Godley/Carpenter: I'll Speak In Proper Slang

I'll Speak in Proper Slang: Language Ideologies in a Daily Editing Activity (2007)
This article discusses how explicit grammar instruction is back. Past research has shown that traditional grammar instruction of labeling parts of sentences did not improve writing. Today, Daily Language Practice is a common method of teaching grammar across the US, yet researchers have not studies its effectiveness. DLP is editing sentences for correct use of grammar. Godley and Carpenter decided to conduct study of the language ideologies reflected in Daily Language Practice.
Research was a year long ethnographic study in 3 predominately African American 10th grade English classes conducted by 2 university researchers and the classroom teacher. 31 students participated. There were two observers in the class 3 times a week for the entire school year. They observed, audiotaped and videotaped 133 DLP activities and were physically in the classroom 79 days. Field notes were also taken. Other data such as classroom observations, curricular materials, audiotapes of meetings with the teacher and a researcher, 11 student interviews, and student writing. There was a times writing task at the beginning and end of the year as well as a multiple choice test
Data was analyzed through coding. They coded for content of the language ideologies and sources of language ideologies.
Content such as:

• The nature of language use: accepetable language, form and function
• Dialects of English: acceptable "proper", written standard English, dialects of English appropraite for specific contexts
• Grammar,Language instruction: to prepare for standardized testing, editing written work-traditional grammar, writing as dialogic
  

Sources such as:

• state and district standards
• curricular materials
• activity structure
• teacher talk
• student talk
  

There was a pre and post test at the beginning and end of the year to show if students use of grammar improved.

Results:

• It DID NOT improve.
• Language ideologies in state standards, standardized tests and curricular materials showed language as "monolithic," that there was only one correct answer.
• Language ideologies reflected through the structure of classroom discourse surrounding DLP: IRE made the discussion seem like there was only a correct or incorrect answer.
• Language ideologies in teacher and student talk during DLP implied language learning is not dialogic, students did not have valuable input, and that language form is independent of meaning.

My thoughts:
It was pretty powerful to see how this population of students were so confused by the DLP and did not benefit from this instruction. I did use this sort of instruction in an elementary 3rd grade classroom and I thought it was valuable instruction. But in my classroom, all students spoke Mainstream English, as the article calls it. And it really was a quick 5-8 minute activity. I wonder what data shows of using this model with other populations. I do get the point, that this instruction was definitely NOT a valuable method of instruction in the setting described in the article, and it makes me reflect on what I did years ago when I taught a grade level where this was part of our curriculum and whether or not it was valuable .