From "Academic Language" to Language and Literacy in Disciplinary Practices: The Case of History Education

• In Event: Challenging the Notions of Academic Language in English and Spanish in an Era of Disciplinary Literacies/Practices

Abstract

Purposes and Perspectives

Notions of “academic language” positioning the language of schooling in opposition to “everyday” language have been critiqued for ignoring the academic work that students from non-dominant linguistic and cultural backgrounds can do using their wide range of existing linguistic resources (Bunch, 2014; van Lier, 2004). Critics have also linked the construct to prescriptivist and racialized notions of language (Flores & Rosa, 2015; MacSwan & Rostad, 2003) and characterizing marginalized students as “un-academic” (Thompson & Jensen, under preparation). Finally, concerns have been raised about the impact of specialized language instruction that separates some students from challenging and engaging disciplinary instruction (Valdés, 2004).

One problem is the disconnect between conceptions of academic language and the core practices at the heart of subject area instruction. For example, disciplinary practices important for history education include discipline-specific analysis of texts (Wineburg, 1991), historical argumentation (Monte-Sano, 2010), and attention to concepts such as significance (Seixas, 1996). The key questions, therefore, are not about “academic” language versus “everyday,” but rather how students can use a variety of linguistic resources to engage in core disciplinary practices—and how teachers can support them in this intellectually important work. In this view, neither the language nor literacy of schooling can be separated from the broader disciplinary practices valued in each subject area, a position developed in the Council of Chief State School Officers’ Framework for English Language Proficiency Development Standards (CCSSO, 2012; see also Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013; Valdés, Kibler, & Walqui, 2014).

This paper set out to advance alternatives to current conceptualizations of “academic language” in order to better understand how researchers, teachers, curriculum developers, assessment specialists, and policy makers can better understand what students can do conceptually and analytically with their existing and developing linguistic resources--and how to support them in deeper engagement with key practices across the disciplines. The value of such a shift in perspective becomes clear when examining real classroom settings and the work that students, especially from linguistically minoritized backgrounds, do in them using a wide range of linguistic resources.


Modes of Inquiry and Data Sources
We investigate shifting the focus from the academic/everyday distinction to one focused on disciplinary practices through exploring the case of the discipline of history. We discuss where and how educators and researchers might access core historical practices, including scholarship on this topic, existing policy documents, and high-quality teaching resources. We analyze student talk and writing using different lenses with different emphases and purposes, contrasting those that focus on disciplinary ideas and ways of thinking with those concerned mostly with linguistic form.

Results and Significance
This paper advances alternatives to “academic language” in order to better understand what students can do conceptually and analytically with their developing linguistic resources—and how to support them in deeper engagement with key practices in the content areas.

Authors

• George C. Bunch, University of California - Santa Cruz

• Daisy Martin, University of California - Santa Cruz