD): ASHA; 1997.
[32] Seymour H, Roeper R, de Villiers J. The Diagnostic Evaluation of
Language Variation. Harcourt. 2004.
[33] Bland-Stewart L. Difference vs. Deficit: What every clinician should
know and do. Asha Leader. 2005
[34] Seymour H, Bland-Stewart L, Green L. Difference versus Deficit in
Child African American English. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in the Schools. 1998. 29: 96-108.
[35] Seymour H. Clinical intervention for language disorders among
nonstandard speakers of English. In O. Taylor (Ed.), treatment of
communication disorders. Disorders in culturally and linguistically
diverse populations. San Diego, CA. College Hill Press. 1986; pp. 135-
152.
[36] Baugh J. Black street speech: its history, structure and survival.
Austin: University of Texas Press; 1983.
Champion et al. 87
[37] Craig HK, Washington JA. The complex syntax skills of poor,
urban, African-American preschoolers at school entry. Language,
speech and hearing services in schools. 1994; 25:181-90
[38] Green L. African American English: a linguistic introduction.
Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press; 2002.
[39] Paul R. Language disorders from infancy through adolescence:
assessment and intervention. St. Louis (MO): Mosby-Year Book, Inc.;
1995.
[40] Wolfram W. Language variation in the United States. In: Taylor OL,
editor. Nature of communication disorders in culturally and linguistically
diverse populations. San Diego: College Hill Press; 1986. pp 73-115.
[41] Wolfram W. The relationship of White Southern speech to
Vernacular Black English. Lang., 1974. 50(3): 498-527.
[42] Wyatt TA. Linguistic constraints on copula production in Black
English child speech [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. 1991.
88 Online J. Edu. Res.
Appendix A
ID#:_________________ Gender: ___Male ___Female
Race/Ethnicity:__________________
Year in School:__________________ Major:_____________________
Teaching experience: ____years
How much of your teacher training has taken place at the University of South Florida?
Very Little ____ Some ____ Most ____ All ____ None ____
*Note: African American Vernacular English is abbreviated AAVE. Mainstream American English (the language of
instruction) is abbreviated MAE.
As an educator, or future educator, 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
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. AAVE is a misuse of MAE.
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
worthwhile for society.
1
2
3
4
5. Teachers should allow African American Students to use
AAVE in the Classroom.
1
2
3
4
6. AAVE sounds as good as MAE.
1
2
3
4
7. AAVE is cool.
1
2
3
4
8. AAVE is as effective for communication as is MAE.
1
2
3
4
9. If use of AAVE were encouraged, speakers of AAVE
would be more motivated to achieve academically.
1
2
3
4
10. In a predominantly African American school, AAVE as
well as MAE should be taught.
1
2
3
4
11.Widespread acceptance of AAVE is imperative.
1
2
3
4
12. AAVE should be considered a bad influence on
American culture.
1
2
3
4
13. AAVE must be accepted if pride is to develop among
African Americans.
1
2
3
4
14. Attempts to eliminate AAVE in schools results in
situations that can be psychologically damaging to African
American children.
1
2
3
4
15. When teachers reject the native language of a student,
they do him great harm.
1
2
3
4
16. One of the goals of the American school system should
be the standardization of the English language.
1
2
3
4
17. AAVE should be discouraged.
1
2
3
4
Champion et al. 89
Agreement Table Cont.
18. AAVE should be accepted socially.
1
2
3
4
19. Acceptance of AAVE by teachers will lead to a lowering
of standards in schools.
1
2
3
4
20. The scholastic level of a school will fall if teachers allow
AAVE to be spoken.
1
2
3
4
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
capacity of speakers of AAVE would be to replace their
dialect with MAE.
1
2
3
4
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 subject been presented to you in your teacher training?
Not at all _____
Very little _____
Often _____
Extensively _____
If AAVE 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?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
