Dialects in the Classroom

One example of how dialect may come into play is found in a series of studies1  from the 1980s and 1990s conducted by John Barnitz in New Orleans. These studies demonstrated how correcting students on their failure to pronounce the plural -s while reading aloud results in frustration on the part of the student – they know that like many other letters in English orthography (consider the B in climb or the S in island), that /s/ is not pronounced in their home dialect. Comprehension tests confirmed that students have seen and understood the grammatical function of the plural -s, even though they did not pronounce it. Repeated correction of what in their home dialect represents anon-error resulted in confusion and eventually disillusionment and disengagement on the part of the students.

Barnitz was a supporter of an approach, pioneered by Frank Smith and especially Ken Goodman2, called Whole Language, which placed emphasis on comprehension over decoding. This approach, counterintuitive to begin with, has been disproven by volumes of research. However, the importance of respecting dialectal variation in the classroom, which Whole Language advocates firmly supported, has been repeatedly confirmed,3 and viewed through this lens, the example provided above of -s demonstrates a feature that can be used in phonics instruction by a teacher with linguistic awareness and understanding of the distinction between Playground English (the dialect students speak at home, amongst friends, and in informal contexts) and Classroom English (the dialect students are expected to speak – and write/read in! – in the classroom). We chose these terms instead of ‘home language’ and ‘school language’, terminology which teachers may be more familiar with, for three reasons: (1) students may have a language other than English at home, in addition to an informal dialect they speak outside the classroom, which is outside the scope of this guide and generally well handled by ESOL teacher training; (2) all students have shifts in their speech that they make in informal contexts – even students who speak relatively standardized dialects of English – and we want to acknowledge and normalize style shifts and code switches as linguistic moves that all students make; and (3) we want to be clear that students need not abandon their most comfortable form of speaking altogether at school – their informal speech is a key form of self expression which of course carries social value amongst their peers; rather, we want teachers to empower the students to learn that they are able to communicate in a number of different ways, in different contexts, according to their needs and the norms of those interactions. Lastly, Playground English as a phrase implies that language – especially language without the strict bounds of standardization – can be a fun and creative outlet for students, acknowledging that no matter how they speak in the classroom, all students will employ slang or playful catchphrases over time (see Module 2), and showing them that we see and honor how these forms of language hold value to them. 

The second part of the simple view of reading, comprehension, may also be influenced by language variation. Comprehension may be compromised when a student’s native dialect does not match academic language. Students may misunderstand texts, and (far more likely) teachers may

misinterpret a student’s use of their native dialect in writing. Key to success in reading instruction is understanding that dialectal differences may be at the root of student struggles, and that some

students may need explicit instruction about the differences between their informal dialect (Playground English) and formal, academic ways of speaking (Classroom English).