"Codeswitching" and "contrastive analysis" were big buzz words when I was first studying English education. They seem to be widely accepted approaches to English language instruction today. Rachel's approach is consistent with the way I was taught to instruct speakers of AAEV and other nonstandard varieties of English. I also used these tools to teach students using what we called "instant messenger" language ( LOL, U, R, etc...) in inappropriate contexts.
However, Rachel linked formal language/Standard English to writing and informal language/AAEV and other varieties of English to speaking. The exception was when she encouraged her students to codeswitch when writing in the voice of a character speaking in a story.
It seems to me that Rachel was sending the message to her students that all writing (except dialogue) must be formal and follow the patterns of standard English. I believe that this would impede student writing in the same way that some researchers believe it "hampers language-minority children in reading standard English" (p. 472). The distinction between writing and reading as formal and informal should not be taught as rule. Variety choice should be determined by the purpose and audience of the language, written or spoken.
It is frustrating to me that the discussion of lower test scores for students who speak a variety other than standard English, in this article and in the conversation in general, fails to comment on the inherent problems of the test, rather than problems with the language. Teachers are accused of having "dialect prejudice" but very little mention is made of test bias. If we are to use "even-handedness" between varieties of English, shouldn't a test reflect that instruction.
Lastly, this article quoted an article written in 1996 stating that "the longer African American inner city kids stay in school, the worse they do" (p. 472). I wonder if this is still true today.
Mitra~
ReplyDeleteI wonder if she has stressed that the formal writing was for academic purposes if that would have made a difference. I believe that there are definitely times for a more relaxed conversational informal tone in writing. For example, my personal blog is very relaxed and conversational. However, when I write an academic type paper I take a more formal approach. I think just as Rachel showed that there were informal and formal times and places to use informal and formal languages she also could have (and might have) shown that written language is the same. There are both formal and informal ways and times to use written language.