Running head: LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

Linguistic Inclusivity and Diversity Katie Gast, Katie Pinney, Sauntia Griffin, and Caitlin Cairncross Seattle University

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY Linguistic Inclusivity and Diversity

Our group relied on Pope, Reynolds, and Muellers (2004) definition of multicultural competence as one of the underlying themes for our workshop on language diversity and inclusivity. Pope et al. (2004) define multicultural competence as the awareness, knowledge, and skills needed to work with others who are culturally different from self in meaningful, relevant, and productive ways which are essential for working with students that are culturally different from self in meaningful, relevant, and productive ways (p. 13). Because increased multicultural competence was one of the main goals of our workshop, we felt that it was important to incorporate into our project, and found the Pope et al. definition most suitable. Throughout our research, we found reoccurring themes that led us to focus on four areas: language brokering, English language learners (ELL), code switching, and dialect. From these subtopics we found four accompanying best practices in student affairs. First, context and environment play a role in how language is expressed, so it is essential to understand students cultural backgrounds, and take into account the context in which language is used. Second, the attitudes and perceptions of teachers and administrators can have an effect on students; if there is a positive attitude towards linguistic diversity, for example, students are more likely to have confidence and be successful. Third, recognizing the responsibility that linguistically diverse students (such as language brokers) may assume, and the stress they often endure, is important for identifying the assets that these communities possess. Fourth, recognizing that language is intrinsically tied to identity development is crucial for supporting diverse students, particularly in the classroom. Since each of the focus areas are tied strongly to culture, we decided to frame our workshop using Yossos model of community cultural wealth (CCW), which we defined as the knowledge, skills, abilities, and networks that are used by communities of color to

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

overcome/survive oppression. These strengths must be acknowledged and seen through an assetbased lens in schools to provide the best support for students and to move towards a more just society (Yosso, 2005). As a result of our research, as well as our understanding of student development theory, we felt that it was important to emphasize that language is embedded in identity and culture, and that the assets of linguistically diverse communities need to be recognized. For this reason, CCW played a major role in our workshop. Lesson Plan We began our workshop by introducing ourselves and explaining the subject and purpose of the presentation, in order to give the participants a little bit of context. Due to the fact that we did not have enough time for a formal icebreaker activity, we asked the attendees to go around and introduce themselves, to gain some sense of community. Immediately after the introductions we gave an outline of the entire workshop, followed by four learning outcomes: 1. Students will be able to name linguistic variations and responsibilities in order to meet diverse needs in the classroom 2. Students will have increased awareness of how linguistic variations affect children in a school setting 3. Students will recognize that linguistic diversity is an asset and brings richness into the classroom 4. Students will identify ways some students are privileged through language The purpose of the learning outcomes was to give the participants some idea of why they were there, and what we hoped that they gain from the workshop. We specifically designed our learning outcomes to touch upon what we felt were some of the most important foundational themes and theories. While learning outcomes one and two were meant to connect theory to practice, learning outcomes three and four were intended to connect back to student development theory. Both learning outcomes three and four connected to Yossos (2005) theory of CCW. We felt that it

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

was important for the participants to have a basic understanding of CCW, as well as how it relates to linguistic diversity. We wanted them to be able to consider how some communities are linguistically privileged while others are linguistically marginalized, and recognize the ways in which linguistic diversity can actually be considered an asset or cultural capital in its own right. Learning outcome four is also meant to connect to Delgado and Stefancics (2001) critical race theory, because the hierarchical valuation of language is frequently a race-based issue. We wanted participants to analyze why certain forms of language are privileged, and how this can affect communities who are linguistically diverse. To us, this hierarchy of language relates to the tenets of critical race theory, and we wanted this to shine through in our workshop. Following our learning outcomes, we gave a more in depth analysis of the context of our workshop, which was meant to expand upon the learning outcomes, and further emphasize what we wanted the participants to be thinking about during the workshop. This presentation of context included a definition of CCW, as well as a discussion on how language is embedded in identity and culture. Because our workshop was grounded in CCW/cultural capital, as well as the intersection of language and identity, we wanted the participants to have a solid understanding these themes. After elaborating on context, we presented a set of definitions that were based upon the four themes that we had extracted from our topic (English language learners, language brokering, dialect, and code switching). These definitions were meant to demonstrate different types of linguistic diversity, focusing on those that the participants might be exposed to in their work at Bailey Gatzert Elementary. We felt that providing these definitions would make it easier for the participants to understand what we meant by linguistic diversity, and draw connections between their experiences at Bailey Gatzert and the themes that we emphasized during our workshop.

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

After discussing these definitions, we moved on to our activity. In order to showcase the significance of understanding linguistically diverse students strengths and needs, our group decided to utilize an activity called Peanut Butter and Jelly (PB&J). This activity highlights the importance of communication and language, as well as how one can effectively identify and support those with diverse needs. It is highly interactive, and allows for students to engage by doing, watching, thinking, and/or feeling. This was an important factor behind our decision to use the PB&J activity, as we wanted our workshop to touch on the four learning styles outlined by Kolbs (1981) theory of experiential learning. The activity requires a total of four student volunteers. First, the coordinator asked for a single volunteer to be the leader. Once identified, this person was asked to leave the room. Next, we recruited three more volunteers and asked them to take a seat at the front of the room, where three respective places were set with a spoon, knife, plate, napkin, a jar of jelly, a jar of peanut butter, and two slices of bread. They were told that their leader would be tasked with guiding them through the process of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The caveat, however, was that they each had a different need that had to be satisfied before they could proceed with any instruction given by their leader. The three volunteers could ask questions and speak with their leader, but they couldnt expressly say what their need was. Student one was instructed to take everything literally. If the leader said to put the jelly on the bread, for instance, this student was to place the entire jar of jelly on the bread. This

person was to approach the situation as though making a PB&J is a highly complicated process that requires specific and clear instruction. Student number two had to hear each instruction a minimum of two times before he could proceedbasically he needed repetition in order to be successful. He could ask what was that? or can you repeat that? or I dont understand. to prompt the leader, but could not move forward without hearing everything repeated. Student

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

number three required encouragement in order to complete any instructions given. This meant that the leader had to be physically near him, and had to provide encouraging words before he could move forward. This student was allowed to ask things like am I doing this right? or are you proud of me? Each of the three volunteers were handed a small instruction sheet detailing this for their reference throughout the activity (see Appendix A). Once the students understood their roles, we asked the leader to come back into the room, and informed her that her responsibility was to lead each of these students through the task of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. We also informed her that she couldnt do anything for her pupils. With that the activity began, and somehow, amidst the laughter, our leader was able to get all three of her pupils through making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. As she progressed through the experience she was able to identify what each student needed, and began to shift her delivery style to provide the appropriate directions for each. This was profoundly important, and made for good conversation at the completion of the activity. This activity exemplified how one can work to identify the needs of linguistically diverse students. It also showed the participants that such a goal is attainable, even within a short amount of time (it took less than 15 minutes in the activity), and gave them examples of concrete ways they can support linguistic diversity in the classroom. By attending to the needs of each of her pupils, the leader in this scenario helped them achieve success, and thereby modeled a realistic goal for the participants, particularly the Seattle University Youth Initiative (SUYI) students. Another important theoretical consideration for our group in designing this workshop and selecting the PB&J activity was campus climate theory. Although based on college campuses, this theory could be used in multiple educational scenarios to bring to light the impact that environmental contexts such as (a) historical inclusion/exclusion, (b) structural diversity, (c)

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

psychological climate, and (d) behavioral climate, can have on student success (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998). Showing the SUYI mentors how they can attend to the needs of linguistically diverse students could potentially contribute to a positive psychological and behavioral climate for the students at Bailey Gatzert. Therefore, allowing our workshop participants to watch and practice these skills was an important goal for us. After the activity concluded, we had a reflection/discussion period. Our specific discussion questions were: How many of you know how to make a PB&J sandwich? What would be your gut reaction if someone did not know how to make one? In what ways did the person giving instructions have to tailor their directions according to the needs of each sandwich maker? Think about the person who took things literallywhat did you observe? What can you infer about this experience and your experience with the students that you work with? What might it be like for a linguistically diverse person if they are not encouraged? Is their perception of their own abilities affected? In what ways is language diversity an asset?

These discussion questions were designed to aid the participants in (a) making connections between the PB&J activity and various forms of linguistic diversity, (b) practices that can help aid linguistically diverse students, and (c) how language diversity can be an asset. The questions emphasized our ultimate goal, which was to connect linguistic diversity to CCW/cultural capital. The rich discussion that ensued from our prompts demonstrated that participants were indeed able to make these desired connections. An additional function of the reflection/discussion was to target different learning stages (reflective observation and abstract conceptualization) and styles in Kolbs (1981) theory of experiential learning. The last section of our workshop consisted of an assessment in the form of a one-minute paper, as well as a handout. The assessment contained three questions: How you can apply some of the things that weve discussed in this workshop to your work with SUYI? Did you feel that this workshop was helpful?

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY What are some things you are still left wondering?

Students were asked to reflect on these questions and turn in their papers anonymously (see Appendix B). The handout that we distributed contained various ideas for how linguistic diversity can be viewed as an asset (for example, increased cognitive functions), and tips regarding best practices for linguistically diverse students (see Appendix C). This handout was intended to bring home both the theory to practice and CCW pieces, while simultaneously touching upon Kolbs (1981) final stage of learningactive experimentation. We felt that it would be most effective to conclude with this handout to give the participants some examples of how this workshop could directly enhance their work at Bailey Gatzert, and to provide some context for the themes that were discussed throughout the workshop. Conclusion Through our multicultural competency workshop, we were able to utilize and practice the research we acquired regarding linguistic inclusivity, as well as the student development theories we have studied over the quarter. As mentioned above, we concluded the workshop with an one minute paper on the effectiveness of our workshop. One student wrote: It made me think about how I should assess the way I speak and communicate with my menteesIt was cool learning about the power of language and how to better use it. Another student commented on how diverse language can be an asset: in the way that it allows students to bridge two cultures and create more awareness of these difference. The same student also recognized that these differencesbring a lot of stress to students and could possibly create room forbullying. A third student expressed that he or she will take the new understanding I have to working with individuals in specific need-based ways. Not all students need the same things or learn in the same ways. This feedback demonstrated that the participants were indeed able to connect the

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

information in our workshop to the larger themes of CCW, campus climate, and multicultural competence. We were most impressed with how well the students in this group grasped and understood the concepts of cultural capital. During the outstanding discussion toward the end of the workshop, students were able to draw upon specific experiences they have had with students who come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and how they as tutors can improve upon their communication skills to better support these students academic needs. To us, this indicated that our workshop was fairly successful. In addition to reflecting on the feedback from participants, our group also took some time to reflect on our own perceptions of this experience. During this project we encountered many successes that we will be able to draw upon during any future workshops that we facilitate. One of our biggest successes was the PB&J activity, which was the bulk of our workshop. We were really able to connect this activity with our topic of linguistic inclusivity and diversity, which made it an effective demonstrational tool. In addition, the strong discussion questions that we formulated helped to facilitate a very intentional and highly active discussion after the activity concluded. An added benefit was that this activity touched on all of Kolbs (1981) learning styles: accommodator, diverger, assimilator, and converger. Another strength of our workshop is that we had a well thought out back-up plan in case we did not have enough participants, or in case the students did not speak up as much as we would like. This back up plan consisted of additional discussion questions to prompt their engagement, as well as three case studies that could be discussed in small groups (see Appendix D). We felt extremely prepared to switch gears and adjust our workshop to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. Fortunately, we did not need to use our backup plan.

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

10

While we were able to pinpoint specific strengths in our workshop, we also reflected on some of the challenges that we experienced. The first challenge we identified involved our introduction. Our approach for this workshop was to start students off with some information about linguistic diversity, which included linguistic variations, definitions, and Yossos (2005) theory of CCW. Because the first five to seven minutes of the workshop were lecture based, the participants were not initially as energized as we would have liked. Another challenge we faced involved navigating the two audiences that participated in the workshop without the experience of presenting to a smaller audience during the first session. In the first session we did not have a single person in our workshop, which meant that we could not present. While we did not initially view this as a problem, in retrospect, it would have been beneficial to present in the first session in order to modify or adjust our workshop for the second, larger group. In the second session, we had almost double the amount of participants than we were expecting, and the group was a mix of potential graduate students and SUYI students. Tailoring our workshop so that it was inclusive of the graduate students, while still addressing the needs of the SUYI students, proved to be more difficult than we had anticipated. In addition, while we found that both groups contributions were wonderful, at times, we found that the graduate students would dominate the discussion (which was a bit of a challenge for us, since the workshop was prepared specifically for the SUYI students). In reading the oneminute papers, a couple of participants mentioned that they were unsure of what audience our workshop targeted. Looking back, it would have been a good idea to verbally identify the two distinct groups, and acknowledge that each group may have different needs during the workshop. This would have helped us foster a better understanding of the purpose of our workshop, and clarify some of the language that was specific to SUYI. Preparing and facilitating a workshop on linguistic inclusivity and diversity for a group of

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

11

undergraduate students with various levels of multicultural competency was a challenging and rewarding experience. Overall, we felt a sense of satisfaction knowing that students who participated in the workshop gained knowledge of language differences and ways to meet diverse student needs. We learned a great deal about putting theory into practice and found this to be a valuable opportunity.

LINGUISTIC INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY

12

References Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Kolbs theory of experiential learning. In N. J. Evans, D. S. Forney, F. M. Guido, L. D. Patton, & K. A. Renn (Eds.), Student development in college: Theory, research and practice (pp. 212-226). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hurtado, S., Milem, J.F., Clayton-Pederson, A.R., & Allen, W.R. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302. Pope, R.L., Reynolds, A.L., & Mueller, J.A. (2004). Multicultural competence in student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Yosso, T.J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-82.