DW 3B.

Question: For this assignment, you will respond to the same questions listed for DW 3A, but this time using evidence from 1 recently published article in a related journal you found in the library database (2000-Present).
Answer:
For doing this DW 3b, I chose to read the academic journal, which is titled “Five Easy Pieces: Steps toward Integrating AAVE into the Classroom”, written by Jessica Whitney. Jessica Whitney suggests that teachers should not discourage students to participate in class discussions, just because if they speak non-standard English. She puts five steps for teachers to encourage all students to learn as much as they could possibly without having a fear for their languages been corrected by teachers. She makes quotes from different people to support her main idea. According to Jessica Whitney, students can draw on class discussions to reflect on appropriate uses of home language and school language. She uses couple of quotes to support this idea. Jessica Whitney connects the quote of Elaine Richardson with this idea. Elaine Richardson said,

“Educators may deem English monolingualism as more effective for student
learning. Yet restricting languages other than English from the classroom limits
access to literacy by limiting students’ ability to construct meaning and
knowledge from other discourse, culture, and language communities of which they
may be a part.”

What Elaine Richardson talks in this quotation, which Jessica Whitney used, is that if educators (in this case teachers or professors) limit students’ access to participate in the classroom discussion, just because of the difference between language that they use at home and school, then teachers or professors actually limit the ability of students to gain knowledge that are from different backgrounds that maybe useful to them. Her intention to connect this quote with the idea of students being able to draw on class discussions to reflect on appropriate uses of home language and school language is that if students are not being able to participate in the discussion because the teacher didn’t allow to use their home language, which is different from Standard English, then the students may not be able to learn things that the teacher wants them to learn. She used this quote to persuade teachers or professors to incorporate multiculturalism into classroom by allowing students to talk without any barrier of language difference. That was one of her five steps to integrate AAVE (African American Vernacular English) into the classroom.
Another step that was very effective and persuasive was “Encourage and demonstrate code-switching in the classroom”. She used quote from Wheeler and Swords to talk about the meaning of the word “code-switching” for people, who may not be familiar with the concept of the word. Code switching is the “ability to choose the language variety appropriate to the time, place, audience, and communicative purpose”. According to Jessica Whitney, if “Teachers work with students to contrast the differences between non-Standard English such as AAVE and Standard English, students are less likely to use features of AAVE in their writing.” (68) I think that she is telling that when teachers just ignore students’ opinions, because they talk different variety of English than the Standard English, the teaching technique has been ineffective. However, if teachers try to work with students rather than just ignoring them, then they could possibly learn as much as their potentiality looks like.
From those five steps, Jessica Whitney definitely says that the AAVE needs to be respected by teachers or professors as a variety of English that can be used by students.
I think that she makes an argument about AAVE’s role in composition studies very effectively. The reason why I think as she does make an argument very effectively is that she not only talks about her opinion in her work but also having put some of famous scholars’ quotation to support her main ideas throughout this journal. Therefore, I think that Jessica Whitney makes effective argument about AAVE’s role in composition studies.

DW 3A.

Question: For this assignment, you will carefully work with one of the readings we have read so far. Here, you will summarize the author’s main idea, supporting evidence of that idea, and how you think it discusses scholarship of AAVE/AAL in composition studies. What does the reading seem to say about AAVE/AAL? Does it effectively make an argument about its role in composition studies? If so, how? If not, what is missing?

-One of the readings for this project, I chose to work with “Students’ Right to Possibility: Basic Writing and African American Rhetoric” by Keith Gilyard and Elaine Richardson. Main idea that the author has put on this work is some students do not really have rights to use their own variety of language, which may be different variety of English from the Standard English, in the classrooms. Because most people think that people, who speak AAVE, do not really score high on the standardized tests compared to people, who speak Standard English. Supporting evidences are 1) “In 1974, a special issue of College Composition and Communication contained both a resolution asserting students’ right to their own language and attendant explanations of the sociolinguistic and pedagogical premises that shaped the resolution. The combined statement, revolving around a core concept of linguistic equality, supported certain progressive work around questions of language, identity, hegemony, and inclusion- with much of the focus on African American students- that was unfolding inside composition studies generally and the basic writing wing in particular. Although the document and sentiment behind it have remained important, especially during the latest publicized skirmish in the decades-old Ebonics controversy, the SRTOL (Students’ Right to Their Own Language) is still controversial.”, 2) In attempt to maintain the status quo, they discourage vernacular usage in schools, usually within an argument that they are preparing so-called minority students for success in the market place, all while many of the most successful people in the market. I think that the author, Gilyard, did a great job of discussing AAVE/AAL in composition studies. By showing results of positive correlation between AAVE/AAL usage and high score on the standardized tests (ex: essay), he did a great job for proving that the AAVE should not be looked down upon by others especially in schools. I think that he would like to using this statistics result of AAVE and score on the essays to one of the reasons why students should have their rights to use their own language, in this case the different variety of English (AAVE, Black English), in the classrooms without any restrictions given from instructors. This reading seems to me that it favors SRTOL in schools. The author, to my viewpoint, would like to see students, who speak AAVE would have as much of freedom to speak their ideas in AAVE, compared to students, who speak Standard English. I definitely think that it (AAVE) makes an effective argument about its role in composition studies in this reading. Because, by having examples of showing that AAVE does not really make people, who speak this variety of English, having less amount of knowledge, it could be really a great argument work to teach instructors that academic society should broaden and allowing many AAVE speakers to talk about their great ideas in classrooms.