Dialect, Difference, and Discursive Tension in a Ninth-Grade Literacy Class

• In Event: Practitioner Researchers: Hybrid Roles in the Generation and Use of Research Knowledge

Abstract

Objectives and Significance

Researchers have long sought to understand the relationship between language and the academic achievement gap (Labov, 1972; Ogbu, 1978). While Ball and Alim (2006) posit that the achievement gap problem is multidimensional, they also suggest that home language may be one of those dimensions. As a teacher in an urban public school, I have observed students who do not perform well academically take up rich language and literacy practices outside of the official curriculum. Delpit (1988) argues that teachers have the responsibility to educate their students about the language of power, but not to the exclusion of students’ out-of-school languages. Others suggest that teachers should draw on students’ funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) and linguistic competency (Lee, 2007).

As a teacher working to bridge the worlds of theory and practice, I wanted to know what would happen if I broadened what counted as academic discourse and academic texts in my classroom. Based on systematic inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993) in my own ninth grade classroom, I found that a dialogic pedagogy, which did not limit students’ “ways with words,” created a context for their engagement in rigorous intellectual work. In this paper, I document how explicit discussion in my class about dialect differences produced discursive tensions that resulted in a productive and engaging learning experience for students. For example, while unpacking how language contributed to a character’s internalized racism in Morrison’s (1970) The Bluest Eye, students explored the relationship between language and racism in their own lives.

Perspectives and Analysis

Through practitioner inquiry, I generated local knowledge about the intersection of multiple Discourses (Gee, 1990) in an academic space, which was consistent with existing research suggesting classrooms should be dialogic spaces that make use of polyvocality and discursive tensions to promote learning (Freedman & Ball, 2004; Gutiérrez, Rhymes & Larson, 1995). However, what my research contributes to the literature is a set of questions that emerged from the intersection and interrogation of theory and practice as well as an analysis deeply rooted in the tensions of long-term work in urban schools.

Data Sources and Findings

Taking an inquiry stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009), I studied the discursive space of my ninth grade literacy class. Data sources included: audio-recordings of class discussions and student interviews, student work and a teacher journal. I employed critical discourse analysis as a methodological tool (Rogers, 2003), allowing me to conduct a close linguistic analysis of the data. My findings indicate that the intersection of competing Discourses provided learning opportunities for students and resulted in shifts in power and situated identities. This study calls for teachers to engage students in explicit discussions about language differences as a means of recognizing the conflicting subjectivities that students and their schools take up (Rogers, 2003). Moreover, as we consider how research is used to improve practice, I argue that practitioner inquiry is an effective research methodology to generate knowledge that has already been subjected to the complexities of classroom life.

Author

• Robin M. Hennessy, Boston Public Schools