Annotated Bibliography

Kinloch, Valerie. “Revisiting the Promise of Student’s Right to Their Own Language:

Pedagogical Strategies.” College Composition and Communication 57.1 (2005): 83-113.

28 March 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/30037899 >.

In Kinloch’s article, the main point she is making is that in order to implement the SRTOL resolution as effectively as possible, teachers need to bring live discussion about it into the classroom. She states that originally, the resolution was meant to provide a basis for teaching, “…how to respond to the variety in [their] students’ dialects.” (85). So personally, Valerie responds by having her class choose the material that they will cover during certain times, and trying to get all the students to trust one another and develop respect for how the others in the class communicate. Kinloch then provides qualitative data of how her students react to discussion topics about language diversity and similar topics, in recorded “classroom vignettes”. She also talks about teaching with an “interpretive attitude”, meaning that everyone in the class is free to interpret the concepts focused on in discussion (like SRTOL), in their own way. This article relates to what I am dealing with in my paper, as it shows exactly how pedagogical change can be brought about to start actually implementing SRTOL. Most of the time, people talk about SRTOL in a theoretical sense, but this article as covers ways to take first steps in implementing it (by changing teacher to student relations).

Horner, Bruce. “Student’s Right, English Only, and Re-Imagining the Politics of Language.”

College English 63.6 (2001): 741-758. 28 March 2009

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1350100 >.

In Horner’s article, the main point he is making, is that the construction of the SRTOL resolution is done in a bit too vague manor, which leaves it unable to address some key issues. For example, the “English Only” resolution passed in California is something that he brings up, because he says that the SRTOL fails to even address such a problem that could come up. He writes that the SRTOL resolution “…treats languages and language users as homogeneous, static, discrete, [and] politically neutral yet tied indelibly to ethnicity.” (743). If this is the case, then the SRTOL does not even succeed in really pointing out the cultures behind the dialects it wants to protect, which is a vital part of getting knowledge about the dialects out there. Furthermore, Horner brings up the problem of how some would argue that depending on how SRTOL is implemented, it could run contrary to its stated goals by cutting down the power of Standard English. This article would be helpful to use as a source in my paper, as it provides a very different type of view to the SRTOL. It shows that its goals and wordings are not exactly clear, and so have led to a large amount of controversy and debate. Furthermore, the interpretation of SRTOL greatly will affect how it changes AAVE in compositional studies.

Bean, Janet, et. al. “Should We Invite Students to Write in Home Languages? Complicating the

Yes/No Debate.” Composition Studies 31.1 (2003): 25-42. 28 March 2009

.

Janet brings up the issue of whether or not students should be allowed to “mix in” some of their home dialect into their writing, whether it is in the drafting stages, or the final product. At the very beginning of the article, Janet brings up a symposium that she and a couple of colleagues attended, where they worked with non-English dominant students at the University of Massachusetts. After working there for a while, Janet says that suddenly her original question of when to use different dialects in writing changed to “…when and under what conditions does it make sense to do so?” (26). She then goes on to list a large amount of “variables” that her group compiled, which provided a basic look at when it is appropriate to allow for the use of a student’s home language. One of the main points drawn here, was that while drafting, sticking to an original language helps the students maintain more of their idea while they write (because they don’t have to think about grammar as much), which allows for a richer final draft. This article would help me in writing my paper, as it provides a list of variables about how home languages should be mixed in. This will allow me to have some background support if I want to mention how AAVE can be added in order to actually enrich a students’ writing.

Balester, Valerie M. “The Problem of Method: Striving to See with Multiple Perspectives.”

College Composition and Communication 52.1 (2000): 129-132. 28 March 2009

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/358547 >.

The main point of this article is not so much to state a way of change or stating how AAVE should be incorporated in pedagogy, as much as it is a teacher telling how she incorporated AAVE into her classes. She mentions that even as a white teacher, she resisted the stigmatization of AAVE, and always taught that, “AAVE features were far broader and richer than dialect features…” (131). Also, she talks about how she also made an effort to teach about the history of the language of AAVE, and make sure that people understood that it could not be shackled with any type of low socioeconomic status. This article is definitely a different type of article than most of the others that I found, as it mainly is just a teacher telling about her experience and beliefs about incorporating AAVE into pedagogy. But it will be very useful nonetheless, as she exemplifies the image of a teacher willing to change the system that is normally centered on Standard English. She is able to dispel myths and promote a richer language that reaches into a different type of compositional work. I can use her as the “model” composition teacher that can teach important values to their students, about AAVE, and about how different dialects can help produce richer pieces of literature.