Search

Purpose: Many studies have found a correlation between overall usage rates of nonmainstream forms and reading scores, but less is known about which dialect differences are most predictive. Here, we consider different methods of characterizing African American English use from existing assessments and examine which methods best predict literacy achievement. Method: Kindergarten and first-grade students who speak African American English received two assessments of dialect use and two assessments of decoding at the beginning and end of the school year. Item-level analyses of the dialect-use assessments were used to compute measures of dialect usage: (a) an overall feature rate measure based on the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test, (b) a subscore analysis of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test based on items that pattern together, (c) an alternative assessment where children repeat and translate sentences, and (d) "repertoire" measures based on a categorical distinction of whether a child used a particular feature of mainstream American English. Results: Models using feature rate measures provided better data--model fit than those with repertoire measures, and baseline performance on a sentence repetition task was a positive predictor of reading score at the end of the school year. For phonological subscores, change from the beginning to end of the school year predicted reading at the end of the school year, whereas baseline scores were most predictive for grammatical subscores. Conclusions: The addition of a sentence imitation task is useful for understanding a child's dialect and anticipating potential areas for support in early literacy. We observed some support for the idea that morphological dialect differences (i.e., irregular verb morphology) have a particularly close tie to later literacy, but future work will be necessary to confirm this finding.

Despite decades of sociolinguistic research, African American Language (AAL) remains stigmatized throughout the United States education system. There have been proposals to counteract this through curricula and/or ideological interventions targeted at teachers that seek to validate AAL while maintaining Dominant American English (DAE) as an educational target. However, such approaches have been criticized for giving limited attention to combating the racism that underlies much linguistic marginalization. We used a mixed‐methods approach to explore the benefits and limitations of a dialect‐shifting curriculum in shaping teachers' language ideologies. Participants (n = 40) were K‐1 teachers in a predominantly Black mid‐Atlantic city. They were participating in an efficacy study of a dialect‐shifting curriculum; schools were randomly assigned to teach the curriculum (intervention condition) or continue with business as usual. Before and after the intervention, teachers completed a survey of their language attitudes, and a subset (n = 16) participated in semi‐structured interviews. On the survey, teachers displayed more favorable attitudes toward language variation at the end of the school year, regardless of condition. The interviews revealed a range of perspectives, revealing a tension between a belief in the utility of DAE for their students and an understanding that many students will wish to use AAL in their communities. The curriculum provided shared vocabulary to discuss this tension and increased some teachers' acceptance of AAL in non‐academic settings, but many did not view dialect variation as relevant to their priorities as K‐1 teachers. These findings clarify the trade‐offs involved in work toward a more (linguistically) inclusive education system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]