April CobosEFFECTIVEPEDAGOGICAL TOOLSFOR MULTILINGUAL ANDNONSTANDARD DIALECTSTUDENTS IN THEWRITING CLASSROOM
My main objective is to advocate for moreprofessional development opportunities inthe form of conferences, workshops, andin-services for current and future Englishinstructors that allow for a more well-rounded understanding of how to workwith nonstandard dialect and multilingualstudents in the classroom.PURPOSE:
To have current and future English collegelevel instructors walk away from linguisticand language based professionaldevelopment with a better understandingof how to provide student agency forstudents with nonstandard dialects in thevarious stages of their own writingprocess.GOAL:
Overview of common problems with nonstandarddialect students and multilingual students in theclassroom. Explore scholarship, specifically bidialectialism,critical contrastive rhetoric and code-meshing. Provide instructors with pedagogical tools thatcan be applied to specific classroom settings Provide instructors effective, best pedagogicalpractices in their own classrooms and to findmethods for transforming current practices intomore effective practices.PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTOBJECTIVES
Baxter and Holland’s categories ofstudent awareness: Low awareness:Those Black American students whospeak Ebonics and lack adequate code-switching abilities Some awareness:Those Black American students whospeak Ebonics and show some code-switching abilities High awareness:Those Black American students whospeak Standard English only or who arebidialectical, speaking Ebonics andhaving strong code-switching abilities(Baxter and Holland 149)Baxter andHolland presenta study aboutthe levels ofawareness ofcode-switchingin a study tosuggest thatinstructors needto provide moreawareness totheirnonstandarddialect studentsto allow them tohave studentagency overtheir ownchoices in thewritingclassroom.
Rosina Lippi-Green’s textwould be avaluable resourcefor a professionaldevelopment forEnglishinstructors. Itcoversnonstandarddialects, languagemyths, StandardEnglish myths,etc.
“In aiming for praxis with and among students,critical teachers consistently question what theydo and critique the means by which they teachstudents.”There is a need for consistent and constantreevaluation of purpose and methodology. Inthis regard, teachers ask themselves:What am I doing?, Where is it leading?,What do I intend to achieve?, Wheremight I be better informed?”KUBOTA AND LEHNERCRITICAL CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC (PG. 23)
The differencesbetween askingstudents tocode-switchand askingstudents tocode-mesh.They advocatefor code-meshing inorder toprovide moreSTUDENTAGENCY.CANAGARJAHAND LUNA
CODE-MESHING STRATEGIESC A N AG A R A JA H A N D M I C H A E L - L U N A , 6 0
Baxter, Milton, and Rochelle Holland. “Addressing the Needsof Students Who Speak a Nonstandard English Dialect.” AdultBasic Education and Literacy Journal 1.3 (Fall 2007) 145-153. EBSCO. Web. 29 January 2013. Kubota, Ryuko, and Al Lehner. “Toward Critical ContrastiveRhetoric.” Journal of Second Language Writing 13: (2004), 7-27. ERIC. Web. 4 March 2013. Lippi-Green, Rosina. English With An Accent. 2nd Edition.Routledge, New York: 2012. Print.------Companion Website. Routledge. Web. 13 February 2013.http://www.routledge.com/cw/lippi-green-9780415559119/ Michael-Luna, Sarah, and A. Suresh Canagarajah.“Multilingual Academic Literacies:Pedagogical Foundations forCode Meshing in Primary and Higher Education.”Journal ofApplied Linguistics 4.1 (2007): 55-77. EBSCO. Web. 17 Feb2013.WORKS CITED