RESEARCH
Addressing the Needs of Students
Who Speak a Nonstandard English Dialect
Milton Baxter and Rochelle Holland
Borough of Manhattan Community College
ABSTRACT
This quasi-experimental study was conducted to assess and address
the instructional needs of students who use a nonstandard English
dialect for subject-verb agreement in their writing. Fifty-four
students of diverse ethnicities in remedial English courses were
divided into control and experimental groups. The researchers
used four different measurements to assess tbe students' writing
attitudes and to determine their awareness levels for writing
Standard English subject-verb agreement. This preliminary study
produced strong implications for the teaching of Standard English
rules for subject-verb agreement to students who use nonstandard
subject-verb agreement while writing English. Further research
that implements the instructional methods from this study
is needed.
At Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC),
there are a significant number of students who speak a
nonstandard variety of English. Some of these students
are able to switch codes, using Standard English when
necessary. Others are unable to do this effectively and, as a
result, suffer the negative academic and social consequences
of using nonstandard English in settings where Standard
English is required.
A startling example of this is a BMCC student we will
refer to as Doreen. She has been attending BMCC for four
semesters, during which time her grades have suffered in all
the classes where she has had to write compositions. She
has taken all the remedial English classes and is now taking
English literature. The problem with her writing is that she
writes the way she speaks. Many of her nonstandard dialect
features are marked as incorrect, and, consequently, her
grade is lowered significantly. In spite of the fact that her
professors have repeatedly corrected her and tutored her, she
has been unable to edit and proofread her writing effectively
to demonstrate proficiency in Standard English. Although
Doreen is determined to pursue a degree at BMCC, she has
experienced some failure and a great deal of frustration.
For this study, we offer an academic perspective
regarding ways to address nonstandard English usage
among urban community college students. Historically,
nonstandard varieties of English have been studied by
sociolinguists, and there have been many social and
educational debates about "elevating" what many people
regard as "broken English" and "sloppy talk" to the level of a
bona fide social dialect with systematic rules (Todd, 1997).
In fact, the debate has raged about whether to legitimize
a nonstandard social dialect and make it a pedagogic tool
for classroom instruction in the acquisition of Standard
English, the result of which would be to encourage students
to become hidialectical, or proficient in both Standard
English and their nonstandard dialect (Filmer, 2003;
Seymour, Abdulkarim, & Johnson, 1999). Our academic
perspective acknowledges the pedagogic necessity of using
Milton Baxter is a professor of English, and Rochelle Holland is a counseling assistant professor. Both are fellows in the
Scholarship of Teaching Program at the Borough of Manhattan Community College in New York City.
Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal • Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 2007
145
Baxter, Holland
the nonstandard dialect ofthe student in the acquisition of
not replace Ebonics; it should supplement Ebonics. In this
Standard English skills needed in academic and workplace
case, the teacher would teach students to be hidialectical.
settings.
This means a student would be able to switch codes from
We understand that Standard English in America is
simply a prestigious variety of English that may vary from
Ebonics to Standard English whenever the situation
warrants it (Wheeler & Swords, 2006).
one region to another (e.g.. Southern English, New England
In order to switch codes effectively, the student has to be
English) (Shuy, 1967). There are also many nonstandard
aware of the situations that require the use of the Standard
varieties of English spoken in America (Williamson &
English code (e.g., academic and workplace settings), and the
Burke, 1971). In this study, we focus on a dialect referred
student has to have proficient knowledge of both Standard
to as Ebonics, also referred to as Black English. Many Black
English and Ebonics. This way, he or she can substitute a
American students at BMCC speak this dialect.
nonstandard feature, such as "She have a nice hair style," for
As with any dialect, Ebonics is characterized by many
a standard one such as "She has a nice hair style."
semantic, phonological, grammatical, and stylistic features.
Students who speak Ebonics at home come to school
For the purpose of this study we chose to focus on one
with a certain degree of proficiency in this code, having used
salient grammatical feature; namely, subject-verb agreement.
it effectively in so many situations in their families and in
Many educators often view this feature of Ebonics as lack
their communities (Baxter & Bucci, 1981). However, they
of subject-verb agreement. This viewpoint has had negative
have what Chomsky (1965) refers to as a tacit knowledge of
consequences for speakers of Ebonics, who might utter
Ebonics. When they speak, they follow the systematic rules
a statement such as "They was waiting at the bus stop,"
of Ebonics but, in most cases, are unable to state explicitly
instead of "They were waiting at the bus stop."
what the rules are.
This particular grammatical feature is also socially
In making an observation about another student's
stigmatizing (Pandey, 2000) and, consequently, may
behavior, a speaker of Ebonics might say, for example,"He be
put speakers of Ebonics at a decided disadvantage for
bad in school." Although the speaker used the correct form of
promotions in the workplace. In the American workplace,
"be" in Ebonics, he would not be able to state explicitly that
there is a professional perception that a person should
the "invariant be" is the form used to express an action that is
speak and write using Standard English rules, especially a
habitual. That is to say, the statement could mean that "He is
person who has attained a college degree. When college-
always bad in school," or "He is usually bad in school."
educated students use an inappropriate form of subject-
Similarly, students who speak Standard English often
verb agreement in the workplace, it is likely that employers
have only a tacit knowledge of the rules of subject-verb
will form false assumptions about them and believe that
agreement. When asked by a teacher why the verb takes
these employees lack intelligence (Winston, 1970, entire
an -5 ending in the sentence "He likes cake," many students
recording). Thus, the students' language can become a
will respond, "I don't know; it just sounds right." They
barrier to upward mobility.
will be unable to state explicitly that when the subject is
Attempts by many educators to eradicate their students'
use of such nonstandard grammatical features have been
third person singular, the verb takes an -5 ending in the
present tense.
misguided because the teachers have failed to acknowledge
The difficulties of providing classroom instruction for
the functional value of these features in students' lives
students using nonstandard English rules are compounded
(Wheeler 8C Swords, 2006). Ebonics flourishes in certain
by several factors. One is that some students may be
homes and communities, especially in verbal interactions
unaware they are using nonstandard rules because they
among family members and friends. It is a linguistic code
are not clear about how their language usage differs from
to express thoughts, feelings, desires, concerns, etc. A denial
Standard English. They, in fact, think they are using
of the existence of such a code can be viewed as a denial of
Standard English rules when they are not. It is only when
the culture that sustains it.
the teacher marks some of these features in their writing as
A more prudent and linguistically sound approach to
incorrect that they sense something is wrong.
teaching Standard English is to acknowledge the validity
Another factor is that classroom instruction in Standard
of a student's dialect. That is. Standard English should
English may be marginalized by the constant use of the
146
Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal • Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 2007
Nonstandard English Dialect
nonstandard variety of English. This marginalization may
be reinforced by the students' peers and family members;
the music they listen to; or the T V shows, commercials,
and movies they watch.
Still another factor is that some students may deliberately
choose to use Ebonics in their writing and speech as a way of
practicing racial, social, or ethnic solidarity. These students
continue to use nonstandard English rules of subject-verb
agreement, for example, even though they may encounter
other people in school, on television, or in the workplace who
may speak and write using Standard English. This disregard
for Standard English is sometimes evident when these
students complain that they don't want to sound"White."
The complexity of this pedagogical problem led us to
ask the following question: How can we effectively teach
students who use a nonstandard variety of English to acquire
the Standard English rules for subject-verb agreement that
are needed for classroom writing and for writing done
in the workplace? We chose to test our hypothesis that
an instructional approach called contrastive analysis can
help answer this question. Contrastive analysis involves
illuminating grammatical features of one language or dialect
by comparing and contrasting them with features of a second
language or dialect. The contrastive approach helps students
gain explicit knowledge of the systematic rules governing
their own dialect, in this case, Ebonics.
The advantages of contrastive analysis are numerous,
but the most important one is that it facilitates the learning
of Standard English without denigrating the nonstandard
dialects of students. This is noteworthy because contrastive
analysis originates from English-as-a-second-language
(ESL) methodology. It has been used to teach Standard
English to foreign students by contrasting features of one
language with corresponding features of another.
Many students who are native speakers of English
have not, during the course of their education, encountered
literature that discusses the different varieties of English
spoken in America in general and the nonstandard variety
of English they speak in particular. Thus, the students are
unaware that the nonstandard variety of English they speak
is governed by a set of systematic rules. When we discuss
Ebonics with students, they often express dislike for the
term and do not identify themselves as being speakers of
Ebonics. We assume their negative perception of Ebonics is
due to several possible factors: (a) absence of sociolinguistic
instruction on the varieties of English in America, (b) the
residual effect of poor media imaging, and (c) negative
comments and discussions about; Ebonics by uninformed
friends and associates.
In the case of the BMCC student Doreen mentioned
earlier in the text, her "grammati(;al errors" were corrected
repeatedly without success because she had very little
awareness of when she was using Ebonics. She was also
suffering from cross-dialectical interference, which arose
when the systematic rules of Ebonics adversely impacted
her acquisition of the rules of Standard English.
We chose to test our theory that contrastive analysis
may help students like Doreen realize that languagelearning difficulties do not necessarily result from lack of
intelligence, but may instead reflect a lack of understanding
of the difference between Ebonics rules and Standard
English rules. When educated about the differences in
usage, a student like Doreen may be able to recognize when
she is using a nonstandard English rule in her writing and
have the ability to switch codes to produce the Standard
English rule when she edits and proofreads her work
(Wheeler & Swords, 2006).
If this theory were correct, then contrastive analysis
would not only improve a student's grades but also build selfesteem because the student would have been educated about
the cultural and linguistic value of nonstandard dialects as
discussed by sociolinguists. The student would also have a
new understanding of applying Standard English rules in
settings that warrant it.
In this study, we used contrastive analysis as an
intervention to help BMCC students identified as speakers
of nonstandard dialects, particularly Ebonics, learn Standard
English rules for subject-verb agreement. The purposes of
this study were threefold: (a) to identify students who used
nonstandard subject-verb agreement rules in the classroom
setting, (b) to determine the level of awareness about their
use of nonstandard English in their writing, and (c) to
evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention designed to
raise their level of awareness about varieties of English in
America and about the appropriateness of using Standard
English rules for subject-verb agreement in the classroom
and workplace while they continued to speak nonstandard
English at home.
METHODS
During the spring semester of 2006, we conducted a
study using a quasi-experimental method. Our approach
Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal • Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 2007
147
Baxter, Holland
incorporated a pretest and a posttest given to an
and used it to evaluate students' reactions to and feelings
experimental group and a control group. The two groups
about the contrastive analysis approach.
were similar, but not identical. For example, while the
More information about these original instruments
subject being taught was the same in both groups, there
may be obtained via e-mail from the authors at mbaxter(a)
were diflFerent numbers of students in each group, and
bmcc.cuny.edu or rholland(a)bmcc.cuny.edu.
teachers for the control group were different from teachers
for the experimental group (Campbell & Stanley, 1966).
Four classrooms of students enrolled in the same
Instructional Strategy
instruction via contrastive analysis to the experimental
Approximately one month after the pretest instruments
were given, the experimental group received instruction
on subject-verb agreement using the contrastive analysis
approach. The instructor taught that Standard English
and nonstandard English are two dialects of English, and
the rules for subject-verb agreement in the former were
shown to be different from the rules of agreement in the
latter. When working in the classroom, the teacher used
community dialect to refer to Ebonics and its grammatical
rules. While the term Ebonics was not used in teaching, it
is used in this paper to refer to community dialect. Standard
English was sometimes referred to in the classroom as
group, while two other English professors, both White
workplace English.
Americans, provided
Approximately three class sessions were devoted to
contrastive analysis. The first session involved a lecture and
classroom discussion of regional and social dialects. The
second session included a presentation and discussion of
contrasting rules of agreement in Standard English and
Ebonics. The third session involved practice using these
rules and practice switching from one code to another. This
was done individually and in small groups.
level of remedial English participated in the study. Two
classrooms formed the experimental group, and two
classrooms formed the control group. All the students in
the study were asked to participate voluntarily, and they
were informed that their participation in the study would
not affect their grades. Students were categorized by their
self-reported race and ethnic backgrounds. Because of the
diversity of the student population at BMCC, we included
all of these various students.
Author Milton Baxter, a Black American, provided
traditional
instruction
to
the
control group.
Assessment Instruments
A pilot study of our instruments was conducted during
the fall semester of 2005. At the beginning of the spring
2006 semester, all students were given three pretests. The
first instrument was a demographic survey we developed
to determine the ethnic, racial, and cultural background
of the students and to ascertain how many students spoke
English as a second language.
The second instrument we called the Workplace
Language Skills Assessment Test (WLSAT). We used it
to assess the students' level of awareness of nonstandard
dialect features and their ability to switch codes (i.e.,
change from nonstandard grammar to Standard English).
The WLSAT was adapted from the English Variation
Placement Test developed by Reed, Cohen, Baxter, Moore,
and Rederick (1972).
The third instrument, also original, we called the
Writing Likert Scale (WLS). This attitudinal scale enabled
us to measure the students' feelings about writing in
various settings.
Finally, a fourth instrument, also original, was applied
only to the experimental group as part of the posttest
assessment. We called it the Likert Feedback Scale (LFS)
148
The control group did not receive contrastive analysis
instruction. Instead, students received traditional instruction
in which the teacher presented the Standard English rules
of subject-verb agreement as correct and any deviations as
incorrect. There was no mention of dialects of English.
At the end of the semester, all students in the study
were administered a series of posttests. They were given
the WLSAT again so that we could measure the efficacy
of contrastive analysis as compared to the more traditional
approach. The students were also given the WLS again so
that we could measure any changes in attitudes they had
about writing.
Scoring Procedures
The WLSAT contained 10 sentences, nine of which were
written using community dialect rules for subject-verb
agreement. Only one sentence used Standard English rules. A
student's total score was based on a combination of two scores:
Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal • Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 2007
Nonstandard English Dialect
an identification score that indicated how many sentences
4 {agree), 3 {neutral), 2 {disagree), 1 {strongly disagree). If
were identified correctly as nonstandard or standard, and a
the statement was negative (e.g., "I avoid writing"), the
code-switching score that indicated how many sentences the
numerical values for the responses were reversed. Total
student was able to change firom nonstandard to Standard
scores were used to place students in one of the following
English. A perfect score of 19 was given to a student who
three categories:
identified all the sentences correctly and rewrote all the
nonstandard English sentences using Standard English rules
1.
Positive attitude: Total scores in the range of 45-60
of subject-verb agreement. Students were given one point for
2.
Neutral attitude: Total scores in the range of 28-44
each sentence identified correctly as standard or nonstandard,
3.
Negative attitude: Total scores in the range of 0—27
and one point each for the nonstandard sentences that were
rewritten in Standard English. The total scores were used to
The LFS, which contained 11 statements, was designed
place the students in one of the three following categories
to measure the experimental group's positive or negative
related to their level of awareness:
feelings about the instruction they received. It had the same
format as the WLS and was scored similarly. Total scores
1.
Low awareness: Students who obtained a total score
were used to place students in one of the following three
in the range of 0 - 7
categories:
2. Some awareness: Students who obtained a total score
in the range of 8-13
3. High awareness: Students who obtained a total score
in the range of 14-19
1.
2.
Positive attitude: Total scores in the range of 42—55
Neutral attitude: Total scores in the range of 25-41
3.
Negative attitude: Total scores in the range of 0-24
RESULTS
We used these three categories of awareness to
subdivide all of the Black American students in the study,
as follows:
1.
Low awareness: Those Black American students who
speak Ebonics and lack adequate code-switching
abilities
2.
Some awareness: Those Black American students
who speak Ebonics and show some code-switching
abilities
High awareness: Those Black American students
3.
who speak Standard English only or who are
bidialectical, speaking Ebonics and having strong
code-switching abilities
We identified our primary target population as those
Black American students who scored in the low awareness
or some awareness categories on the pretest.
The WLS, which contained 12 statements, was designed
to measure the students' positive or negative attitudes about
writing. It was scored by assigning a numerical value for
each of the five possible responses a student might give to a
statement. For example, if the statement was positive (e.g.,
"I like to write down my ideas"), the student could choose
one of the following possible values: 5 {strongly agree).
During the spring semester of 2006, there were 1,709
students enrolled in 69 sections of high-level remedial
English writing classes at BMCC. Based on feasibility,
our study was limited to four sections, which represented
a small sample of this population. Although our sample
size is too small to generalize about all remedial English
students at BMCC, the quasi-experimental methodology
we used is commonly used for classroom research and our
findings are limited to this sample group (Best &C Kahn,
1998). After the data were collected from the demographic
survey, WLSAT, WLS, and LFS, the information was
quantified in simple percentages.
The diversity of students at BMCC is so great
that Black Americans do not represent a majority of
the students in our study. The demographic survey
revealed the following breakdown: two Asians, 19
Black Americans, 12 Native Caribbeans, 16 Hispanics,
two Africans, two Southeast Asians, and one White
American. Initially, we sought to identify speakers of
Ebonics. However, we found that because of the diverse
student population at BMCC, we could identify students
of other races and cultures who also used nonstandard
varieties of subject-verb agreement in their writing.
Wheeler and Swords (2006) discussed the fact that
Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal • Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 2007
149
Baxter, Holland
there are many nonstandard features of English shared
Black Americans, two were Native Caribbeans, and two were
among people of various ethnicities.
Hispanics. For the high awareness category, there were three
The experimental design of this study limits our
Black Americans, flve Native Caribbeans, seven Hispanics,
findings in several ways. For example, other variables
one African, one Southeast Asian, and one White American.
that may have influenced learning outcomes include the
Thus, the pretest identified seven Black Americans in our
differences among the three professors in race, teaching
primary target population (four showing low awareness
style, and number of years of experience.
and three showing some awareness). The pretest also
Another limitation of this study is the issue of internal
invalidity as it relates to attrition and testing. Initially,
identified that there were several ESL students in the some
awareness category.
the study involved 78 students who were enrolled in four
On the posttest, an overwhelming majority of students
remedial English classes. However, due to attrition, only 54
were in the high awareness category (90%). All of the students
students participated in the entire study. Thus, 30 students
in the low awareness and a few in the some awareness
comprised the experimental group and 24 students the
categories moved to a higher category. Students who were
control group. Campbell and Stanley (1966) discuss the
categorized in the high awareness group for the pretest
reality that participants may not complete a study. They
stayed in the high awareness category for the posttest.
also note that testing and retesting can influence people's
A comparison of the pretest and posttest results of
behavior, which results in individuals becoming sensitive to
the WLS showed an improvement in the positive attitudes
the area of knowledge being tested.
of the students in both experimental and control groups.
However, the improvement in the experimental group was
Experimental Group
greater (from 40% on the pretest to 60% on the posttest).
For the 30 students in the experimental group, surprisingly,
a clear majority of them (60%) started with a high level of
awareness on the WLSAT. See Table 1, where both pretest
and posttest results are displayed. This awareness might
be attributed to the fact that many of the students had
prior instruction in the Standard English forms of subjectverb agreement. Some had taken the lower-level remedial
English and/or ESL classes prior to attending these
classes, and some were repeating the course for the second
or third time. Five of the students had taken a lower-level
remedial course with Baxter. Among the students in the
experimental group, 14 students spoke English as a second
language. Of these, nine spoke Spanish, one Chinese, two
Haitian Creole, one Grebo, and one Hindi.
See Table 2.
Table 1
Experimental Group WLSAT Category Placement
(W=30)
Low
Awareness
Some
Awareness
High
Awareness
13% (4)
27% (8)
60% (18)
None
10% (3)
90% (27)
Our experimental group pretest scores showed that
four Black Americans started with a low level of awareness.
In the some awareness category, one was Asian, three were
150
Table 2
Experimental Group WLS Category Placement {N = 30)
Negative
3% (1)
Positive
Neutral
40% (12)
57% (17)
60% (18)
37% (11)
The results of the LFS, which was administered only to
students in the experimental group, showed overwhelmingly
positive responses to the contrastive analysis approach.
Of the 34 students who responded, 27 (79%) were in the
positive category and the remaining 7 (21%) were in the
neutral category. No student was in the negative category.
Because the students responded anonymously, we were not
able to segregate the data for the primary target group.
Control Group
When the WLSAT was given to the control group, the
pretest results were different from the experimental group.
The majority of the students (58.3%) started out with only
some awareness of Standard English rules for subject-verb
agreement, compared to 27% in the experimental group.
Compare Tables 1 and 3. Thus, our study was subject to the
limitation of having students starting from different levels
of awareness.
Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal • Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 2007
Nonstandard English Dialect
who comprised our primary target population: seven
Table 3
Control Group WLSAT Category Placement {N = 24)
Low
Awareness
Some
Awareness
High
Awareness
8.3% (2)
58.3 % (14)
33.3% (8)
4% (1)
50% (12)
46% (11)
The pretest showed that two Black American students
had a low awareness. The some awareness category
comprised one Asian, six Black Americans, two Native
Caribbeans, four Hispanics, and one Southeast Asian.
The high awareness group had one Black American, three
Native Caribbeans, three Hispanics, and one African.
In the total group, 10 were ESL speakers, seven spoke
Spanish, one Tagalog, one Arabic, and one Punjabi. Thus,
the pretest scores identified eight Black Americans in the
primary target group, two showing low awareness and six
showing some awareness. Here again, several ESL speakers
were also identified in the some awareness category.
In regard to the posttest, a slim majority of the
students were in the some awareness category (50%).
See Table 3. Two ESL students (one Hispanic and one
African) moved from the high awareness category on the
pretest to the some awareness category on the posttest.
One Black American student went from some awareness
to low awareness. Whereas eight students stayed in the
some awareness category, two went from low awareness
to some awareness, and five went from some awareness
to high awareness. Six stayed in the high awareness
category.
A comparison of the pretest and posttest scores for the
WLS control group did not show such a dramatic increase
in positive attitudes (from 42% on the pretest to 46% on
the posttest). See Table 4. The majority of students still
had a neutral attitude on the posttest, as was the case for
the pretest.
Table 4
Control Group WLS Category Placement {N= 24)
Negative
ffteassi
Positive
Neutrai
4% (1)
42% (10)
54% (13)
None
46% (11)
54% (13)
The Primary Target Population
As indicated earlier, we were able to use the pretest
scores on the WLSAT to identify the Black Americans
were in the experimental group, and eight in the control
group. Their WLSAT scores are shown below in Tables
5 and 6.
Table 5
Experimental WLSAT Pre- and Posttest Scores for
Primary Target Population (n = 7)
IPteesse
Low
Awareness
Some
Awareness
High
Awareness
57% (4)
43% (3)
0
None
29% (2)
71% (5)
Table 6
Control WLSAT Pre- and Posttest Scores for Primary
Target Population (n = 8)
Low
Awareness
Some
Awareness
High
Awareness
25% (2)
75% (6)
0
12.5% (1)
75% (6)
12.5% (1)
Based on the pretest. Tables 5 and 6 indicate that
we were able to identify a total of 15 Black American
students in our primary target population. These
students showed low or some awareness. Based on the
test scores, Tables 5 and 6 indicate an improvement in
the level of awareness among students in both groups.
However, Table 5 indicates the experimental group
showed a greater improvement.
For the experimental and control groups, a deeper
analysis of the posttest results for the some awareness and
high awareness categories revealed important differences.
The control group is shown in Table 7. In this group.
Black Americans who were in the low awareness category
showed improvement. The two Black Americans in the
control group with low awareness moved to the some
awareness category on the posttest. However, one Black
American regressed from some awareness on the pretest
to low awareness on the posttest. Only one student in
the control group progressed enough to move to the high
awareness category on the posttest. The raw scores for
three students in the some awareness category indicated
lower scores on the posttest than on the pretest. The
other Black American in the some awareness category
showed some improvement, but not enough to advance
to the higher category.
Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal • Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 2007
151
Baxter, Holland
Table 7
Control Group Primary Target Population on
WLSAT(n = 8)
students (seven students in the experimental group and eight
students in the control group) who formed our primary target
population.
Regarding the second purpose, we were able to use
pretest scores on the WLSAT to classify these students. We
1
6/low
8/some
2
7/low
13/some
3
9/some
11/some
were also able to classify other students from different racial
and cultural backgrounds in our general sample population.
The third and most important purpose of the study
was to evaluate the effectiveness of contrastive analysis
4
13/some
7/low
5
1 I/some
9/some
6
9/some
8/some
7
13/some
10/some
and workplace. The posttest results for the WLSAT
8
13/some
14/high
indicated improvement for both the experimental and
as an intervention designed to raise students' level of
awareness about the appropriateness of using Standard
English rules for subject-verb agreement in the classroom
control groups. That is, the contrastive analysis and the
*A.C. = Awareness Category
traditional instructional approaches to teaching Standard
English
Table 8
Experimental Group Primary Target Population on
WLSAT (n = 7)
rules of subject-verb
agreement were both
helpful; however, contrastive analysis appears to have been
more effective, with the understanding that some of the
difference might have been related to the limitations of our
research design.
1
7/low
18/high
2
3/low
12/some
Americans improved in both the control and experimental
3
7/low
12/some
groups. However, the Black Americans who showed
4
11/some
14/high
5
3/low
14/high
6
11/some
12/some
of the students in the control group, three of the students
7
13/some
16/high
regressed. This was not the case for the experimental group
In particular, our primary target population of Black
the greatest amount of improvement belonged to the
experimental group.
When we analyzed the results of the WLSAT for all
in which all of the students who showed high awareness on
*A.C. = Awareness Category
the pretest remained in the high awareness category for the
A different picture emerged in the experimental group,
shown in Table 8. Of the four Black Americans who scored
in the low awareness category on the pretest, two moved to
the some awareness category and two jumped all the way to
the high awareness category. Of the three Black Americans
who scored in the some awareness category on the pretest,
two moved to the high awareness category and one stayed
in the some awareness category on the posttest. In all cases,
their raw scores improved.
posttest. There was, in fact, improvement in the raw scores
for most of them. This suggests that the contrastive analysis
approach was also more effective for the other students who
were not in our primary target population.
As mentioned earlier, the experimental group had a
large improvement in positive attitudes toward writing, as
indicated by the comparison between the pretest and posttest
scores shown in Table 2. This change resulted from the fact
that a large number of students in our experimental group
moved from the neutral category on the pretest to positive
on the posttest. Most of them were bilingual; only one was a
member of the primary target population.
These findings clearly address the three purposes of this study.
Regarding the first purpose, we were able to use the pretest
scores of the WLSAT to identify a total of 15 Black American
152
The results on the LFS scale, administered to the
experimental group at the end of the semester, were
encouraging. A majority of the students expressed positive
Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal » Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 2007
Nonstandard English Dialect
responses to statements that elicited their feelings about the
This study has broad implications for remedial writing
contrastive analysis approach. As mentioned previously, no
classes. Instruction needs to be based on a theoretical
student was in the negative category. This helps dispel the
model that assumes that students who speak nonstandard
fear teachers might have that students will be turned off
dialects may write inappropriately in academic settings
by a discussion of dialectical differences in which the term
because of a low awareness of Standard English rules.
community dialect is used as a label to describe the way some
An effective way of heightening students' awareness may
Black Americans speak. It is not uncommon to hear the term
be to present them with instruction that systematically
Ebonics used pejoratively by students. The results of this
addresses diverse languages as rule-governed codes that
study suggest that this particular kind of negative behavior
have functional value in different settings. Traditional
may be attributed to these students' ignorance about the
curriculum would, therefore, be redesigned with a language
roles of dialects in American English, and to their lack of
diversity perspective in mind. It would address dialectical
appreciation for the functional value of these dialects in
differences as functional varieties of English, and promote
community and other informal social settings. That is to say,
code-switching as an instructional method for acquiring
the findings from the LFS and WLS strongly suggest that
Standard English grammar skills.
not only does the contrastive analysis approach help students
At the very least, our findings suggest the value of
gain proficiency in the use of Standard English, it also
including in the traditional approach to remedial instruction
engenders positive feelings about language differences and
a module that provides students with an overview of language
the role dialects play in the intricate and varied sociolinguistic
diversity as it relates to regional and social dialects of
settings that our students engage in on a daily basis.
English. This module could also acknowledge the functional
The presence of numerous bilingual students outside
value of these dialects in the lives of the students. From a
our primary target population also posed an interesting
general perspective, educating college students on the work
question for future research; namely, to what extent would
of sociolinguists and comparing the rules of Ebonics to
the contrastive analysis approach benefit students who may
Standard English appears to foster a change in how students
not be speakers of Ebonics? While our study produced data
understand English variety. This change can, in turn, assist
related to this question, we chose not to analyze the data
students in becoming culturally cognizant and academically
because the question lay beyond the scope of our study.
competent citizens.
REFERENCES
Baxter, M., & Bucci, W. (1981). What do you mean by that? Studies
in linguistic ambiguity and insecurity. Urban Health: The Journal of
Health Care in the Cities, 10(5), 36-40.
Best, J., & Kahn, J. (1998). Research in education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Campbell,D.,8cStanleY,}'ii966).Experimentaland
quasi-experimental
designs for research. Boston; Houghton Mifflin Co.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA:
M I T Press.
Filmer, A. (2003). African-American vernacular English: Ethics,
ideology, and pedagogy in the conflict between identity and power.
World Englishes, 22(3), 253-270.
Pandey, A. (2000). Symposium on Ebonics and African-American
language. World Englishes, 19(1), 1-4.
Reed, C , Cohen, P., Baxter, M., Moore, S., & Rederick, J. (1972).
Teaching Standard English writing to speakers showing Black English
influences in their writing. Unpublished manuscript. City University
of New York, Brooklyn College Campus.
Seymour, H . N., Abdulkarim, L., & Johnson, V. (1999). The Ebonics
controversy: An educational dilemma. Topics in Language Disorders,
9(4), 66-77.
Shuy, R, W. (1967). Discovering American dialects. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Todd, J. (1997). Ebonics is defective speech and a handicap for Black
children. Education, 118(2), 177-180.
Wheeler, R. S., & Swords, R. (2006). Code-switching: Teaching
Standard English in urban classrooms. Urbana, IL: National Council
of Teachers of English.
Williamson, J. V., & Burke, V. M. (Eds.), (1971). A various language:
Perspectives on American dialects. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.
Winston, P. (1970). TTje dialect of Black Americans: A community
relations presentation (LP album). New York: Western Electric Co.
Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal • Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 2007
153