18
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz] On: 10 October 2014, At: 18:42 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Language and Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlae20 Beyond Sociolinguistics: Towards a Critical Approach to Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Teacher Education Marcelle Haddix a a Syracuse University , New York, USA Published online: 19 Dec 2008. To cite this article: Marcelle Haddix (2008) Beyond Sociolinguistics: Towards a Critical Approach to Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Teacher Education, Language and Education, 22:5, 254-270 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500780802152648 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions

Beyond Sociolinguistics: Towards a Critical Approach to Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Teacher Education

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 10 October 2014, At: 18:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlae20

Beyond Sociolinguistics: Towardsa Critical Approach to Culturaland Linguistic Diversity in TeacherEducationMarcelle Haddix aa Syracuse University , New York, USAPublished online: 19 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Marcelle Haddix (2008) Beyond Sociolinguistics: Towards a Critical Approachto Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Teacher Education, Language and Education, 22:5,254-270

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500780802152648

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Beyond Sociolinguistics: Towards a CriticalApproach to Cultural and LinguisticDiversity in Teacher Education

Marcelle HaddixSyracuse University, New York, USA

The author shares findings from a qualitative study of white, monolingual preserviceteachers enrolled in a sociolinguistics course that examines the interplay of languageand ethnicity in the United States. The primary aims of the study were to learn moreabout the preservice teachers’ awareness of their cultural and linguistic backgroundsand to explore how they felt their new understandings about linguistic diversitywould impact their future practice as teachers. In this paper, the author examines thecultural and linguistic identity work of two white, monolingual preservice teachersinitiated by their participation in this course. Findings from interview and archivaldata suggest that while teacher education grounded in sociolinguistic research andprinciples can impact teachers’ attitudes and practices towards linguistic diversity,teacher education that engages a critical approach to understanding language andethnicity can encourage teachers’ interrogation of their own cultural and linguisticlocation and challenge dominant standard language and colour-blind ideologies.

doi: 10.2167/le772.0

Keywords: preservice teachers, sociolinguistics, cultural identity

It is the last day of school before Thanksgiving break in Ms. Sweeney’s sec-ond grade classroom. After reading a story about how the pilgrims landed onPlymouth Rock, Ms. Sweeney moves her students into a ‘Coming to America’activity as part of her Celebrating Cultures unit. For a homework assignment,the students, with help from their parents and grandparents, were asked to ex-plore the question, ‘where did your family come from?’ and to prepare a briefnarrative to report back to the class. Today, the students are sharing what theylearned about their families’ histories in the United States.

‘My family came from Puerto Rico for a bigger house’, says Lissette.Andres reads his paper, ‘My family came to America from El Salvador to

escape la guerra’.Jasmine, a young girl from Trinidad, shares that her family came to the United

States for a better life. Ms. Sweeney tells her, ‘Your mom has a beautiful accent’.The students are from many different countries, from China to Guatemala

and Costa Rica to Nepal. And, for the majority of the students, English is nottheir native language.

While many share that their families came to the United States for freedom,several African American students explain that their ancestors came over fromAfrica for slavery and that their ancestors did not want to come to America. One

0950-0782/08/05 254-17 $20.00/0 C© 2008 Taylor & FrancisLANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Vol. 22, No. 5, 2008

254

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Beyond Sociolinguistics 255

African American student, Ashley, exclaims, ‘I’m just black, I don’t know aboutall these other cultures. I speak English’.

As the bell rings, Ms. Sweeney announces, ‘Boys and girls, that’s all for today’.As the children prepare to go home, Mirielle, a young girl from Haiti, pauses

and asks, ‘But, Ms. Sweeney, where are you from?’Hesitantly, she responds, ‘Mirielle, that is a good question. I am American’.The above scenario, while fictional, is based on my experiences as a student,

teacher and now researcher in urban classroom settings in the United States.In schools today, it is not an uncommon pedagogical exercise to have studentsreflect on and report on their respective cultural and linguistic heritages. WhenI reflect back on my experiences as a K-12 student, this type of ‘Coming toAmerica’ activity is reminiscent of multicultural fairs, cultural expos and theobservance of ethnic holidays where we were asked to bring in cultural arte-facts or to share stories from our family traditions. This ‘Coming to America’activity represents a typical classroom practice that, for me, intensifies the cul-tural and linguistic mismatch that exists between today’s teachers and students.As a speaker of an African American language, I know what it means to havea home language and culture that differs from the prevailing language and cul-ture of educational institutions. Such activities remind me of moments whenmy cultural and linguistic background was put on display, set apart from thedominant, ‘everyday’ curriculum. They remind me of what it is like to be a stu-dent with a teacher who lacks awareness and understanding of ‘where I comefrom’, who views my background as aberrant or ‘different’. Further, labellingsuch activities ‘Coming to America’ perpetuates dominant, essentialist valuesabout what it means to be ‘American’ and who can claim this identity. The cur-rent paper explores how these kinds of teaching and learning experiences mightbe transformed by teacher education curricula that explicitly address issues oflanguage, culture and power.

We know that, in the United States, a homogeneous teaching force is workingwith an increasingly heterogeneous K-12 student population (see Gomez, 1996;Sleeter, 2001a). In the 2005 report of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation panel on research and teacher education, Zumwalt and Craig synthesiseresearch on the demographic profiles of today’s teacher education students andreport that the majority of prospective teachers are different from the K-12 stu-dent population in significant ways, specifically on the basis of race and ethnicity,language and socioeconomic background. Teacher education literature is repletewith examples that highlight that teacher education programmes are filled withwhite, middle class, monolingual female students. For example, Gomez (1996:460) writes that efforts to bridge the racial and linguistic mismatch between alargely white teacher force and an increasingly diverse student population isimportant because the typical teacher

. . . is white and from a suburban or rural home town; monolingual inEnglish; she selected her college for its proximity to home, its affordabilityand its accessibility. She has traveled little beyond her college’s 100-mileradius. She prefers to teach in a community like the one she grew up in.She hopes to teach middle-income, average (not handicapped or gifted)children in traditional classroom settings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

256 Language and Education

The examination of these differences between today’s teachers and studentsserves as a starting point to interrogate how race, class, gender and language bi-ases permeate processes of teacher selection and preparation. These factors alsoimpact the learning and achievement opportunities for today’s schoolchildren.Though pedagogical exercises like the one above are aimed at privileging thevarious cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the students that walk throughthe school doors each day, they work to perpetuate the notion that issues of di-versity and difference are ‘other people’s issue’ and that they are not personallyrelevant for our teachers.

In the current article, I share findings from an ethnographic study of teachereducation students enrolled in a sociolinguistics course that explored how peo-ple within different cultures and social groups define their identities through theuse of language. Drawing from observations, interviews and autobiographicalnarratives, I examine the cultural and linguistic identity work of White, mono-lingual preservice teachers – individuals implicated by dominant language ide-ologies that position them as culture-less and language-less – that is initiatedby their participation in this course. In doing this, I hope to move conversationsin teacher education beyond an understanding of cultural and linguistic differ-ence as other people’s issue and towards critical pedagogy that considers issuesof language, identity and power. To begin, I consider some of the paradoxesin multicultural teacher education that influence the ways preservice teachersunderstand cultural and linguistic diversity and how it relates to their own lives.

Paradoxes in Multicultural Teacher EducationSociocultural and linguistic differences between teachers and students are

not newly reported phenomena. However, the effects of these differences onthe educational outcomes for today’s K-12 student population are of graveconcern. One of the most serious implications of the cultural and linguistic di-vide among prospective teachers and today’s K-12 student population is thatmany White, middle-class preservice teachers understand linguistic diversityas a deficit (Gutierrez & Orellana, 2006) and view cultural and linguistic differ-ences as other people’s issues. Research studies that examine the attitudes ofWhite preservice teachers towards these differences report that many prospec-tive teachers view children who come from linguistic backgrounds differentthan their own as ‘other people’s children’ and subsequently different in theirmotivation and ability to learn (Gomez, 1996). In a recent review of scholarshipon preparing teachers for teaching in dialectally diverse classrooms, Godleyet al. (2006) offer multiple reasons why educational researchers and teachereducators should prioritise preparing teachers to develop more appropriate re-sponses to linguistic diversity, including the notion that dominant pedagogicalresponses to non-standard dialects and languages are damaging and counter-productive (see Gilmore, 1991; Heath, 1983; Michaels, 1981). Further, they assertthat reconceptualising the goals of teacher learning in line with multiculturalteacher education can have positive consequences for students whose linguisticand ethnic identities hold lesser status in our society.

Research on multicultural teacher education suggests that many teacher edu-cation programmes have added courses and fieldwork experiences that focus on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Beyond Sociolinguistics 257

teaching diverse students – English language learners, racial minorities and ur-ban children (Cochran-Smith et al., 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2000; Zeichner, 1996).However, while adding multicultural content or field experiences aimed atbridging the cultural and linguistic mismatch between teachers and studentsare viewed as progressive, these efforts by teacher educators often fail to sys-temically address issues of racism, power and Whiteness (Cross, 2005). Further,this approach to multicultural teacher education may produce a teaching forcethat is unaware of how they can use their work to dismantle power, White-ness and racism. Cross (2005) argues that underlying these efforts in teachereducation may be an unintended Whiteness ideology. A Whiteness ideology, asdefined by McLaren (quoted in Richardson & Villenas, 2000), is a

. . . sociohistorical form of consciousness, given birth at the nexus of capi-talism, colonial rule, and the emergent relationships among dominant andsubordinate groups. Whiteness operates . . . as a universalizing authorityby which the hegemonic White bourgeois subject appropriates the rightto speak on behalf of everyone who is non-white while denying voice andagency to these others in the name of the civilized humankind. (p. 257)

Cross (2005) argues that ‘the language of [teacher education] programs in-cludes social justice and multiculturalism and diversity while the ideology,values, and practices are assuredly reinscribing White privilege, power, andracism’ (p. 266). This paradox she terms a ‘new racism’ ideology ‘locks teachereducation into maintaining the same ole’ oppression that objectifies, dehuman-izes, and marginalizes others while ignoring Whiteness, power, privilege, andracism’ (p. 266).

The persistence of Whiteness and White privilege within the context of preser-vice teacher education is compelling in light of the demographic statistics thatsuggest that the teaching force is and will continue to be White, monolingual andfemale. Whiteness is rarely viewed as a racial category but is instead normalisedwithin dominant institutions like schools of education. This normalisation is sig-nificant in that preservice teachers will view categories, such as race, ethnicity,culture and language as ‘foreign’ and are accordingly positioned as culturaltourists (Lewis et al., 2001). In this light, some educational researchers argue thatgrounding teacher education reform in multiculturalism, diversity and urbaneducation has led to only moderate advances in preparing teachers for raciallyand linguistically diverse classrooms, since ‘program rhetoric about diversityand multiculturalism is often couched in how we are alike or how White teachereducators and students can explore others as cultural exotics, the racial other,or the object of study for their academic and professional benefit’ (Cross, 2005:265). Historically, Americans have claimed one dominant language and nationalidentity, a relatively homogeneous one. As a result, issues of multiculturalismor multilingualism belong to the immigrant or minority populations inhabitingsociety, and in this way, members of the dominant language and racial groupwill continue to view diversity and cultural and linguistic difference as ‘otherpeople’s’ phenomena.

Reviews of research literature on multicultural teacher preparation revealan almost exclusive preoccupation with the education of White teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

258 Language and Education

(Montecinos, 2004; Sleeter, 2001b). For example, in her review of several studieson preservice teacher education for preparing teachers for schools that servehistorically underserved populations, Sleeter (2001b) notes that very little ofthe research actually examines the strategies which prepare effective teachers.Instead, most of the research focuses on addressing the attitudes and lack ofknowledge of White preservice teachers, in essence, maintaining an overwhelm-ing presence of Whiteness. Several research studies on teacher education alsoillustrate how teacher educators are at times met with silence by White studentswhen incorporating activities that challenge White privilege and racism and thenotion that diversity issues are located outside of majority students’ realm of ex-perience (for examples, see Cochran-Smith, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1996; Lewiset al., 2001; McIntosh, 1989; Tatum, 1992). Anticipating and overcoming resis-tance is one of the main barriers to preparing teachers for teaching in culturallyand linguistically diverse classrooms. However, simply acknowledging Whitepreservice teachers’ resistance to challenging their own beliefs and values doesnot address the problem of teacher education programmes that are grounded intraditionally oppressive assumptions and ideologies (Cross, 2005).

The educational research community’s lack of attention to teacher ethnicityreflects a ‘technocratic, instrumental-rational view’ (Montecinos, 2004: 174) ofteacher preparation; in other words, this lack of attention might be due to thepossibility that the logic of teacher education is to standardise teachers’ practicesto the point that one’s ethnic or linguistic identity does not influence practice.The paradoxical nature of multicultural teacher education allows White, mono-lingual preservice teachers to claim an ethnic-less, race-less, culture-less andlanguage-less identity while working, in part, through dominant language ide-ologies to position culturally and linguistically diverse teachers and students inopposition. In this way, multicultural teacher education and other teacher edu-cation efforts that purport emphasising diversity issues and tackling hegemonicstructures may, in essence, keep them in place.

The Cultural and Linguistic Identity Work of Preservice TeachersIn order to unravel dominant ideologies about multiculturalism and multi-

lingualism and interrogate Whiteness and White privilege, preservice teachersmust first reflect on their own linguistic and cultural backgrounds. In this way,one of the aims of multicultural teacher education should be to help preserviceteachers ‘bring front and center’ (Allen & Hermann-Wilmarth, 2004) their cul-ture and linguistic heritages. In the current article, my goal is to illustrate howtwo White, monolingual preservice teachers initiate a process of consciousness-raising (Freire, 1982) – becoming aware of their own cultural and linguisticlocation in the world – through participation in a sociolinguistics course on lan-guage and ethnicity. I share findings from an ethnographic study conducted withpreservice teachers who were enrolled in a traditional, accredited teacher educa-tion programme at a Northeastern research institution. This university campusis representative of descriptions of predominantly White, traditional universitysettings, as documented in research literature. At the time of the study, 37 un-dergraduate and graduate students were enrolled in the sociolinguistics course.Students from across academic disciplines and programmes elected to take this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Beyond Sociolinguistics 259

course, especially since for undergraduate students it fulfilled the university’scultural diversity requirement. The racial and gender make-up of this class wasrepresentative of demographics of the college, in general; while the majority ofthe students were White, there was a small number of students from other non-White, racial and ethnic backgrounds and a few non-native English speakers inthe class.

I decided to audit this course on language and ethnicity to continue to developmy own knowledge base in sociolinguistics and the study of language in theUnited States. After the first two class meetings, I began to wonder about thestudents in the class, specifically whether there were teacher education majorsin this class and why such a course was not offered, better yet, required in ourteacher education programme. I envisioned how taking such a course might af-fect preservice teachers’ intellectual and professional development and nurturetheir understanding of linguistic and cultural diversity in schools today. One ofthe primary objectives of this course was to provide an opportunity for partic-ipants to engage in the necessary interrogation of their own language identityand how it affects their relationship to those who may be culturally or linguis-tically different. Accordingly, the research questions guiding this study wereframed to explore preservice teachers’ understanding of the issues surroundinglanguage and ethnicity in the United States and how this understanding shapestheir own constructions of self. The study was ethnographic in nature becauseI was a full participant in the course, attending all class meetings, reading as-signed articles and texts, viewing films and videos on reserve at the universitylibrary and actively engaging in class lectures and discussions. My field notesrepresent a mix of traditional class notes, descriptions of class activities andanalytical memos. I also collected data from multiple sources over the course ofthe semester, including data from interviews, written assignments, interviewsand online web discussions.

Working with the course instructor, I identified students in the course whowere teacher education majors. By auditing the course, I was fully immersedin the course and this provided a basis for my intimate involvement with theparticipants. Jennifer and Kelly,1 both White, middle-class females who identi-fied as monolingual, native English speakers, agreed to participate in the study.Jennifer was a junior secondary education and English major in the teachereducation programme. Jennifer planned to teach in an urban school with histor-ically underserved children even though her background is suburban, middleclass. While Jennifer took Family, Schools, and Society, a course offered in theteacher education programme, she felt the course did not adequately cover di-versity issues. She also noted the irony in the lack of a language requirementin the school of education in comparison to the other schools in the university.Though Jennifer elected to take the language and ethnicity course to fulfil aprogramme requirement for her secondary English education major, she did ex-press a need to learn more about languages in order to be prepared for teachingin an urban setting. Jennifer anticipated that the course on language and ethnic-ity would better prepare her for classroom experiences with English languagelearners (interview, April 7, 2005).

Kelly was a graduating senior who majored in human development, with afocus in science in the teacher education programme. When she first entered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

260 Language and Education

college, she had a career interest in becoming a teacher. However, during themiddle of her academic career, she decided that she did not want to becomea teacher for numerous reasons, the main reasons being the low societal valueplaced on teaching as a profession and the low monetary compensation. Upongraduation, Kelly planned to intern in a children’s hospital and eventually enterinto medical school with aspirations of becoming a pediatrician. Though herintentions were no longer to become a teacher, I decided to include Kelly inthe study because she did complete all of the teacher education programmerequirements. Kelly stated that though she, like Jennifer, also took the courseFamily, Schools, and Society, she wanted to take something ‘sort of outside thebox, something different’ (interview, March 31, 2005). While one of the aims ofthe teacher education course was to discuss the challenges of teaching peoplefrom different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, Kelly felt she did notknow much about the topic of language and ethnicity. She felt that the topic wasnever really covered in depth in any of her previous classes, so she wanted totake a course that would more explicitly explore issues of difference and theirrelevance to working with children.

The first few assigned readings for the class were a selection of language andcultural autobiographies by contemporary writers from varying backgrounds,including Amy Tan, George Steiner, Keith Gilyard, Leah Cohen, Simon Ortizand Richard Rodriguez. The purpose of these readings was to provide us witha starting point for discussing how language and ethnicity intersect by usingautobiographical evidence from these six contemporary writers. To assist us ina critical reading of these texts, the instructor posed questions, such as ‘whatlanguages do each of these writers know’, ‘how did they learn them’, and ‘whatdoes each language represent in the personal identity of each writer and inthe social world in which he or she lives’. We were encouraged to use thesequestions as a guide for the discussions in class as well as in preparation of thewriting of our own language and ethnicity autobiographies, the first writingassignment for the course. For this first assignment, we were asked to writea narrative which reflects how language and ethnicity have intersected in ourlives. I asked Jennifer and Kelly to submit their language autobiographies forarchival data.

From early observations in class discussions and the reading of the preserviceteachers’ language autobiography assignments, I realised that while this classwas predominantly filled with students who identified as White, monolingual,standard English users, what was most telling was that these students did notenter the class with a critical awareness of themselves as cultural or linguisticbeings. I learned from the instructor that students often expressed difficultywith the autobiography assignment and an inability to share anything distinc-tive about their cultural and linguistic heritage. Further, many of the studentsapproached our exploration of sociolinguistic case studies of Ozark-ApplachianEnglish, African American language, Hiberno English and endangered nativelanguages from the standpoint of ‘cultural tourists’ (Lewis et al., 2001), posi-tioning themselves as temporary visitors to ‘foreign’ languages, cultures andexperiences. As such, I also conducted individual semi-structured interviews(see interview protocol in Appendix A) with Jennifer and Kelly to learn moreabout their self-awareness of their cultural and linguistic background, to explore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Beyond Sociolinguistics 261

the connections they were making between their participation in the languageand ethnicity course and their overall participation in teacher education and toexplore how they felt their new understandings about linguistic diversity wouldimpact their future practice as teachers.

After initial stages of open-coding to generate dominant themes, I used dis-course analysis (see Gee, 1999, 2005) to systematically consider how the themesof cultural and linguistic affiliation (and non-affiliation) and standard languageideologies persisted across interview and narrative data to illuminate Jenniferand Kelly’s burgeoning awareness of their cultural and linguistic selves in thecontext of the sociolinguistics course. In the following sections, I share find-ings from this discourse analysis of the cultural and linguistic identity work ofJennifer and Kelly.

‘I’m a Mutt’Several research studies (e.g. Allen & Hermann-Wilmarth, 2004; Florio-Ruane,

2001; Rosaen, 2003; Trainor, 2002; Willis, 2003) document how when asked, ‘Whatis your culture?’, White preservice teachers respond that they do not have a cul-ture. Many White, middle-class preservice teachers assume that they do nothave a particular language, culture or history that is remarkable or particu-larly worth sharing (Rosaen, 2003). This was evidenced during my interviewwith Kelly when in one phrase she defined her country of origin by saying,‘I’m a mutt’ (interview, March 31, 2005). She characterised her own culturaland linguistic background as being a myriad of ethnicities and languages. Onher father’s side, her family emigrated from Czechoslovakia but immediatelyassimilated, erasing all remnants of their Czechoslovakian cultural identity, inorder to become Americanised and acquire social and economic success. In con-trast to her father, Kelly’s mother’s family came from poverty, having lived ina rural area of southern New York. She was able to identify with the coursematerial on Ozark-Appalachian English because her mother and her mother’sfamily spoke a dialect that stereotyped them as ‘hillbillies’ (interview, March 31,2005). Kelly made many assertions about the history of division and tensionbetween the two sides of her family, division predicated by class differences.In her autobiography, she described a family incident where this tension wasexhibited:

My mom had made tuna casserole – not a particularly sophisticated dish,but it was definitely tasty. My grandmother made some comment aboutthe “southern tier rural cookin” in her best hillbilly-dialect. I rememberat the time, as a twelve year old, I thought that phrase was one of thenastiest things that I had ever heard, though I did not know why. Thinkingabout that moment now, I am struck by the way my grandma degradedmy mother in our home. What made it such a slap in the face was thereference to where she grew up, along with the mocking dialect that wasspoken there. In essence, my grandma was saying “You are less than mebecause of how you speak, how you cook, and where you are from”.(archival data, March 31, 2005)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

262 Language and Education

As a result of these tensions, Kelly did not have a strong sense of her culturaland linguistic background. Further, she did not feel that her cultural backgroundwas important. She shared with me in an interview:

Kelly: I feel like my background’s so obscure. It’s kind of sad almost that Idon’t really have anything to identify with, umm, and I wanna saythat I have, like, the Rochester accent, but that sounds so lame. (welaugh) Do you know what I mean?

Author: I don’t know, how do people from Rochester talk?Kelly: Like the nasal, rocks and socks (she demonstrates). But, that’s not

very interesting.Author: That’s interesting that you say that. Umm, I don’t know, do we deem

other languages as more colorful, more vibrant?Kelly: Exactly.Author: So, how important is your cultural background to you?Kelly: It’s not. Sadly . . . (she laughs). It really isn’t.Author: So, when you think of your identity, how do you identify yourself?Kelly: Well, I mean, there’s nothing about me . . . like, I don’t have dark skin

and I don’t have, you know, there’s nothing about me that people canlook at me and be like, Oh, you’re this or you’re that. So, I don’t feelforced to identify with anything. And since my families come fromso many different places and none of them were especially proudof their background, um, I don’t really feel any ties to anything.(interview, March 31, 2005)

When asked to offer one defining characteristic of her culture, Kelly’s firstresponse was that it was ‘obscure’, perpetuating the idea that the dominantsocial group has no culture. Further, identifying with the use of a Rochesteraccent seemed ‘lame’ and not having ‘dark skin’ meant that she was ‘unmarked’or ‘invisible’ (McIntosh, 1989). Due to the lack of a common cultural, linguisticand class experience among her father and mother’s respective families, she didnot feel forced to identify with anything. The notion of being a ‘mutt’ stifledany tendency Kelly may have had to express an allegiance to any one language,culture or history. Florio-Ruane (2001) explains that:

Lack of cultural understanding reinforces Euro-American teachers’ senseof “us” as normal (mainstream, White, or colorless) and “them” as (abnor-mal minority, of color, non-native speaking). Yet implicitly, the unmarkedform is defined in its relationship to the marked form. To be “not anything”is to deny that we are enmeshed in systems in which oppositions are usedto define self and other. (pp. 24–25)

Without seeing, hearing and experiencing their own cultural and linguis-tic heritage, White preservice teachers remain in danger of not understandingtheir own positions of White privilege, reinforcing boundaries that keep their‘marked’ and ‘non-native speaking’ students from full participation in society(Delpit, 1995; McIntosh, 1989). Nieto (2000) writes that ‘although everyone has aculture, many times members of the culturally dominant group of a society maynot even think of themselves as cultural beings. For them, culture is something

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Beyond Sociolinguistics 263

that other people have, especially people who differ from the mainstream inrace or ethnicity’ (p. 140). Kelly’s participation in this course placed the mirrorin front of her. With the autobiography assignment, she began to self-reflectand think about how her family’s history impacted her current understand-ings of being a cultural and linguistic being. She ended her autobiography withthe affirmation: ‘I discovered my language has helped me discover who I am’(archival data, March 31, 2005). However, she still positioned herself in contrastto individuals who are racially and linguistically ‘marked’ – physically andlinguistically (Waters, 1996).

‘I Don’t Have an Accent Really’While Jennifer began her language autobiography with the statement, ‘my

linguistic and ethnic background may not be as interesting or captivating asother members on class’ (archival data, April 7, 2005), she crafted a personalnarrative that demonstrated her strong sense of allegiance with Irish Catholicculture and traditions:

My mother’s family came from Ireland to Boston in the early 1900s. Myfather’s family came from England at about the time of the Mayflowerand settled in Boston as well. The Smith/Chases moved to southeast ofBoston into the Avon/Brockton area of Massachusetts around the time of1920s, and my great grandfather started a sheet metal business. There mygrandparents and eventually my father were born. (archival data, April 7,2005)

She felt proud to be a part of her family and identified strongly with beingIrish American. In an interview, she talked a lot about the importance of familyand belonging to a community:

I love that I’m from Ireland. It’s funny that I don’t even think about mydad’s side of the family. My dad’s side is small. It’s boring compared tomy mom’s culture. I think that’s like an Irish thing too – they’re reallyloud and fun. They all like to drink, which I know is like a stereotype, butwhenever we get together, it’s always a crazy party even if it’s just likewatching a game or something. I like that I have that – the closeness of thefamily. (interview, April 7, 2005)

Although Jennifer expressed Irish Catholic pride, she drew a distinction be-tween herself and other members of her family. In her autobiography, Jennifernoted differences based on class, educational background and upbringing be-tween her immediate family and her extended family:

My mother’s side of the family has lived in South Boston since their arrivalin Massachusetts. When she was six, she moved to Milton, MA with hersix other siblings and grew up there. They all have very heavy Bostonaccents, as do their sons and daughters (my cousins) who grew up inMilton as well. . . I grew up on the south shore of Massachusetts with mytwo siblings, and I do not have an accent at all. It is funny to me becauseMilton is 20 minutes away from Norwell and yet we speak so differently.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

264 Language and Education

None of them (I have 19 cousins who live in Milton) pronounce their “r”s.My aunts and uncles joke that my mother has lost a lot of her accenthaving lived in Norwell for over twenty years. She is still very connectedto her Irish heritage and background in South Boston, but my mom haslost much of the harsh accent she grew up with . . . Norwell is an upper-class neighborhood, and my siblings and I were raised to speak clearly,properly, and grammatically correct. My parents, particularly my mother,placed a large emphasis on speech. Even today she still corrects me, muchto my displeasure and annoyance. (archival data, April 7, 2005)

She described her immediate family as a traditional, suburban family, withhigh levels of educational achievement and professional success. Additionally,she articulated that she and her immediate family used a more standard varietyof English. Jennifer attributed her ‘isolation’ from her more culturally and lin-guistically Irish American family members to her level of education and beingraised in a more affluent suburban community. Whereas, her extended familymembers, who grew up closer to the city, with low levels of academic attain-ment, have strong, ‘loud’, ‘harsh’ accents. In her family history, there existed anunderlying ideology that one needed to appropriate the norms of an Americanidentity in order to succeed in this society (Nieto, 1998), which in this instance,meant using a standard form of English and being highly educated.

Jennifer was implicated by her language and ethnicity group’s status of ‘op-tional ethnicities’ (Waters, 1996) – the decision to claim or not claim ethnicaffiliation at their convenience. She had the option to make transparent definingcharacteristics of her cultural and linguistic identity. Waters defines the statusof ‘optional ethnicities’ as a symbolic ethnicity, that is, ‘ethnicity that is indi-vidualistic in nature and without real social cost for the individual’ (p. 643). Anexample of this is when Irish Americans, like Jennifer, identify as Irish on specialoccasions or holidays, such as St. Patrick’s Day. Waters argues that ‘the optionof being able to not claim any ethnic identity exists for Whites of Europeanbackground in the United States because they are the majority group’ (p. 643),specifically in terms of holding political and social power. In other words, WhiteAmericans do not have to admit to being ethnic unless they choose to. When Iasked Jennifer to share one thing about her culture and language, she responded:

I think that the language that you’re brought up with is not necessarilyindicative of the culture that you’re in. Because I don’t have an accent really,but I associate with the Irish American culture. I love, like St. Patrick’s Dayis a huge deal. My grandmother’s so into her culture. My family’s sointo their culture. They are more closely related to the Irish Americanpopulation in Boston. I guess I’m a little less Irish pride than they are.(interview, April 7, 2005)

While she enjoyed the St. Patrick’s Day traditions, Jennifer did not want tobe affiliated with the negative stereotypes or attitudes towards Irish Americanculture – loud, harsh accent, alcoholism, uneducated, working class, for exam-ple. Jennifer was able to choose which parts of ‘being Irish’ she wanted to claim.Waters (1996) asserts that there is a difference between an individualistic, sym-bolic ethnicity and a socially enforced and imposed racial identity. Individuals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Beyond Sociolinguistics 265

who are racially and linguistically ‘marked’ – physically and linguistically – byidentities ascribed lower status within the larger society do not have the ‘op-tion’ to reveal or not reveal such identities. This difference, again, perpetuatesthe mismatch that exists between teachers like Jennifer and their students whoare racially and linguistically ‘marked’.

‘Not Just Bad English’In the language and ethnicity course, we were provided with a strong lin-

guistic foundation to discuss the issues surrounding language and ethnicity inthe United States, especially the debates around the use of English varieties.The course deconstructed mainstream ideologies about language, namely thedefinition of language as simply the way that a person talks, and it provideda basis for viewing language as an essential boundary marker of ethnicity. Thefirst few classes debunked a definition of ethnicity as ‘the cultural ties a personhas to the part of the world that his or her parents or grandparents came from’(field notes, March 31, 2005) to reconsider ethnicity as an amalgam of manyfactors, including but not limited to ancestral origin, social class, regional affil-iation, residence, race, religion, education, gender, occupation and so on. Thecourse instructor revealed underlying assumptions that influenced the goals ofthe course: (1) a standard language is a dialect with an army, navy and govern-ment behind it,2 and (2) in some societies, ethnicity is mutable, semi-electiveand culturally based.

Both Kelly and Jennifer entered the class with preexisting language ideolo-gies – subconscious, deeply rooted set of beliefs about the way language is andis supposed to be (Lippi-Green, 2004). In her language autobiography, Jennifershared a story about her experience working with Bulgarian exchange studentsin a summer work programme. She described how she had become, in a sense,‘the American English expert’ (interview, April 7, 2005) for these students whowere learning about American culture and standard English as non-native tothe norm:

I would be often just as confused, and this is my language! Working withthese Bulgarians every day, I came to understand just how hard the Englishlanguage is to master. Yet they were so set on becoming fluent speakers. Iwas expected to correct them on mispronounced words, which was some-times an annoyance and bother. However I felt that I needed to teach themas much as I could. It is during that summer in Nantucket that I realized justhow lucky I am to be a native speaker of English. These college students,and students around the world who are my age, are working tirelesslyto learn the English language, the language with just as many exceptionsto the rules as there are rules themselves. I have certainly become moretolerant of foreigners who are learning to speak English because I knowhow hard it was, and still is, for my five Bulgarian friends. (archival data,March 31, 2005)

The Bulgarian students internalised the standard language ideology that tobe ‘American’ means using one language and accepting the dominant cul-ture’s norms and values, and Jennifer was positioned as their authority on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

266 Language and Education

the dominant culture and language use. Jennifer also internalised and acceptedthis standard language ideology, viewing her relationship with her Bulgarianco-workers as necessary for their participation in this new culture. Further,Jennifer’s assertion that ‘this is my language’ reified a ‘me against them’ di-chotomous relationship between her and ‘foreigners’. The course challengedsuch constructions and provided a space for students like Jennifer to begin tounpack deep-seated beliefs and understandings about language and ethnicity.In an interview, Jennifer demonstrated that she was beginning to think abouthow her beliefs and attitudes towards linguistic variation, if left unquestioned,might carry negative consequences for her future students:

Jennifer: I’m like the White teacher who will say, “You spoke that wordwrong, I would use it this way”. Where, the student might say, “Inmy culture, I speak it this way, and it’s appropriate for me”. So, Ithink I’ll need to think about that, especially when assessing mystudents. (interview, April 7, 2005)

Both Kelly and Jennifer expressed how their participation in the course taughtthem that dialects and language varieties are rule-governed, complex languagesystems.

Kelly: I never really appreciated different dialects or anything like that. Thatthey were so, umm, rule-governed and you know, you always kindof assume that people that talk like hillbillies or whatever are like lesssophisticated. And obviously, that’s a stereotype. I mean, I know that’snot true because I’m educated. But, I never really understood that, howlike, deep the language . . . the dialects are. (interview, March 31, 2005)

This course introduced Kelly and Jennifer to the linguistic study of languagevariation and the relationship to culture and ethnicity. The course assignmentsasked them to identify specific linguistic structures, rules and sound propertiesof English language varieties, reinforcing the notion of lesser valued dialects andlanguage varieties, such as African American language and Ozark-AppalachianEnglish as complex systems and ‘not just bad English’. As a result, the processof systematically unpacking standard language ideologies was initiated.

Moving Beyond Sociolinguistics towards Critical LanguageAwareness

Standard language and colour-blind ideologies do persist within teacher edu-cation, and a sociolinguistic approach to teaching and learning about languagediversity can begin to unpack these deeply ingrained social attitudes towardslanguage dominance and inferiority. The work of unpacking dominant ideolo-gies about language and ethnicity is challenging; as teacher educators who workwith students like Jennifer and Kelly, we must anticipate the resistance that stu-dents will impose when being asked to shift existing epistemologies and to beexplicit about the ways in which they view themselves culturally, racially, lin-guistically and so on. This language and ethnicity course initiated that process

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Beyond Sociolinguistics 267

for Jennifer and Kelly – dominant ideologies were revealed, but they were notunpacked or interrogated. While I observed that both Kelly and Jennifer learnedthat decisions about language superiority are arbitrarily determined and sociallyconstructed (Wolfram, 2004; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2006), learning that non-standard language varieties are rule-governed with linguistic structures did notrequire them to interrogate issues of language, identity and power. Criticallanguage theorists, such as Alim (2005) and Lippi-Green (2004), argue that asociolinguistic perspective does not offer a critical view of the role of languagein society. In this way, a sociolinguistic understanding of linguistic diversity canpotentially harm linguistically profiled and marginalised individuals because itonly discusses this stigmatisation in terms of individual prejudice and fails tointerrogate issues of language and power. Since teachers are often positioned asprivileged authorities on language and American culture (Godley et al., 2006),engaging in an ongoing interrogation of dominant ideologies and the waysin which they are reinforced within the context of teaching and learning isnecessary.

I am in no way arguing that courses like this sociolinguistics course, coursesthat affirm diverse ways of speaking and being and that prepare teachers toapproach cultural and linguistic diversity from a sociolinguistic perspective,are not important. In fact, they are urgently needed. The language and ethnicityclass was not just a course in linguistics. As I mentioned above, when I auditedthis language and ethnicity course, one of my first questions was why sucha course was not a core requirement in our teacher education programme.Teaching teachers about sociolinguistic diversity is essential. However, simplyadding such a course to the curriculum is not a finite solution to issues thatsurface as a result of the cultural and linguistic mismatch between teachers andstudents.

A critical language awareness approach can engage teachers in the process ofconsciousness-raising, that is, the process of actively becoming aware of one’sown position in the world and what to do about it (Alim, 2005). The aboveexamples make clear the need to encourage the cultural and linguistic identitywork of a predominantly homogeneous preservice teacher population in prepa-ration for teaching in a linguistically and culturally diverse society. Both Kellyand Jennifer identified themselves as Americans who speak standard English,articulating an essentialist white, monolingual identity, an identity positionedopposite the culturally and linguistically diverse students they will serve. Kellyand Jennifer wanted to become teachers in order to help others, to give backto the community, to make a difference. Their own personal goals were in linewith prevailing mantras in teacher education, such as ‘teaching for social justice’and ‘embracing diversity’. However, from my work with Kelly and Jennifer, itis more evident to me that the agenda for future educational research shouldinclude an assessment of how model teacher education programmes perpetu-ate ethos of linguistic and cultural diversity and inclusion. It is imperative thatteacher education programmes shift from an obscure definition of what it meansto teach for social justice or to teach in a linguistically and culturally diverseclassroom to explicit instruction in the linguistic, social and political domainsof language and ethnicity in the United States. By encouraging and challengingpreservice teachers to interrogate their preconceived notions about language

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

268 Language and Education

and ethnicity, teacher educators can offer preservice teachers with a concreteknowledge base for becoming a culturally competent teacher.

Teacher education grounded in sociolinguistic research and principles canimpact teachers’ attitudes and practices towards linguistic diversity and all stu-dents benefit from teachers who are prepared to approach student languagefrom a sociolinguistic perspective. However, I warn against teacher educationinitiatives that continue to locate the issue of cultural and linguistic differencesoutside of the realm of experience for White, monolingual preservice teachers.While it is imperative that all teachers are prepared to use culturally and lin-guistically responsive pedagogies to effectively teach in today’s classroom, thispreparation should not absolve teachers from critically interrogating and re-flecting on their own cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

As teacher education programmes adopt principles of teaching for social jus-tice and teaching as a moral act, it is imperative that such programmes commitspace for open discussion and exploration of language and ethnicity and inter-weave this dialogue throughout teacher education curricula. By examining theexperiences of Kelly and Jennifer in the language and ethnicity course, my goalwas to make a case to support explicit instruction in language and cultural stud-ies in teacher education programmes. However, I believe that this instructionmust begin by locating issues of multiculturalism and multilingualism withinthe experiences of white, monolingual preservice teachers and not outside them.As teacher educators, we must ‘push back’ when teachers resist, even in sub-tle ways, moving beyond an identification of self as ‘nothing’, ‘insignificant’or ‘obscure’. How might the ‘Coming to America’ scenario that I began withbe different if teacher education efforts encouraged the teacher to critically re-flect on and interrogate her own participation in this world as a cultural andlinguistic being and how her identity impacts the ways in which she interactswith her students and their histories? I am hopeful that teacher education thatengages a critical approach to understanding language and ethnicity can en-courage teachers to think about and reflect on their own cultural and linguisticlocation and to challenge standard language and colour-blind ideologies. In thisway, teaching and learning in culturally and linguistically diverse classroomscan be transformed.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Marcelle Haddix, 42 Woodlawn

Street no. 3, Jamaica Plain, MA, USA ([email protected]).

Notes1. All names are pseudonyms.2. This concept is long part of oral tradition among sociolinguists. However, Yiddish

linguist Max Weinreich is often credited with its origination (Wardhaugh, 2002).

ReferencesAlim, H.S. (2005) Critical language awareness in the United States: Revisiting issues and

revising pedagogies in a resegregated society. Educational Researcher 34 (7), 24–31.Allen, J. and Hermann-Wilmarth, J. (2004) Cultural construction zones. Journal of Teacher

Education 55 (3), 214–226.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Beyond Sociolinguistics 269

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995) Uncertain allies: Understanding the boundaries of race andteaching. Harvard Educational Review 65 (4), 541–570.

Cochran-Smith, M., Davis, D. and Fries, K. (2003) Multicultural teacher education re-search, policy, and practice. In J.A. Banks (ed.) The Handbook of Research on MulticulturalEducation (2nd edn). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, B.E. (2005) New racism, reformed teacher education, and the same ole’ oppression.Educational Studies 38 (3), 263–274.

Delpit, L. (1995) Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: NewPress.

Florio-Ruane, S. (2001) Teacher Education and the Cultural Imagination. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Freire, P. (1982) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.Gee, J.P. (2005) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (2nd edn).

New York: Routledge.Gilmore, P. (1991) ‘Gimme room’: School resistance, attitude, and access to literacy. In

C. Mitchell and K. Weiler (eds) Rewriting Literacy: Culture and the Discourse of Other(pp. 57–73). New York: Bergin and Garvey.

Godley, A.J., Sweetland, J., Wheeler, R.S., Minnici, A. and Carpenter, B.D. (2006) Preparingteachers for dialectally diverse classrooms. Educational Researcher 35 (8), 30–37.

Gomez, M.L. (1996) Prospective teachers’ perspectives on teaching ‘other people’s chil-dren’. In K.M. Zeichner, S. Melnick and M.L. Gomez (eds) Currents of Reform in Preser-vice Teacher Education (pp. 109–132). New York: Teachers College Press.

Gutierrez, K.D. and Orellana, M.F. (2006) The ‘problem’ of English learners: Constructinggenres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English 40 (4), 502–507.

Heath, S.B. (1983) Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1996) Silences as weapons: Challenges of a Black professor teachingWhite students. Theory into Practice 35 (2), 79–85.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000) Fighting for our lives: Preparing teachers to teach AfricanAmerican students. Journal of Teacher Education 51 (3), 206–214.

Lewis, C., Ketter, J. and Fabos, B. (2001) Reading race in a rural context. Qualitative Studiesin Education 13 (1), 317–350.

Lippi-Green, R. (2004) Language ideology and language prejudice. In E. Finegan and J.R.Rickford (eds) Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 289–304).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McIntosh, P. (1989) White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom10–12.

Michaels, S. (1981) ‘Sharing time’: Children’s narrative styles and differential access toliteracy. Language in Society 10, 423–442.

Montecinos, C. (2004) Paradoxes in multicultural teacher education research: Students ofcolor positioned as objects while ignored as subjects. International Journal of QualitativeStudies in Education 17 (2), 167–181.

Nieto, S. (1998) Cultural difference and educational change in a sociopolitical context. InA. Hargreaves, M. Fullan, A. Lieberman and D. Hopkins (eds) International Handbookof Educational Change, Part One (Vol. 5, pp. 418–439). Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Nieto, S. (2000) Culture, identity, and learning. Affirming Diversity (Ch. 5, pp. 138–188).New York: Longman.

Richardson, T. and Villenas, S. (2000) ‘Other’ encounters: Dances with whiteness inmulticultural education. Educational Theory 50 (2), 255–273.

Rosaen, C.L. (2003) Preparing teachers for diverse classrooms: Creating public and pri-vate spaces to explore culture through poetry writing. TC Record 106 (8), 1437–1485.

Sleeter, C.E. (2001a) Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher prepa-ration for historically underserved children. Review of Research in Education 25 (1),209–250.

Sleeter, C.E. (2001b) Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and theoverwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education 52 (2), 94–106.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

270 Language and Education

Tatum, B. (1992) Talking about race, learning about racism: The applications of racialidentity development theory. Harvard Educational Review 62 (1), 1–24.

Trainor, J.S. (2002) Critical pedagogy’s “other”: Constructions of whiteness in educationfor social change. College Composition and Communication 53 (4), 631–650.

Wardhaugh, R. (2002) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (4th edn). Malden, MA: BlackwellPublishers.

Waters, M.C. (1996) Optional ethnicities: For whites only? In S. Pedraza and R. Rumbaut(eds) Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America (1st edn, pp. 444–454). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press.

Willis, A.I. (2003) Parallax: Addressing race in preservice literacy education. In S. Greeneand D. Abt-Perkins (eds) Making Race Visible: Literacy Research for Cultural Understanding(pp. 51–70). New York: Teachers College Press.

Wolfram, W. (2004) Social varieties of English. In E. Finegan and J.R. Rickford (eds)Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 58–75). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Wolfram, W. and Schilling-Estes, N. (2006) American English: Dialects and Variation (2ndedn). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Zeichner, K.M. (1996) Educating teachers for cultural diversity. In K. M. Zeichner,S. Melnick and M. L. Gomez (eds), Currents of Reform in Preservice Teacher Education(pp. 133–175). New York: Teachers College Press.

Zumwalt, K. and Craig, E. (2005) Teachers’ characteristics: Research on the demographicprofile. In M. Cochran-Smith and K.M. Zeichner (eds) Studying Teacher Education: TheReport of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 111–156). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Appendix A

Interview protocol(1) What factors informed your decision to take the course SL XXX?(2) What did you know about language and ethnicity before enrolling in this

course?(3) Have your ideas or opinions about language and ethnicity changed during

your participation in this course?(4) What is your cultural and language background?(5) If you could tell people one thing about your culture and language, what

would it be?(6) How important is your cultural background to you?(7) Does your cultural and language background influence you as a student or

future teacher? How?(8) Do you see a logical connection between the topics studied in SL XXX and

your future work as a teacher?Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

42 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014