Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
133
Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
A
is descriptive research provides insight into how linguistic discrimination in-
uences students’ academic performance in the English teaching program at
Fundación Universitaria Luis Amigó in Medellin. Five groups were observed
on four dierent occasions to accomplish the purpose of the study. Four profes-
sors and twelve students were interviewed to nd out what attitudes and beliefs
emerged inside the classroom. e analysis of data showed that standard language,
native-speaker idealization, pressure from the professor, disesteem of one’s own
language-level, and discriminatory attitudes aected students’ performance in as-
pects such as socio-aective factors, fear of negative evaluation, communication
apprehension, devaluation of students’ language variation, academic performance
homogenization, mother-tongue restriction, extra visibility of high-prociency
students, discriminatory jokes, linguistic segregation, diculty in interaction, and
self-isolation. is study concluded that academic performance is aected by all
types of discriminating attitudes, either in professors or classmates. Discriminato-
ry attitudes trigger responses such as fear, segregation, anxiety, and apprehension,
among others, thereby restraining and limiting class participation, quality of
interaction, new concept and knowledge appropriation, motivation towards
language, and course contents.
Keywords: linguistic academic performance, linguistic discrimination,
positionality, socio-aective factors, standard language
R
Esta es una investigación descriptiva acerca de cómo la discriminación lingüística
interere en el desempeño académico de los estudiantes del programa de licenciatura
en inglés de la Fundación Universitaria Luis Amigó, de Medellín. Se observaron
cinco grupos en cuatro momentos con el propósito de recolectar información
relevante. Se entrevistaron cuatro profesores y doce estudiantes para determinar
qué actitudes y creencias surgieron en el salón de clase. El análisis de los datos
mostró que el lenguaje estándar, la idealización del hablante nativo, la presión del
profesor y el menosprecio del propio nivel lingüístico afectan negativamente
el desempeño de los estudiantes en aspectos como: factores socioafectivos, miedo
a la evaluación negativa, aprehensión comunicativa, devaluación de las variaciones
del lenguaje de los estudiantes, homogeneización del desempeño académico,
L D E
L T P: V
I O
D :
D ’ ’:
Marlon Vanegas Rojas
Magíster en Educación, Universidad de
Antioquia. Docente y coordinador del semillero
de Investigación en Estudios Culturales,
Fundación Universitaria Luis Amigó.
Mailing address: Transversal 51A #67B 90
Medellín, Colombia
E-mail: vanegasmarlon@hotmail.com
Juan José Fernández Restrepo
Licenciado en inglés, Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó.
Mailing address: Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó. Transversal 51A #67B 90
Medellín, Colombia
E-mail: shakur841@msn.com
Yurley Andrea González Zapata
Licenciada en inglés, Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó.
Mailing address: Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó. Transversal 51A #67B 90
Medellín, Colombia
E-mail: andreita_3187@hotmail.com
Giovany Jaramillo Rodríguez
Licenciado en inglés, Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó.
Mailing address: Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó. Transversal 51A #67B 90
Medellín, Colombia
E-mail: giojaramillo@yahoo.com
Luis Fernando Muñoz Cardona
Licenciado en inglés, Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó.
Mailing address: Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó. Transversal 51A #67B 90
Medellín, Colombia
E-mail: luisfernando8920@hotmail.com
Cristian Martín Ríos Muñoz
Licenciado en inglés, Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó.
E-mail: crisman28@hotmail.com
Mailing address: Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó. Transversal 51A #67B 90
Medellín, Colombia
This research project was carried out by a
research group in cultural studies.
Received: 2015-05-29 /Accepted: 2015-12-17
DOI: 10.17533/udea.ikala.v21n02a02
Íkala Marlon Vanegas rojas, et al.
134
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
restricción de la lengua materna, extravisibilidad de los estudiantes con alta
suciencia, actitudes discriminatorias, segregación lingüística, dicultad en la
interacción y auto-aislamiento. Este estudio concluye que el desempeño académico
se ve afectado por todo tipo de actitudes discriminatorias tanto por parte de los
docentes como de los estudiantes. Dichas actitudes disparan reacciones como
miedo, segregación, ansiedad y aprehensión, entre otras, que restringen y limitan las
oportunidades de participación en clase, la calidad de la interacción, la apropiación
de nuevos conceptos y la motivación hacia la lengua y los contenidos de los cursos.
Palabras clave: desempeño académico lingüístico, discriminación lingüística,
posicionalidad, factores socio-afectivos, lenguaje estándar
R
Cet article présente les résultats d’une recherche descriptive sur la manière
dont la discrimination linguistique inuence la performance académique des
étudiants du programme de licence d’anglais à la Fondation Universitaire
Luis Amigó de Medellín. Cinq groupes ont été observés à quatre moments,
an de collecter les informations les plus importantes. Quatre professeurs et
12 étudiants ont été interrogés an de préciser les attitudes et les croyances
apparaissant dans la salle de classe. L’analyse des données a montré que la
langue standard, l´idéalisation d’un locuteur natif, la pression du professeur, le
mépris du propre niveau de langue aectent négativement , les facteurs socio-
aectifs, la peur de l’évaluation négative, l’appréhension communicative, la
dévaluation des variations langagières des étudiants, l’homogénéisation de
la performance académique, la restriction de la langue maternelle, l’extra
visibilité des étudiants les plus compétents, les attitudes discriminatoires,
la ségrégation linguistique, diculté de l’interaction et auto-isolement des
étudiants. De telles comportements produisent entre autres des réactions telles
que la peur, la discrimination, l’anxiété et l’appréhension, qui restreignent et
limitent les opportunités de participation en classe, la qualité de l’interaction,
l’appropriation de nouveaux concepts et la motivation pour l’apprentissage de la
langue et les contenus du cours.
Mots-clés : performance académique linguistique, discrimination linguistique,
ségrégation linguistique, positionnalité, facteurs socio-aectifs, langue standard
Íkala Linguistic Discrimination in an EngLish LanguagE tEaching Program: VoicEs of thE inVisibLE othErs
135
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
Introduction
The communicative approach has been the most
widely accepted and promoted methodology
by the English language teaching community
around the world, particularly in teaching and
learning second and foreign languages. “It has
been treated as a discipline or as a neutral and
objective technology that may be exported to any
country” (Lin, 2008, p. 15).
The communicative approach in language teach-
ing has been mainly constructed in Western
culture as a free-value technology and an effective
learning approach. However, this teaching implic-
itly brings along with it values and ideologies such
as individualism and utilitarianism. The kinds of
interactions promoted in class cannot be accepted in
certain traditional societies or cultural contexts
(Ouyan, 2000, cited by Lin, 2008, p. 16).
In Colombia, English teaching through the com-
municative approach has been brought into
question because of its neutrality. The discourse
that portrays English as a neutral language envi-
sions it as simply a means of communication.
Guerrero and Quintero (2009) affirm that this per-
spective on language teaching arises from the idea
that language is used to transmit a set of fixed rules.
The idea is that language is not seen as a vehicle
by which inequality, discrimination, sexism, rac-
ism, and power can be executed. They refer to the
communicative approach as a prescriptive teaching
method “that presents a language which does not
have real speakers and, therefore, no conflicts of any
sort” (pp. 138-139).
English language learning in our teaching pro-
gram at Fundación Universitaria Luis Amigó
(FUNLAM) is mainly characterized by the use
of the communicative approach and task-based
learning. Teachers usually organize their classes
around content and form. Thus, class activities
revolve around the study of grammar and pronun-
ciation, the exploration of some themes, and the
preparation of class projects, including oral pre-
sentations and group, project, and independent
work.
Concerning English language learning in our
program, we can say that our classes are charac-
terized by the linguistic diversity found in every
classroom. That is, classes are linguistically het-
erogeneous: there is mixed proficiency, meaning
that we can find low, intermediate, and high lin-
guistic proficiency students in the same class. We
can even find native speakers of English, former
immigrants who were raised in the United States
and who are currently enrolled in the program.
As students enrolled in the program and mem-
bers of the research group in Cultural Studies, we
became highly sensitive to the kinds of interactions
present in our English classes as a consequence
of the linguistic diversity or mixed proficiency
level classes as described above. Furthermore, our
attention was drawn to the extra visibility given
to high-proficiency (HP) students by professors
in the program. Professors automatically tended
to ignore low-proficiency (LP) students by sus-
taining long conversations with HP students and
reducing opportunities for LP students to get
involved in class discussions. We also observed
that LP students remained quiet and ended up
segregating themselves by forming groups with
similarly performing classmates.
When students worked in groups, we had the
opportunity to observe that, instead of coopera-
tion, interaction among the groups was mediated
by competition. Class activities usually prized
and praised language-skillful students. Moreover,
the same occurred when students gave oral pre-
sentations; LP students panicked and were
apprehensive about speaking in public, while HP
students performed successfully during class, thus
gaining preferred attention from professors.
Considering that “cultural studies seek to make
an exploration of representations of and ‘for’
Íkala Marlon Vanegas rojas, et al.
136
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
marginalized social groups and the need for cul-
tural change” (Baker, 2011, p. 5), this study arose
from the need to give a voice to invisible students
and deconstruct power relations at stake inside the
English language classroom. “Here, knowledge
and language are never a neutral or objective phe-
nomenon but a matter of positionality, that is, of
the place from which one speaks, to whom, and for
what purposes” (Baker, 2011, p. 5).
On the other hand, the concept of social justice
has also been considered in this study. This “is a
philosophy that extends beyond the protection
of rights. Social justice advocates for the full par-
ticipation of all people, as well as for their basic
legal, civil, and human rights” (Canada’s Ministry
of Education, 2008, p. 3). In our society, there are
visible and invisible differences, but belonging to
a society does not depend on backgrounds and
particular circumstances; the idea is to address all
kinds of oppression and recognize this diversity
(Canada’s Ministry of Education, 2008).
Linguistic human rights include the “right to be
recognized as a member of a language community;
the right to interrelate and associate with other
members of one’s language community of origin;
the right to maintain and develop one’s own culture”
(UNESCO, 1996, p. 5). This claim becomes rele-
vant as some students’ linguistic rights were and
are constantly trampled.
Democracy in the classroom is another signifi-
cant concept to become acquainted with. This is
a social process dependent upon three democratic
dispositions: all citizens are moral equals capable
of intelligent judgment and actions, focused on
reflection, and with a need to decide on their own
what to believe. Likewise, all citizens are able to
work together on a day-to-day basis to settle con-
flicts and solve problems, McAninch’s (as cited
in MacMath, 2008, p. 3) affirms that we cannot
talk about democracy in the classroom if only a
few students take part in classroom activities and
interactions.
Furthermore, according to Giroux, (1998) “the
term linguistic discrimination implies a concern
in cultural studies for students as bearers of dif-
ferent social memories; as a consequence they
are allowed the right to speak and to represent
themselves in the pursuit of knowledge and self-
determination” (as cited in Sierra, 2003, p. 49). He
also maintains that this illustrates a need for stu-
dents to build their identity and find paths, which
will allow them to respectfully have a meaningful
and significant dialogue with others.
The above assumptions are further discussed and
supported with theory in the following section.
This will allow the reader to have a better under-
standing of our research project. Here we will
show the specifics of the theory used as a basis
for the study on linguistic discrimination. This
study was framed along the lines of concepts and
theories on linguistic discrimination, standard
language ideology, native speaker idealization,
accent, intelligibility, socio-affective factors, and
linguistic diversity.
Theoretical Framework
Linguistic discrimination
Before discussing concepts and theories, it is
important to clarify that linguistic discrimina-
tion has been studied and explored mainly in the
workplace in bilingual or multilingual contexts.
We found no evidence of studies carried out in
the educational context, especially in (B.A.) tea-
ching programs in Colombia. In studies that have
explored linguistic discrimination or linguicism,
the term linguistic discrimination is defined as
“ideologies and practices which are used to legiti-
mate, regulate and reproduce an unequal division
of power and resources defined on the basis of lan-
guage” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988, p. 13). Ling uistic
discrimination, therefore, can be seen as an impo-
sition by entities or persons regarding language
usage, which equates to a social division of power
within a speech community.
Íkala Linguistic Discrimination in an EngLish LanguagE tEaching Program: VoicEs of thE inVisibLE othErs
137
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
Standard language
In our research, the concept of standard language
ideology comes to light through the definition
of linguistic discrimination. Lippi-Green defines
standard language as “a bias toward an abstracted,
idealized, homogeneous spoken language which
is imposed from above, and which takes written
language as its model. The most salient feature is
the goal of suppression of variation of all kinds”
(1994, p. 166). According to Lippi-Green (1994),
it should also be pointed out that powerful socio-
political movements, such as the educational
system, news media, the entertainment industry,
and what is known as corporate America, have
created and focused their efforts on establishing
a standard language ideology (pp. 166-171). This
ideology has permeated Colombia as English
teaching curriculums, materials, and policies are
influenced by foreign institutions that work to
gain political and monetary benefits.
Moreover, if we look at the countries that spread
these policies, a great number of people within
their own communities don’t speak a “standard
language” since immigration and multicultural-
ism have influenced language over the last 100
years. Therefore, to emphasize standard language
is to mislead and promote the idea of a single
homogenous language, giving no recognition or
importance to other speech communities that
share the same language, although not the ideal-
ized version.
Idealized native speaker
Standard language ideology emphasizes belief
in an idealized version of the language, which in
turn promotes a global perception of an idealized
native speaker. The term “native speaker” sug-
gests the existence of a single idealized register of
the target language, despite the fact that there are
many registers and styles within the same speech
community. This language diversity is what makes
the task of defining a native speaker difficult
(Medgyes, 1992, p. 349).
In addition, Phillipson (1992) suggests that lan-
guages have several dialects, styles, and registers
that make it difficult to define a native speaker.
When one form of a language is preferred over
others, this is due to social norms or standards and
is not based on a linguistic criterion. Therefore,
the concept of a native speaker is perceived as the
belief that native speakers are the sole owners of
language. Thus, the term “native speaker” in itself
suggests the existence of a single kind of spoken
English when there are actually many variations
within a speech community. Similarly, English has
become so globalized that no entity or person can
claim ownership of the language. At present, indi-
viduals do not need to travel abroad to learn and
become proficient in the language. This implies
that the model of a native speaker is a fallacy.
Accent and intelligibility
Another dilemma that arises from the notion of a
native speaker is the concept of accent:
An accent simply refers to one’s way of speaking, the
way one sounds when speaking, the way one uses pho-
nological features such as stress, rhythm, tone and
intonation. Contrary to popular belief, it is not just
foreigners or immigrants who speak with an accent.
Everybody speaks with an accent. Non-accent is non-
existent. (Kumaravadivelu, 2004, p. 1)
This is a general misconception of accent.
Generally when people talk about accent, they
are actually referring to the dialect a person has
in a particular language, which is largely based
on the region where the individual was brought
up. Derwing and Munro (2009) state, “accent has
been blamed for all sorts of things. It has been seen
as the cause of miscommunication and it has been
used as a cover-up for racism and other kinds of dis-
crimination” (p. 476). Therefore, there is a need to
understand and differentiate the notion of accent
from that of intelligibility. The concept of intelli-
gibility means being understood by an individual
or a group of individuals at a specific time and in a
specific context; we should all learn to speak a lan-
guage in such a way that it is intelligible to others.
Íkala Marlon Vanegas rojas, et al.
138
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
Intelligibility is assured through clear articulation
and pronunciation, yet those who pronounce cor-
rectly and articulate clearly still speak with an
accent (Kumaravadivelu, 2004, p. 2).
Socio-affective factors
These subtle yet damaging forms of linguistic dis-
crimination can lead to many socio-affective issues
such as anxiety, lack of motivation, and a negative
self-concept that can greatly affect the compe-
tence and performance students have regarding
the target language and their interaction inside the
classroom. Thomas Scovel views “anxiety as a
state of apprehension influenced by factors that
are intrinsic and extrinsic to the foreign language
learner” (as cited in Fandiño, 2010, p. 149). A
large number of students who have experienced
linguistic discrimination due to their LP show
a great deal of anxiety when compared to those
with HP levels.
Such LP students experience a phase of communi-
cation apprehension, which, according to Scovel, is
“an uneasiness arising from the learner’s inability to
adequately express mature thoughts and ideas” (as
cited in Fandiño, 2010, p. 149), while Gardner and
MacIntyre (1993) point out “a fear or apprehension
occurring when a learner is expected to perform in
an L2 and he or she perceives an uncomfortable
experience” (p. 3). Another phase LP students go
through is fear of negative evaluation by their peers
and teachers, which Scovel describes as “an appre-
hension arising from the learner’s need to make a
positive social impression on others” (as cited in
Fandiño, 2010, p. 150).
As a consequence, motivation in terms of atti-
tude, desire, and effort is greatly affected. Peacock
(1997) defines motivation as “an interest in and
enthusiasm for the materials used in the class,
persistence with the learning task, and levels of
concentration and enjoyment” (p. 145), while
Dornyei (1998) views it as “extrinsic and intrin-
sic motivational factors related to the teacher,
the course, and the group of language learners
with which an individual interacts” (p. 117). In
this regard, it is important for teachers and EFL
professors to differentiate between a student’s per-
formance and their competence.
Moreover, Freeman and Freeman (2001) state “a
speaker’s competence in the language is defined
based on what the students are able to do under the
best conditions, while the performance may repre-
sent a kind of idealized ability” (p. 55). Accordingly,
our performance in the language does not always
reflect our competence. In most EFL classroom
situations, students may not perform up to their
ability since they may be nervous, tired, bored, or
anxious.
Linguistic diversity
Language educators are encouraged to promote
the concept of linguistic diversity in every aspect
of their teaching. Educators recognize the lin-
guistic diversity of students, who themselves
have norms and values that they bring into the
classroom. As such, teachers are encouraged to
appreciate students’ culture, beliefs, values, and
norms in order to better understand the learner
(Irving and Terry, 2010, p. 120).
Consequently, based on the literature explored
and the issues that frame the problem statement
of our study and its rationale, we have created a
set of questions that helped us gain perspective
and paved the way to set clear, reachable, and
realistic objectives. The main question is stated
as follows:
• How does linguistic discrimination influ-
ence students’ academic performance in the
English teaching program at FUNLAM?
• However, some other sub-questions emerged
within the context of the inquiry process:
• How can language professors help LP students
gain self-confidence and develop language
accuracy?
Íkala Linguistic Discrimination in an EngLish LanguagE tEaching Program: VoicEs of thE inVisibLE othErs
139
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
• How can HP students help maintain a collab-
orative environment in class?
• How can a collaborative environment be
encouraged in the language classroom?
Previous questions have led this study to describe
how linguistic discrimination influences language
learners’ academic performance in the English
Teaching Program at FUNLAM. Discriminatory
attitudes influencing language learners’ perfor-
mance were defined and characterized. Finally,
consequences of linguistic discrimination in the
English language-teaching program at FUNLAM
were also discussed.
Methodology
Given that our main objective was to describe
how linguistic discrimination influences students’
academic performance in the English teach-
ing program at FUNLAM, this study followed
a descriptive approach with a qualitative meth-
odology. In this manner, Gamboa (2011, p. 7)
notes that qualitative methods are used to explore
human experiences. The data gathered from this
type of research come from thorough analysis of a
certain phenomenon with the purpose of describ-
ing it, giving it meaning, or identifying a process.
This paradigm is especially important since it is an
opportunity to keep linguistic discrimination out
of the classroom. Critical theory researchers look
at their work as the first step towards political
actions that lead to change regarding the injus-
tices detected in society (Kincheloe and McLaren,
as cited in Gamboa, 2011, p. 8). Additionally, crit-
ical theory aims to substitute dysfunctional power
relations and their institutions for others that offer
better opportunities to work in favor of the inter-
ests of society as a whole, as stated by Kincheloe
and McLaren (as cited in Gamboa, 2011, p. 11),
instead of promoting individualism and competi-
tion as characteristics of a society that privileged
the interests of a minority.
Therefore, the qualitative approach allows us
to describe the issue as seen and experienced by
the individuals involved in this project. Aravena,
Kimelman, Micheli, Torrealba, and Zúñiga
(2006, p. 40) state that the main characteristic
of qualitative research is the vision of the events,
actions, values, and norms from the very particu-
lar vision of the individuals under study.
Context and participants
To contextualize the classroom environment that
surrounded the participants in this study, it is rel-
evant to refer to the objectives set for the courses
observed. These were focused on the acquisition
of the English language. That is, class activities
were organized around the study of phonology,
morphology, syntax, and semantics of language.
Other groups were designed to train teachers of
English to children in language methodologies
and learning material.
This study was carried out with a sample of 104
students and 5 professors for the observations. Of
those 104, 16 students from LP level were selected
for interviews, although only 12 of them were
actually interviewed. All of them were members
of the English Teaching Program at FUNLAM.
Participants were students attending classes from
the first to the tenth semester, both male and
female learners between the ages of 20 to 35 with
diverse linguistic levels.
With regards to the participating professors and
their courses, the selection was made based on the
availability of observers. In addition, these obser-
vations took place at unusual times of day (early
in the morning and late in the evening) given that
FUNLAM offers courses for students who work
and study. These professors were both male and
female between the ages of 40 and 50 years. All of
them held bachelors and master’s degrees in edu-
cation and related areas. These participants also
had several years of teaching experience in univer-
sities and were non-native speakers who learned
English in Colombia, except for one professor who
Íkala Marlon Vanegas rojas, et al.
140
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
was a native speaker born and raised in the United
States. A total of 5 professors were observed, and
4 of them were interviewed.
Data collection
This study followed a qualitative research design.
First, the literature on linguistic discrimination
was examined to become familiar with previous
studies on the topic. Second, class observations
were scheduled based on observers’ availability.
Third, LP students were selected to be inter-
viewed. Finally, the professors whose classes were
observed were interviewed.
Observation as a technique
Observations were carried out to describe the qual-
ity of interactions fostered inside the classroom.
Observers were invited to keep track of emerging
attitudes in regards to the use of language in class.
They were also expected to focus their attention
on student-professor, professor-student, and stu-
dent-student relations set within the class. The
observation sessions were conducted for 5 weeks.
Five observers visited 5 different courses, and a
total of 21 classes were observed. Each observa-
tion lasted around 2 hours.
Consent forms
Selected participants who took part of this study,
either to be observed or interviewed, were given an
informed consent form to secure their permission
to use the information provided for the devel-
opment of the study. Implications, benefits and
consequences of the data collection process were
also explained. Consent forms were read aloud, and
research ethics were explained in Spanish to avoid
misunderstandings before conducting interviews
and observations (see consent form of observations
and interviews in appendix A).
Instruments
This study used two instruments (journals and
interviews) for collecting the data associated
with linguistic discrimination and its influence
on linguistic academic performance. Below is a list of
the instruments used during the data collection
process.
Journals
A triple entry format was designed to describe,
reflect, and categorize information gathered from
the observations (see journals form in appen-
dix B). Observers wrote detailed descriptions of
every action undertaken in class by students and
professors. A total of 5 journals were written,
and a total of 21 entries were registered. These
journal entries were made over a period of 5 weeks
and were kept by the research group.
Interviews
Questionnaires for semi-structured interviews
were designed to find out about the partici-
pants’ perceptions and assumptions regarding
discriminatory attitudes toward students in rela-
tion to their linguistic proficiency levels. All
the interviews were conducted at the end of the
observation process in a quiet environment.
Participants’ answers were audio recorded and
their statements transcribed for further data anal-
ysis. Sixteen interviews lasting around 40 minutes
were conducted —12 were conducted among stu-
dents and 4 with the professors.
The student interviews were conducted in Spanish
to elicit uninhibited answers. (See student inter-
view form in appendix C).
Meanwhile, professor interviews were carried out
to gain insights into the instructors’ beliefs regard-
ing the concerns of the study. In this particular
case, all interviews were conducted in English.
(See professor interview form in appendix C)
Data analysis
After all data was collected, the analysis was car-
ried out considering the five steps proposed by
Burns (1999), “assembling data, coding data,
Íkala Linguistic Discrimination in an EngLish LanguagE tEaching Program: VoicEs of thE inVisibLE othErs
141
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
comparing data, building interpretations, and
reporting outcomes” (pp. 157-160), as a guide for
data analysis.
At the beginning of the study, the research group
met twice a week for two months to re-read the
transcriptions of the observations and the inter-
views, focusing on linguistic discrimination
concepts and assumptions. During that process,
some excerpts were highlighted, bringing about
awareness of the research question and the objec-
tives of the project. The highlighted passages were
categorized.
Moreover, using a color coding system proposed
by Arhar, Holly & Kasten (2001), the large num-
ber of categories that emerged from the 25 class
observations and the 16 interviews (professors
and students) were reduced to make categories
more manageable. Initially, the observations were
analyzed for the first outcomes. Then, we decided
to create a chart to filter categories with the
highest frequency of appearance. Subsequently,
we reduced the categories to 16: 6 for student
interviews, 5 for professor interviews and 5 for
observations. Lastly, 6 categories arose based on
the triangulation process mentioned.
Findings and discussion
Six categories were obtained from the data analysis
process as follows: standard language idealization,
native speaker idealization, professor pressure,
disesteeming one’s own language level, discrimi-
natory attitudes, and linguistic segregation.
Standard language idealization
This is the establishment of what is considered to
be the most acceptable variety of English language,
promoted by the worldwide language teaching
community. It refers to the language spoken by
individuals with an extensive academic background
who are themselves educators or broadcasters, who
pay attention to speech, who are not careless in
terms of grammar or pronunciation, and who
agree with other individuals like themselves about
what is proper in the language (Lippi-Green,
1997). This seems to be an important policy in
the English language communities in Colombia as
professors and future teachers are ingrained with
these policies from the very onset of their under-
graduate and graduate studies. Additionally, this
ideology confirms that there are powerful orga-
nizations that establish standard English around
the world. These organizations use the forms
of spoken English from the United States and
Great Britain as a reference for the blueprints in
the teaching of English and its policies around the
world. The following excerpts show how these poli-
cies have merged into factual beliefs based on this
particular ideology.
• Professor 1: “[It] is the, ah, the way peo-
ple should speak the language in order to
be understood by everybody in all different
countries around the world” (Professor inter-
view excerpt, May 6th, 2014).
• Student 2: “Since I was little I have always
liked English; I have always dreamed of going
to England or the United States, a country of
English speakers, specifically those two which
are the most known.” (Student interview
excerpt, May 8th, 2014)1
• “The teacher corrected students’ pronunci-
ation and mistakes after reading the text; he
just had students repeat the word as it should
be pronounced” (Y.A. González, Class obser-
vation #12, March 4th, 2014).
Standard language idealization caused some stu-
dents to hesitate during the reading session and
repeat words that they had pronounced cor-
rectly. Some students also seemed very cautions of
making mistakes or expressed inability and frus-
tration at not being able to pronounce correctly.
Therefore, insisting on a standard form of English
in the classroom can devalue other existing
1 Excerpt translated into English.
Íkala Marlon Vanegas rojas, et al.
142
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
varieties of English. Furthermore, attempting to
teach Standard English may promote discrim-
ination in the language classroom based on a
tendency to prefer native-like accents over non-
native accents, which can greatly affect learners’
performance. According to Tollefson, discrimina-
tion based on accent can be considered a form of
racism (as cited in Farrel and Martin, 2009, p. 3).
Besides, many English speakers around the world
use language based on the social group they are
part of as an expression of their identity and their
cultural values (Farrel and Martin, 2009, p. 4).
This begs the question: why should a student be
restricted in expressing him or herself in the man-
ner in which he or she is most comfortable?
Native speaker idealization
This term comes from the idea that “English is
seen as the province of the idealized native speaker,
something that he or she already possesses and that
the outsider imperfectly aspires to” (Leung, Harris
and Rampton, 1997). Therefore, the belief of an
idealized native speaker is ingrained on the premise
that native speakers are the sole owners of language
knowledge, which leads to the notion that people
who are native to the language are the ones who
have proper word usage and correct pronunciation,
as can be seen in the following interview excerpt:
Professor 1: “I try to use high-level students to give
them feedback and help the others, especially in
this career [program] because they are going to
be teachers, so in that way they can improve their
teaching skills. It happens in real life in every single
class: you have different levels, so what we have to do
is try to do our best at a time.” (Professor interview
excerpt, May 12th, 2014)
In this particular case, a student with a high pro-
ficiency level embodies the idealized version of
the native speaker as the professor uses this person
as the model to be followed in class. One of the neg-
ative influences the idealization of a native speaker
has in the EFL classroom is the fact that profes-
sors tend to homogenize students’ performance,
underestimating individual differences in cultural
background, education levels, learning styles, expe-
riences, interests, and needs (Columbia University,
n.p.). This kind of belief also tends to neglect the
variety and regional expressions used across the ter-
ritories of English speaking countries, in essence
implying the existence of a single correct way of
using the language, as is expressed in the following
interview excerpt:
Student 1: “Maybe in some other classes I have noticed
that some teachers tend to prefer people with more
perfect English, but I think the issue here is not that
these people know more so let’s work with them, but
they are actually the ones who get the class moving.”
(Student interview excerpt, May 15th, 2014)2
From the analysis of this excerpt, it is evident
that the student believes that HP students are
those who contribute to the development of the
class based on their linguistic proficiency. This
was made evident during a group discussion in
which a HP student was the most participative
and asked most of the questions within the group
of students: “In this group, the student with
the most proficiency in the language took the
role of leader, as he was the one asking others what
they thought” (L.F. Muñoz, Class observation #5,
March 6th, 2014).
Examining this belief in Kumaravadivelu's
(2004, p. 2) language learning theory, we found
there is a critical period during infancy in which the
human brain and the phonological system are flex-
ible enough to pick up the accent of the culture in
which a person is immersed. Consequently, trying
to make EFL students acquire the accent of a native
speaker is a fallacy; this is particularly relevant as
many students and professors seem to conflate
the concept of accent with that of pronunciation.
However, an individual who learns the English lan-
guage in an EFL context will always be influenced
by his or her mother tongue and culture. As Cook
points out, “It may be unrealistic to use a native
speaker model for a language learner who can never
become native speakers without being reborn” (as
2 Excerpt translated into English.
Íkala Linguistic Discrimination in an EngLish LanguagE tEaching Program: VoicEs of thE inVisibLE othErs
143
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
cited in Farrell and Martin, 2009, p. 3). There are
as many versions of English as users of the language
are. Imposing an accent or presenting a model
result in adopting a discriminatory attitude in the
classroom.
Professor pressure
There seems to be an attitude from professors to
put pressure on students and force them to use
English in the classroom without any regard for
what students may feel or the angst that may arise
due to the pressure to participate. These types
of instructor attitudes greatly influence the class
atmosphere, raising students’ anxiety levels and
making spontaneous participation more difficult.
As mentioned in the literature review, anxiety
can promote apprehension; specifically, this is
called communication apprehension, which can
be defined as an individual level of fear or anxiety
associated with either real or anticipated com-
munication with another person or persons. The
issue of communication apprehension becomes
increasingly important: “General personality traits
such as quietness, shyness, and reticence frequently
precipitate communicative apprehension. When
the ability and desire to participate in discussion
are present, but the process of verbalizing is inhib-
ited, shyness or reticence is occurring. The degree
of shyness, or range of situations that it affects,
varies greatly from individual to individual” (Du,
2009, p. 163). Professor pressure also triggers LP
students’ fear of being negatively evaluated by the
instructor and classmates. Such negative evalua-
tion leads to unequal feedback from the professor
and a discriminatory attitude from peers.
Furthermore, this type of negative evaluation
causes problems in communication since inter-
action could potentially be altered. As one
professor stated, “The most important thing is
that you have to push them as a teacher to use lan-
guage; no matter if they don’t want to do it, they
will improve little by little” (Professor interview
excerpt, May 16th, 2014). This was also evident in
class observations:
The professor says to talk about the focal point of the
topic; well, she [the professor] starts to get annoyed
because she doesn’t hear what she wants to hear. She
always points at the person she wants to hear the answer
from. (C.M. Ríos, Class observation #19, March 10th,
2014).3
Situations such as the class observation mentioned
above are intimidating for many students with low
proficiency. This can lead to moments of anxiety,
apprehension, and frustration with the language.
It therefore implies a relatively tense atmosphere
arising from pressure exerted by the professor and
public error correction, which in turn greatly
impacts students’ affective filter. Moreover, these
situations can lead LP students to leave the English
teaching program.
Disesteeming one’s own language level
The concept of disesteeming one’s own language
level becomes evident when LP students under-
estimate themselves when compared to their
intermediate and HP-level counterparts, thus
leading to high levels of anxiety in students with
low language proficiency. As one student put it:
I get very anxious, it makes me feel very nervous,
and then what happens? There is a negative impact
of nerves and anxiety: which one is it? Maybe I am
affected in the sense that I pronounce incorrectly,
I forget what I have to say, what I have to do; I get
blocked. Yes, there are cases in which you study, and,
well, you are sure of things, but you don’t do well
because the class is very advanced. (Student interview
excerpt, May 19th, 2014)4
Another student shared a similar experience:
“when you meet people who know a lot and who
speak so well, you think: ‘hmm! They know more
than I do’ and you feel like intimidated” (Student
interview excerpt, May 21st, 2014).5 In these
particular cases, students feel apprehension,
anxiety and intimidation arising from a lack
of fluency. Consequently, this leads to many
3 Excerpt translated into English.
4 Excerpt translated into English.
5 Excerpt translated into English.
Íkala Marlon Vanegas rojas, et al.
144
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
low-proficiency students realizing they will not
be able to achieve the course objectives, causing
some of them to drop out. There is a tendency
in many students from the English teaching pro-
gram to believe that accent and its neutralization
will allow them to be accepted inside the com-
munity of learners when the real focus should be
on intelligibility in the language.
Discriminatory attitudes
Akar-Vural and Gömleksiz (2010) suggest that
discriminatory attitudes are tendencies to look
down upon and exclude those who are not con-
sidered part of a predominant group. These
excluding behaviors were identified during 5
out of 21 class observations when professors
restricted L1 usage and gave extra visibility to
HP students by overlooking and underestimat-
ing LP students, as can be gleaned from the
following class observation notes:
A student went to the board to complete an exercise,
which the student didn’t do correctly; the professor
told the student to sit down without providing any
positive or negative feedback. On the other hand, a stu-
dent with an intermediate level correctly finished the
exercise, and the professor positively complimented
the student. (G.J. Rodríguez, Class observation #21,
March 13th, 2014)
Additionally, HP students used sarcasm, teasing
and scorn when LP students made grammatical
mistakes as they spoke or incorrectly pronounced
a word. This was observed during 13 out of 21
class visits.
All of this is referred to the unfair treatment
given by individuals based on prejudices and
stereotypes. For example, “The student of
American origin made a joke when a classmate
read a sentence; the rest of the group laughed
while the student didn’t say anything and just
looked down. (G.J. Rodríguez, Class observa-
tion #21, March 14th, 2014). A similar situation
arose when “A student who was raised in the
United States corrected a classmate, basically
pointing out that the word ‘comfortable’ was not
pronounced correctly and making a gesture of
disapproval” (L.F. Muñoz, Class observation #
21, March 17th, 2014). According to a student,
“sometimes you feel fear in a particular class
because they make fun of you or you always find
the ones who are talking with each other that are
making fun of you” (Student interview excerpt,
May 22nd, 2014).6 In a teacher’s words, “So for
me, I don’t agree to use that language, I try
not to allow my students to use Spanish in the
class even when they are speaking among them”
(Professor interview excerpt, May 20th, 2014). Based
on the previous statements, it can be asserted that
the quality of interaction between students is
affected by diverse linguistic levels. This becomes
very unfortunate when LP students cannot take
advantage of their higher-level counterparts’
linguistic prowess; on the contrary, these LP stu-
dents are negatively judged and mocked by their
peers. Thus, the gap between low- and high-pro-
ficiency learners is increasing on a day-to-day basis
due to the discriminatory attitudes many students
have.
Concurrently, this category has a major impact on
the academic performance of students as a result
of being judged and scrutinized by classmates,
which leads to frustration and disgruntlement
regarding the English teaching program. Some
students who were observed during the classes
expressed a fear of making mistakes in front of
their peers, prompting LP students to experience
strong feelings of insecurity during class interac-
tions, presentations, and exams.
Linguistic segregation
This term refers to an intentional attitude of
linguistic exclusion inside the classroom. The obser-
vations showed that students created an unequal
distribution among themselves based on their lin-
guistic proficiency. Likewise, professors allowed
students to pick their groups without taking into
6 Excerpt translated into English.
Íkala Linguistic Discrimination in an EngLish LanguagE tEaching Program: VoicEs of thE inVisibLE othErs
145
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
consideration the consequence this might have
on LP students. In the words of a student, “Yes,
that’s true, they look for each other. The ones who
have the best linguistic ability partner up with
each other, and the ones with lower linguistic lev-
els are left out of those groups” (Student interview
excerpt, May 26th, 2014).7 According to a profes-
sor, “Normally, my classes are divided in groups and
normally I’m not in charge of dividing the groups.
I just tell them that I need to organize groups of
three or four people and they organize the groups”
(Professor interview excerpt, May 27th, 2014).
Although this may seem like a very democratic way
of dividing the class, the tendency observed during
the classes was that students with the same profi-
ciency levels would stick together and form groups
based on proficiency.
Moreover, these situations have some conse-
quences, including decreased motivation among
LP students since they are not active partici-
pants in classroom activities due to their language
level. A subsequent consequence that arises from
a lack of motivation is that learners avoid taking
risks and prefer working alone during classroom
activities. In essence, these LP students become
self-isolated and do not take part in class interac-
tions. Thus, linguistic segregation can have great
repercussions on immersion in the English class-
room. What possibility of immersion exists if
interaction is influenced by segregation?
Conclusions
Drawing on the triangulation and interpretation
of data sources, this study described how linguis-
tic discrimination influence language learners’
academic performance in the English teaching pro-
gram at FUNLAM. We conclude that academic
performance is affected by all types of discrimina-
tory attitudes, either by professors or classmates.
LP students are the most socio-affectively influ-
enced, especially those students who are still part
of the original program known as Licenciatura
7 Excerpt translated into English.
en Educación Básica con Énfasis en Inglés (Basic
Education Program with an Emphasis on English).
Discriminatory attitudes trigger responses such as
fear, segregation, anxiety, and apprehension, among
others. This restrains and limits class participation,
quality of interaction, new concept and knowledge
appropriation, and motivation towards the lan-
guage and the course.
The discriminatory attitudes that most affect the
academic performance in the teaching program are:
• Mockery of LP students: HP students
mocked and judged the way LP students pro-
nounced, spoke, and expressed themselves.
• Persistent correction from professors and class-
mates: Professors and classmates corrected LP
students, insisting on a “proper way” of using
the language.
• Native speaker idealization: This is the belief
that “native speakers” own language knowl-
edge and thereby serve as the reference for
achieving appropriate language command
and measuring all attempts of practice in the
English language class.
• Standard language ideology : This is the ingrained
belief that there is only one correct form of
English, which is established by sociopolitical
powers; thus, it is adopted and believed as true
by many foreign-language professors.
• Professor pressure to make students participate:
Professors’ insistence on participation increased
anxiety levels, sometimes making students feel
intimidated (to a point where learners limit their
chances to interact with the target language).
Pressure exerted by professors reduced willing-
ness to participate, usually making students
become unmotivated and sometimes provok-
ing students to drop out.
• Negative peer comparison: Students tended
to compare their linguistic levels, leading to
Íkala Marlon Vanegas rojas, et al.
146
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
a low self-concept based on their linguistic
proficiency and situations triggered by the
professor. LP students tended to feel emotion-
ally intimidated by their HP peers.
• Stratification of the language (grouping criteria):
Learners group themselves in relation to
their linguistic proficiency levels, shielding this
tendency with a relationship of friendship
and interfering with the quality of interaction
between the students in a class.
• Belief in an idealized accent/dialect: This refers
to the generalized perception that American
and British accents are the only ones that may
validly be taught and expressed. There is a per-
ception that some accents are more legitimate
than others.
• Inisibility by peers and teachers: LP students
were often ignored by classmates and pro-
fessors who did not consider them active
elements in the development of the class
(insufficient oral production). HP students
tended to overlook LP students by segregating
or disregarding them based on their language
level.
Recommendations
Considering the results of the study, we as a research
group would suggest three recommendations for
the English teaching program in order to examine
discriminatory attitudes to promote social justice,
democracy, and equality in the classroom.
First, we invite professors to reflect upon the way
communication develops in the classroom in
order to balance the affective filter and develop
spaces for language interaction. It is crucial to
stress that professors and individuals who have
a high proficiency acknowledge the potential
many LP students may have. Additionally, we
invite professors to comprehend how cultural and
social knowledge enter into language interaction
based on the fact that language educators should
promote the concept of linguistic diversity in
every aspect of their teaching.
We also suggest that the English teaching pro-
gram at FUNLAM should make a conscious
effort to understand student background, cul-
ture, and life experiences in order to promote a
more diverse classroom. In addition, students are
invited to interact and avoid self-isolation and
feel free to participate regardless of their linguis-
tic level.
For further research projects, and based on the
reflections done throughout this study, we suggest
exploring issues that continue to promote social
justice and democracy in the classroom. Issues
such as cultural factors and academic performance,
gender discrimination in the language classroom,
language cultural identity, the construction of
subjectivities in the language classroom, and how
culture influences cognitive development are
future concepts the research group would like to
explore in depth.
References
Adreou, G. & Galantomus, I. (2009). e native speaker
ideal in foreign language teaching. Electronic Journal
of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(2), 200-208.
Akar-Vural, R., & Gömleksiz, M. (2010). Us and others: a
study on prospective classroom teachers’ discrimi-
natory attitudes. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian
Journal of Educational Research, 38, 216-233.
Aravena, M.; Kimelman, E.; Micheli, B.; Torrealba, R. &
Zúñiga, J. (2006). Inestigación Educativa I. Univer-
sity of Arcis, Chile. Retrieved from http://jrvargas.
les.wordpress.com/2009/11/investigacion-educa-
tiva.pdf
Arhar, J., Holly, M. & Kasten, W. (2001). Action Research
for Teachers: Travelling the Yellow Brick Road. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Barker, C. (2011). An introduction to cultural stud-
ies. In Willis, P. Cultural Studies: eory and
Practice. London: Sage Publications. Retrieved
from: http://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/les/
upm-binaries/66910_An_Introduction_to_Cul-
tural_Studies.pdf
Íkala Linguistic Discrimination in an EngLish LanguagE tEaching Program: VoicEs of thE inVisibLE othErs
147
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English
Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Canada’s Ministry of Education (2008). Making Space.
Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice throughout
the K-12 Curriculum (pp. 1-18). Canada: GT Pub-
lishing Services.
Columbia University (n.d). Respecting individual dier-
ence. [PDF document] Graduate School of Arts
& Sciences. New York, NY. Retrieved from http://
www.columbia.edu/cu/tat/pdfs/indiv_dierence.
pdf
Derwing, T. & Munro, M. (2009). Putting accent in its
place: Rethinking obstacles to communication.
Lang. Teach., 42(4), 476-490.
Dornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign lan-
guage learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117-135.
Retrieved from http://web.iaincirebon.ac.id/eb-
ook/indrya/Motivation/1998-dornyei-lt.pdf
Du, X., (2009). e aective lter in second language teach-
ing. Asian Social Science, 5(8), 162-165. Retrieved
from http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/
article/download/3429/3106.
Fandiño, Y. (2010). Explicit teaching of socio-aective
language learning strategies of beginner EFL stu-
dents. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura. 15(24),
148-151.
Farrel, T. & Martin S. (2009). To teach standard English or
world Englishes? A balanced approach to instruc-
tion. English Teaching Forum, 2, 2-7. Retrieved from
http://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ923448.pdf
François, Grin. (2005). Linguistic human rights as a source
of policy guidelines: A critical assessment. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 448-460.
Freeman, D. & Freeman, Y. (2001). Between Worlds: Access
to second language acquisition. Porstmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Gamboa, R. (2011). El papel de la teoría crítica en la inves-
tigación educativa y cualitativa. Revista Electrónica
Diálogos Educativos, 21. Retrieved from dialnet.
unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3931278.pdf
Gardner, R.C. & Macintyre, P.D. (1993). A student’s con-
tributions to second-language learning: Part
II. Aective variables. Language Teaching, 26,
1-11. Retrieved from https://www.academia.
edu/5348479/A_students_contributions_to_second_
language_learning._Part_II_Aective_variables
Guerrero, C. & Quintero, A. (2009). English as a Neutral
Language in the Colombian National Standards:
A Constituent of Dominance in English Language
Education. Prole, 11(2), 135-150.
Irving, M. & Terry N. P. (2010). Cultural and linguistic diver-
sity: Issues in education. In Colarusso, R. & O’Rourke.
Special Education for all teachers (pp. 109-132) (5th. ed.).
Georgia State University, GA: Kendall Hunt.
Kincheloe, J. & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical
theory and qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y.
Lincoln (Eds.). e SAGE Handbook of ualitative
Research (pp. 303-342) (3rd. ed.). ousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publishing.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2004). Accent without attitude. Mul-
ticultural Forum, 15(1), 1-3. Retrieved from: http://
www.bkumaravadivelu.com/oped%20pdfs/Ac-
cent%20without%20attitude.pdf
Leung, C. Harris, R. & Rampton, B. (1997). e idealised
native speaker. Reied ethnicities, and classroom re-
alities. TESOL uarterly, 31(3), 543-560.
Lin, Angel Mei Yin (2008, May-August). “Cambios de
paradigma en la enseñanza del inglés como lengua
extranjera: el cambio crítico y más allá,” Revista
Educación y Pedagogía. Medellín, Universidad de
Antioquia, Facultad de Educación, 20(51), 11-23.
Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ide-
ology, and discrimination pretext in the courts.
Language in Society, 23, 163-198.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language,
ideology, and discrimination in the United States.
New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from www.
researchgate.net/.../02e7e52a962a7d7941000000.
McAninch, A. (1999). More or less acceptable case analyses:
A pragmatist approach. In R. F. McNergney, E. R.
Ducharme, & M. K. Ducharme (Eds.), Educating
for Democracy: Case-method Teaching and Learning.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacMath, S. (2008). Implementing a democratic pedagogy
in the classroom: putting Dewey into practice. Can-
adian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 1, 1-12.
Retrieved from http://www.cjnse-rcjce.ca/ojs2/in-
dex.php/cjnse/article/view/16/13
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth
more? ELT Journal, 46(4), 349.
Peacock, M. (1997). e eect of authentic materials on
the motivation of EFL learners. English Language
Teaching Journal, 51(2), 144-156. Retrieved from
http://203.72.145.166/ELT/les/51-2-6.pdf
Íkala Marlon Vanegas rojas, et al.
148
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT: the native speaker’s burden?
ELT Journal, 46(1), 11-19.
Sierra, Z. (2003). Diversidad cultural: desafío a la peda-
gogía. Desafíos, 9, 38-70.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Phillipson, R. (1994). Linguistic
Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimina-
tion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988). Multilingualism and the
education of minority children (pp. 9-44). In T.
Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (eds.), Minor-
ity Education: From Shame to Struggle. Clevedon,
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
UNESCO. (1996). Universal Declaration on Human
Rights. World Conference on Linguistic Rights. Bar-
celona, Spain: UNESCO.
Appendix A
FUNDACIÓN UNIVERSITARIA LUIS AMIGÓ
SEMILLERO EN ESTUDIOS CULTURALES
Informed consent form for observations
The following research is conducted by the research group in Cultural Studies of the Fundación Universitaria
Luis Amigó. The goal of this research is to describe how linguistic discrimination influences the learning
process of the English language, specifically in the English teaching program at FUNLAM.
If you agree to participate in this research, there will be a group observation, which will approximately take
four or five classes during the semester. Anything that takes places during the observation of the classes with
relation to the research will be written down in a journal, thus, the researcher will have the opportunity to
analyze in detail what was observed.
The participation in this research is strictly voluntary. The information that will be gathered will be
confidential and will not be used for any other purpose but that of the research itself.
If you have any doubts about this project, you may ask any questions during your participation in the
research.
We sincerely appreciate your help with this project.
I voluntarily accept to participate in this research, which is conducted by the Cultural Studies research
group. I have been informed that the goal of this research is to describe how linguistic discrimination
influences in the learning process of the English language in the English teaching program at FUNLAM.
I have been informed that a group observation will take place during four or five classes during the semester.
I am aware that the information that the researcher collects in his/her journal is strictly confidential and
will not be used for any other purpose other than that of the research itself without my consent. I have
been informed that I may ask questions about the project at any time. If I have any questions about my
participation in this research, I may contact at any time the coordinator of this project.
_____________________________________ ___________________________________
Name of the participant Signature of the participant
Date
Íkala Linguistic Discrimination in an EngLish LanguagE tEaching Program: VoicEs of thE inVisibLE othErs
149
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
FUNDACIÓN UNIVERSITARIA LUIS AMIGÓ
SEMILLERO EN ESTUDIOS CULTURALES
Informed consent form for interviews
The following research is conducted by the research group in Cultural Studies of the Fundación
Universitaria Luis Amigó. The goal of this research is to describe how linguistic discrimination
influences in the learning process of the English language, specifically in the English teaching program
at FUNLAM.
If you agree to participate in this study, it will be asked of you to answer questions during an interview. This
will take approximately forty minutes of your time. What you say during the interview will be recorded so the
researcher can transcribe the ideas that you have expressed during the interview.
The participation in this research is strictly voluntary. The information that will be gathered will be
confidential and will not be used for any other purpose but that of the research itself. Your answers will
be coded numerically, therefore, making your answers anonymous. Once the interviews are transcribed,
the recordings will be destroyed.
If you have any doubts about the project, you may ask questions at any time during your participation in
the project. Likewise, you can leave the project at any time without any type of consequence. If any of the
questions during the interview are uncomfortable, you have the right to let the researcher aware of this or
you can refuse to answer the question.
We sincerely appreciate your help with this project.
I am aware that the information I may provide during the research is strictly confidential and will
not be used for any other purpose without my authorization. I have been informed that I may ask
questions about the project at any time and that I may leave the project if I desire without any type
of repercussion. If I have any questions about my participation during this project, I may contact
the coordinator of the research.
Entiendo que puedo pedir información sobre los resultados de este estudio cuando éste haya concluido.
Para esto, puedo contactar al profesor Marlon Vanegas.
_____________________________________ ___________________________________
Name of the participant Signature of the participant
Date
Íkala Marlon Vanegas rojas, et al.
150
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
Appendix B
FUNDACIÓN UNIVERSITARIA LUIS AMIGÓ
SEMILLERO EN ESTUDIOS CULTURALES
OBSERVATION FORM
Observation Number: Date:
Course:
Time and day of the week:
Number of students:
Class Description Discussion Categories
For this entry, the observer is to describe
every action undertaken in class regarding
quality of interactions, language use,
attitudes towards the use of language, class
atmosphere in terms participation, and
affective filter level.
The observer is invited in this section to
reflect upon the descriptions made by posing
questions and using theory to validate
assumptions. Some excerpts are taken
as evidence to support the outcomes or
constructs made.
In this section, the observer is invited to
re-read the descriptions and, using a color
code, to highlight the repetitive patterns
found with the purpose of coming up with
categories.
Appendix C
FUNDACIÓN UNIVERSITARIA LUIS AMIGÓ
SEMILLERO EN ESTUDIOS CULTURALES
STUDENT INTERVIEW FORM
1. Do you consider that your linguistic level allows you to perform well during class and respond to the
demands of the course?
2. Have you observed any preferential attitudes in class towards some of your classmates?
3. Do you believe there is a particular reason students group themselves to work in class?
4. Do you know of any classmates who have abandoned a course because they felt intimidated by the
linguistic level of the class?
5. Do you think that class atmosphere is affected by the linguistic level of your classmates?
6. Have you observed any kind of discriminatory attitude towards a classmate because of their linguistic level?
7. Do you think there are situations (activities) that provoke exclusion within the class?
8. Have you responded against an act that you consider excluding?
9. Has your fear, interest, motivation to speak in public increased or decreased or do you ignore those
social affective factors when speaking in public?
10. What suggestion would you give a student whose academic performance is affected by their low
linguistic level?
Íkala Linguistic Discrimination in an EngLish LanguagE tEaching Program: VoicEs of thE inVisibLE othErs
151
Medellín, ColoMbia, Vol. 21, issue 2 (May-august, 2016), pp. 133-151, issn 0123-3432
www.udea.edu.co/ikala
FUNDACIÓN UNIVERSITARIA LUIS AMIGÓ
SEMILLERO EN ESTUDIOS CULTURALES
PROFESSOR INTERVIEW FORM
1. How do you manage the diverse proficiency levels seen in your English classes?
2. Do you think linguistic diversity affects the English acquisition process? How?
3. What do you know about Standard English?
4. Do you think there is a correct form of English?
5. What does it mean to have an accent?
6. What do you think about the use of Spanish in class?
7. Do you think the class could be carried out better if your students’ English level were better?
8. Have you used any student with a high proficiency level as a reference for correct pronunciation?
How to reference this article: Vanegas Rojas, M.; Fernández Restrepo, J. J.; González Zapata Y. A.;
Jaramillo Rodríguez, G.; Muñoz Cardona, L. F.; Ríos Muñoz, C. M. (2016). Linguistic Discrimination
in an English Language Teaching Program: Voices of the invisible others. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y
Cultura, 21(2), 133-151. DOI: 10.17533/udea.ikala.v21n02a02