Introduction
Discrimination based on language variation is a serious issue impacting many students in the classroom. As discussed by scholars like Baker-Bell (2017), standard language ideology promotes the superiority of certain language standards like Standard Academic English and leads both teachers and fellow students to judge those who use other dialects or languages. This judgment and discrimination negatively impact student learning, achievement, and well-being. However, critical language pedagogy methods that bring awareness to issues of language, power, and oppression have the potential to reduce discrimination and disruption in the classroom.
This paper reviews key literature on critical language awareness and pedagogy. It proposes a study examining the effects of introducing critical language pedagogy into middle school English classrooms serving minority populations on perceptions of discrimination. The literature review summarizes theoretical foundations and prior research evidence regarding critical language pedagogy outcomes. The methods section outlines a quantitative study design assessing changes in perceived discrimination after incorporating a critical language curriculum. Finally, the conclusion discusses implications for equitable language arts instruction.
Review of Relevant Literature
Flores and Rosa (2015) provide a strong theoretical foundation for understanding how raciolinguistic ideologies promote the dominance of white Mainstream U.S. English in schools. They argue standard U.S. English is treated as superior without linguistic justification, and this imposed hierarchy enables racial discrimination against those using marginalized languages and dialects. The theoretical work by Flores and Rosa (2015) establishes valid contextual grounding for issues of linguistic discrimination through synthesized analysis of critical race theory along with a review of scholarship on raciolinguistics and standard language ideology impacts in schools. As a conceptual piece without empirical data or analysis, judgments of reliability cannot be made regarding Flores and Rosa’s theoretical formulations specifically. However, the article provides a well-researched framework through broad literature integration across relevant domains. This supports stronger validity for the central arguments on the role of standard language ideology in enabling racial discrimination linguistically. Still, future empirical testing would be needed to assess reliability further.
May (2023) similarly theorizes how linguistic discrimination intersects with systems of racism and oppression against people of color. These frameworks help contextualize issues of judgment and disadvantage faced by speakers of languages like African American Language in school settings where their home dialects are seen as inferior. May (2023) presents a thoroughly researched theoretical analysis of how marginalization and racism intersect with linguistic discrimination, including an extensive literature review incorporating works across education, sociology, law, and other fields related to systemic oppression. As a conceptual rather than data-driven work, reliability cannot be evaluated for Jones’ arguments regarding patterns of discrimination. However, the diverse support integrated provides sound theoretical validity for the overarching frameworks described. Specific components would require a future empirical examination to judge reliability.
Baker-Bell (2017) offers an important examination of how critical language pedagogy methods can help combat linguistic discrimination. Her small qualitative study of 18 students found that incorporating translanguaging techniques and directly addressing issues of language and power increased participation and learning for African-American students. Baker-Bell’s (2017) small qualitative study offers initial reliability based on clear coding procedures analyzed across 18 student participant interviews and diary entries. Consistency in coding applications lends reliability. However, as an exploratory study without a control group or randomization with a narrow sample size, questions remain regarding the wider validity and generalizability of the findings on translanguaging techniques for engaging students. Further controlled experimental research would allow firmer evaluations of reliability and external validity.
Peterson et al. (2016) also advocate directly engaging students in critical reflection on language attitudes rather than colorblind approaches. Together, these studies suggest that openly addressing racial and linguistic power structures allows students to recognize their internal biases and decreases discrimination. Similar to Baker-Bell (2017), Peterson et al.’s (2016) research provides useful initial reliability evidence based on outlining consistent qualitative analysis procedures used to code teacher diary entries and reflections in the small exploratory sample. Standardized coding applications across participant data allow for judgments of stronger reliability. However, as an uncontrolled study without comparison groups, statistical analysis, or random assignment, questions remain regarding the authors’s wider validity and ability to generalize the suggestions regarding direct engagement for reducing linguistic discrimination in other contexts and populations. Additional controlled experimental replication would allow firmer evaluations of validity for the author’s arguments.
Flores and Rosa (2015) call for explicitly antiracist critical language pedagogy rather than subtle multicultural approaches as the most impactful for disrupting linguistic racism. Castellon (2023) studied introducing critical sociolinguistic concepts to preservice teachers and found even brief interventions significantly shifted their deficit-based attitudes about non-Standard English use. This further indicates directly incorporating critical language analysis into pedagogy reduces prejudiced beliefs about diverse language use.
Overall, the conceptual work from Flores Rosa and Jones establishes a strong theoretical grounding to contextualize discrimination issues. While still preliminary, Baker-Bell and Peterson’s initial findings suggest promise for critical language pedagogy in mitigating biases when implemented thoughtfully amongst marginalized groups. However, the concerns voiced by Allen & Rossatto and Martell raise important additional considerations. My interpretation is that critical pedagogy risks provoking defensiveness without proper scaffolding for privileged native speakers. I think Allen & Rossatto’s ideas to introduce concepts gradually could help provide empathy and cultural understanding foundations first without overwhelming all students. Martell’s null effects also give me pause on broad implementation until tailoring to students’ lived experiences is better understood. We need further examination of how to support openness best and avoid counterproductive resistance, especially for those from dominant social groups not facing oppression directly.
Opposing Views
While critical language scholars argue addressing issues of discrimination directly through critical pedagogy techniques can mitigate prejudices, some have questioned this approach, especially for student groups who may not have directly experienced marginalization. Allen & Rossatto (2019) theorize that for privileged native English speakers who have faced little linguistic oppression themselves, a heavy focus on systemic racial and language oppressions common in critical pedagogy may overwhelm students or even cause disengagement. Students, even from the dominant native English-speaking groups, often express intense emotional intransigence when asked to consider that it is because of standard language ideology, which suggests a racial dimension against minority dialects. (B). These students might get angry, shut down, or reject criticism of language standards that have, in fact, benefited them.
The language awareness curriculum proposed by Allen & Rossatto (2019) should allow students to insert themselves into the conversation and determine for themselves where it goes. The first task is to focus activities on common multicultural competence and skills in communication before pursuing a critical examination of power. This provides students with openness and empathy before dealing with sensitive matters like latent biases. This scaffolding method is theorized by Allen and Rossatto to be aimed at reducing defensive reactions, thereby better helping all students.
Experiences from Martell (2018) provide some wiggle room for the idea. The study also analyzed its impact by carrying out a content analysis of the student essays before and after this unit. To Martell’s surprise, no one in the mostly white student group came out of critical race pedagogy with higher levels of cultural awareness or lower degrees. Several students’ writing indicated frustration at being made to feel blamed for historical oppressions they did not feel they had personally created.
Martell suggests further research is needed on critical pedagogy impacts for specific student populations before wide-scale implementation. Critical language analysis may still have a positive influence on students facing linguistic marginalization themselves. However, more evidence on scaffolding approaches for privileged groups would help support effective critical consciousness education for all.
Proposed Methods
The proposed correlational study will examine if the implementation of a critical language awareness curriculum reduces perceptions of linguistic discrimination in middle school classrooms with majority-minority populations while increasing feelings of inclusion and engagement. The study will take place across 6 classrooms within two demographically similar middle schools serving predominantly African American and Latino students from lower-income neighborhoods in a major U.S. city. 3 classrooms will be randomly assigned to implement the critical language awareness curriculum as an added component to the existing English curriculum. In comparison, the other 3 classrooms follow the standard curriculum alone, serving as a comparison.
The brief four-week critical language awareness curriculum will incorporate pedagogical concepts from Baker-Bell (2017) and Peterson et al. (2016), including translanguaging space for diverse language use, explicit discussion of linguistic discrimination, systemic inequalities related to standard language ideology, internal biases, and strategies to combat prejudice. Key discrimination outcome measures will be collected at baseline and again after the intervention through student surveys assessing perceived discrimination experiences in school. Survey questions will address domains like judgment from teachers and peers, academic disruption, disciplinary action, and feelings of exclusion based on home language use. The survey will also include measures of self-perceptions, school belonging, and engagement. Comparisons between groups’ changes in perceived discrimination and affective outcomes from baseline to post-intervention will allow examination of the added critical language curriculum’s influence.
Limitations and Future Research
The study needs to be more comprehensive in the ability to draw causal conclusions from its correlational design. Changes between groups could be influenced by other factors aside from the critical language curriculum addition. Further experimental research manipulating the presence of critical language pedagogy while holding other aspects of instruction equivalent between groups could establish stronger evidence for its direct effects on reducing discrimination. Additional limitations include the small convenience sample and reliance on self-reporting for discrimination experiences. More objective behavioral observations could strengthen findings. Despite these limitations, this study takes an important step toward demonstrating the quantitative impacts of critical language awareness training for mitigating the harms of linguistic discrimination in schools. Future research should examine long-term influences on academic outcomes like achievement, retention, and graduation rates.
Conclusion
In conclusion, critical language pedagogy that brings explicit awareness to issues of linguistic marginalization and oppression shows promise for reducing discriminatory beliefs and behaviors against minorities for home language use. Directly engaging students to interrogate internal biases and societal power structures allows for recognizing and mitigating prejudices. The proposed research will evaluate the influence of critical language curriculum on improving interpersonal inclusion and engagement in demographically diverse classrooms. Findings can guide effective language arts instruction supporting equitable environments.
References
Allen, R. L., & Rossatto, C. A. (2009). Does critical pedagogy work with privileged students? Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(1), 163-180.
Baker-Bell, A. (2017). For Loretta: A Black woman literacy scholar’s journey to prioritizing self-preservation and Black feminist–-womanist storytelling. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(4), 526-543.
Castellon, J. (2023). Early Childhood Coursework in the Preparation of Teacher Candidates for Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee).
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149-171.
Martell, C. C. (2018). Teaching race in U.S. history: Examining culturally relevant pedagogy in a multicultural urban high school. Journal of Education, 198(1), 63-77.
May, S. (2023). Linguistic racism: Origins and implications. Ethnicities, 23(5), 651-661.
Peterson, E. R., Rubie-Davies, C., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. (2016). Teachers’ explicit expectations and implicit prejudiced attitudes to educational achievement: Relations with student achievement and the ethnic achievement gap. Learning and Instruction, 42, 123-140.
write