PEN 120

Language tracks: Aboriginal English and the classroom

Lee Simpson, Geoff Munns and Sue Clancy

The purpose of this PEN is to encourage teachers of Aboriginal* students to see how Aboriginal English is a pivotal element of their classroom relationships. In focusing not only on the uses of Aboriginal English in the classroom, but also on how those uses are viewed and interpreted, we hope to encourage teachers to reflect on and consider ways that they could adjust their own teaching practices. The suggestion is that such changes might make classrooms places that work for the Aboriginal students educationally, culturally and socially, and assist them to become confident and capable users of Standard Australian English.

*We recognise that Indigenous communities in Australia comprise both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, the focus for the research from which this paper is drawn is on Aboriginal students and communities.

Introduction

Aboriginal English (AE) is the first and ‘home language’ of many Aboriginal people. It is through this language that Aboriginal students learn about central aspects of their lives and their Aboriginality. An important point to note about AE is that it has derived from Aboriginal languages with an English influence, and that in many situations was an imposed language. A most potent example of this occurred when the Government placed Aboriginal people onto reserves and missions, where they were forbidden to speak in their traditional language, and were given no educative process to assist them to learn English. Those who spoke their traditional Aboriginal language were often punished by being removed from their family and expelled from the reserve or mission. AE is easily identifiable to those who use it. It is a common, diverse and unifying language.

A useful introduction to the linguistic features of AE is found in PEN 93: Aboriginal English by Diana Eades, which discusses the diversity of AE and how it differs from Standard Australian English (SAE) in systematic ways, by:

• phonology (accent and pronunciation)
• morpho-syntax (grammar)
• lexico-semantics (words and their meaning)
• pragmatics (the way that language is used in sociocultural contexts).

We do, of course recognise that there is an ongoing debate about whether AE should be considered a dialect or a language. It is important for teachers to have a fundamental understanding of AE as that knowledge will encourage them to recognise and accept that this is a dialect or language that is as linguistically valid and correct as SAE. AE is not ‘bad English’, ‘lazy English’ or ‘uneducated English’ to be corrected and eliminated.

It is worth considering, that within many school contexts, teachers cater for students who come from diverse cultures and speak a first language other than English. Their first language, pronunciation and attempts to use the English language are generally accepted, appreciated and encouraged. They are given classroom experiences that help them practise language and interact in ‘natural and meaningful contexts’ (Gee 1996: 88).

In addition, teachers regularly provide support and develop curricula to assist these students in learning their second language of SAE. However, for Aboriginal children, their home language of AE is often unappreciated, unaccepted, not heard, misinterpreted, discouraged and corrected. This hardly seems fair. There are some helpful resources for those teachers who aim for social justice. These resources will support them in valuing and ratifying the AE used by their students and enable them to reflect on its implications when making decisions about their classroom curriculum. Among these are Supporting Early Language Acquisition (1994), the Aboriginal Literacy Resource Kit (1995) and A Place of Belonging (1996).

What this PEN intends, is to acknowledge the information that such resources are able to deliver, while also drawing attention more closely to how AE is played out in everyday classroom interactions between Aboriginal students and their teachers. This is done through the theoretical underpinnings and presentation and analysis of data generated from the Baiyai Research Project.

The Baiyai research project

Baiyai is Wiradjuri language for ‘meeting place of two Parties’ (see Figure 1). The Wiradjuri people are Aboriginal Australians who have lived and live in areas of southern and western New South Wales. It is a fitting name as the Baiyai research team is made up of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people from a range of backgrounds and experiences.

Researchers observed Aboriginal students in classroom contexts, focusing on interactions that may otherwise pass unnoticed in busy classrooms. These were analysed and interpreted in a way that enabled the research group to construct a picture of classroom exchanges that were causing difficulties for Aboriginal students and their teachers.

Importantly, observations were viewed and interpreted from different cultural perspectives. [See Munns, Simpson, Connelly and Townsend (1999) for a full description of the project’s beginnings, theory and research concepts.]

Figure 1: Baiyai logo

Explanation of the logo

• Dark colour represents Aboriginal people, light colour represents non-Aboriginal people
• The oval in the middle is the meeting place
• The U shaped symbol is for people
• The straight line beside the U is to symbolise man
• The small oval symbol beside the U is to symbolise woman
• The footprints are to symbolise coming to the meeting place

Baiyai, Aboriginal English and classroom literacy relationships

It is the Baiyai image of the traditional Aboriginal meeting place that we are advancing as a metaphor for contemporary classrooms where Aboriginal learners and their teachers come together.

The metaphor is extended in two ways:

• The first is by considering that the tracks leading to the meeting place show people coming from different directions and different worlds;
• Secondly, despite these fundamental differences, there is still the possibility that the meeting place can encourage fruitful relationships where there is communication, understanding and mutual benefit.

Using the meeting place metaphor, we suggest that AE is central to all classroom relationships between Aboriginal students and their teachers.

The purpose is to consider wider, ‘big picture’ ways of thinking about the implications of AE in the classroom. In doing this we can see that AE is much more than the spoken and written words in the reading and writing curriculum.

An illustration of the wider focus may be found in the Baiyai concept of the Pedagogical Literacy Relationship (Munns, Simpson, Connelly and Townsend, 1999). The Pedagogical Literacy Relationship (henceforth PLR) is the relationship generated in the interplay of students’ and teachers’ responses during all literacy and language classroom episodes (see Figure 2).

Since classrooms are typically constructed around words and talk, we contend that the PLR is in play all the time in which students and teachers are together.

Viewed in this way, both official and unofficial classroom curriculum are always taking shape as students and teachers draw on their own resources and experiences to make sense of and respond to the classroom. Official curriculum may be thought of as that which is planned in syllabi and programs and then delivered by teachers in their classrooms. Unofficial curriculum, on the other hand, refers to what is received and learned by the students. There is often a marked  distinction between intended and unintended outcomes in the teaching and learning relationship (see Grundy, 1994).

In the light of this understanding of the curriculum, clearly the PLR does not define or confine literacy to specific times and lessons in the school day. Rather, it suggests that there are direct and indirect literacy effects for students across the whole spectrum of classroom interactions.

The Baiyai project has listed some different categories of classroom interactions that impact on literacy attitudes and outcomes (Figure 2).

Across all of these categories in the PLR, it is argued that there is a significant impact brought about by the way language culturally connects or disconnects in the classroom. Therefore, between Aboriginal students and their teachers, the use, recognition and understanding of AE is crucially interwoven with all classroom relationships. A particular aspect of this relationship concerns the Aboriginal concept of shame and its influence on risk-taking. Many Aboriginal learners are ‘shamed’ in classrooms. One way this happens is when they get an answer ‘wrong’, make a ‘mistake’ in their work or don’t know what to do. Another way is the shame brought about when one of a group of Aboriginal learners is coping well with classroom work and is thus looked on as a ‘big noter’. This can bring shame on the others. Avoiding bringing shame on yourself or being careful not to shame others can significantly impact on the way Aboriginal learners approach their work . [See Munns, Simpson, Connelly and Townsend (1999) and Munns (1998) for further discussions of shame and Aboriginal learners.]

Tracing different language tracks

There is evidence to suggest that Aboriginal students are being taught and assessed by teachers who sometimes misunderstand and misinterpret their actions and responses. Often Aboriginal students enter school as confident and competent users of AE, and consequently are likely to have different pre-literacy skills and literacy needs from other students. Teachers need to recognise and cater for this. It is critical to realise that the school education process (usually conducted in SAE) can have a far-reaching negative impact upon the majority of these students. Regrettably, many Aboriginal students become ‘failures’ very early in their schooling.

It is evident that contributing factors to the lack of success for many Aboriginal learners are invariably related to AE. This can happen in a number of ways. Teachers might not recognise the diverse characteristics and use of AE. It might not be ‘heard’, noticed or understood. Alternatively, teachers might identify Aboriginal English and be conscious of the need to respect ‘home languages’ as advised and required in syllabus documents (for example, in the NSW English Syllabus K-6, 1998), but be not sure what this all means in the literacy context of a classroom. This raises many questions about how classroom interactions with Aboriginal students are played out and what kinds of strategies might be developed to support them as literacy learners.

By looking at classroom interactions across a number of classrooms and research contexts the Baiyai project uncovered some common themes in the ways Aboriginal learners and their teachers produced their relationships. These are depicted in Figure 3 below as different and ultimately diverging language tracks. In presenting these themes the intention is not to suggest that all classroom relationships play out this way. This would essentialise the actions of students and teachers and we are aware of the inherent dangers of doing this. Aboriginal students are individuals who take up cultural traits in individual ways (see Malin 1998, drawing on Delpit 1992).

The project also concedes that teachers have many different backgrounds and experiences that influence their pedagogies (see Hatton 1994a). Rather, the purpose is to give an example of the way the use, reception and interpretation of AE can be central in the interplay of classroom responses within the PLR. The example given shows one way that the classroom relationship may not work productively for both students and teachers.

Figure 3: Different and ultimately diverging language tracks

Readers might be able to identify some of these responses interplaying in classrooms that they know, or employ the concept of the PLR to consider other recurring classroom interactions. Thinking of AE within the wider PLR framework highlights teaching, assessing and classroom management strategies converging with classroom language and discourses. We would also argue that it provides specific sites for reflecting on and adjusting teachers’ classroom responses. It has always been the Baiyai premise that effective pedagogical change comes from teachers themselves.

The next section illustrates the workings of the PLR and AE through a discussion of examples of specific research. This discussion offers wider interpretations of observations in classrooms and puts forward suggestions for further teacher reflection.

Rethinking language tracks — towards an equal meeting place

As reflection on teaching practices is the main challenge offered in this PEN, we would like to preface this section with some questions relevant to the identification of different language tracks for Aboriginal students. Keep in mind that identification of difference is not necessarily for the purpose of change, but rather to find ways for the tracks to come together at an equal classroom meeting place.

The questions below (and others readers raise themselves) can form an initial basis for a consideration of the classroom interactions now presented from the Baiyai research. Presentation of these incidents highlight difficulties related to classroom literacy practices (both students’ and teachers’ difficulties) and are linked back to categories identified in the Baiyai PLR (Figure 2). Different ways of interpreting the situation and possible changes that might support the learners are then taken into account. Incidents relate to cultural issues of the content, vocabulary knowledge and cultural practices. Each of these is tied intimately to AE and classroom relationships and practice.

At first glance the scenario above may seem like a common enough classroom scenario, with the use of rhyme often a component of early reading programs. However, we would suggest that there are a number of possible implications for both Dean and his teacher within the concept of the PLR (and more than mentioned here).

The first concerns whether his teacher has considered Dean’s not using the letter ‘h’ and what that means for him in the context of the lesson. There was a possibility that processes around pronunciation and correction could have caused Dean to question his own use of language. This could well have demanded a choice between home and school, feelings of shame and hurt.

Reflections

Consider these questions while thinking about classrooms you are familiar with:

• Is the identification of different language tracks the same for Aboriginal students as it is for students from other cultural groups?
• If the student is from another cultural group, what would be a likely teacher reaction when the student says something unanticipated, does not respond, or acts in an unexpected or ‘inappropriate’ way?
• Is there a possibility that we react differently with different groups for similar classroom situations?
• Is it possible that we overlook and/or misinterpret classroom actions of Aboriginal students?
• Who needs to identify possible classroom misinterpretations and how might they be dealt with?

It is worth pausing here to note that because of language differences some students from other cultural groups find it difficult to pronounce certain letters but this is invariably not seen as careless or incorrect English. Instead it is accepted that this is the way the student speaks.

The second issue concerns the use of material that is culturally unfamiliar and remains that way for students during lessons. It was obvious that Dean had gained very little from the lesson perhaps beyond a view of literacy that equated colouring in with doing the correct classroom thing. What then of how Dean’s teacher assesses his work now and in the future and subsequent expectations about what he can do? On one level Dean could be seen to be behaving and working. But he was clearly unsure of the purpose and was playing it safe even though he didn’t ‘get it’.

As a result of this classroom interaction both the Aboriginal student and the teacher were left puzzled and unhappy. The AEA was frustrated that another Aboriginal student had unexpectedly got into trouble. What contributed to the confusion was the seeming failure to realise the different meanings of the word ‘lift’ in SAE and AE. In SAE the word most often means to ‘pick something up’. In AE it most often means to ‘steal’ or to ‘punch’ or ‘hit’. In this classroom incident it appeared to be the case that Johnny interpreted the teacher’s words as meaning not to steal the dominoes. Picking them up to have a look seemed a reasonable thing to do. The teacher interpreted this behaviour as disobedience. Johnny felt as though he had done nothing wrong. They were both on different language tracks but heading towards conflict.

Often neither Aboriginal students or teachers are aware of the confusion created by the failure to establish shared meanings. The only indication of this confusion can be when the students’ response or action to the teacher’s comment, question or request is seen to be inappropriate or unexpected. On the other hand, students begin to realise that they might not be getting the message right. One of the options taken up might be to scan what the other students in the classroom are doing before proceeding or responding. Such misunderstandings, while not intentional, can lead to anger, annoyance or confusion.

The incident reveals a language issue affecting a number of aspects of the PLR:

• talk and words
• instructions and responses
• classroom management.

Johnny’s behaviour was misunderstood and the teacher was again faced with an unpredictable situation. While there are no ready-made solutions to the classroom difficulties caused by language not connecting, there are a number of ways that teachers can get around such misunderstandings by monitoring the ways in which Aboriginal students respond. This may involve looking for wider interpretations. For example, slowness to react might indicate Aboriginal students are checking what other students are doing. Out of character responses might be more a sign of miscommunication than that of a volatile, disobedient or inattentive student. Responses that make no sense to the teacher might mean there is more to be learned about the ways Aboriginal learners make sense of their school and classroom.

In the next scenario above, both the teacher and Lisa were confused. Lisa couldn’t understand why the teacher didn’t respond to her exciting news and the teacher was puzzled by the fact that Lisa had some news but didn’t tell it at the appropriate time. In this instance Lisa’s strong use of AE probably indicated that she wanted to get ‘close’ to the teacher.

Many Aboriginal students speak both AE and SAE, depending on circumstances. Observations reveal that speaking AE can sometimes indicate that the student feels culturally comfortable with the teacher. Alternatively, it can sometimes mean that the students are looking to assert cultural distance when they are threatened and/or unhappy (for example Johnny’s outburst, above). When Lisa opted out of the lesson there was a likelihood that the interpretation was that she was not interested, not capable, lazy or disobedient. PLR categories coming into play in this incident were:

• instructions and responses
• classroom work
• classroom management
• work expectations
• assessment.

From the Aboriginal perspective it seemed that shame was a significant factor in this incident.

Many Aboriginal students prefer not to be the centre of attention in the classroom. Being singled out can cause ‘big shame’. Often they prefer to speak on a one to one basis or in a small groups. Teachers who have little or no knowledge of the concept of shame, and the associated risks posed for the Aboriginal students, may not appreciate how these interrelated factors regularly have a very strong impact and effect upon Aboriginal students’ classroom participation and learning. As illustrated by Lisa’s classroom responses, the typical news session within many classrooms can be very intimidating for many Aboriginal students, threatening risk and shame. Avoiding shame often results in withdrawal or reactive behaviour. When this happens a classroom organisation aimed to encourage oral language and classroom interaction can work to the disadvantage of students.

The track forward

The Baiyai Research Project was founded on the belief that the most critical factor in the school success for Aboriginal students is a positive and friendly relationship between the student and the teacher. Research observations confirmed that students’ work practices, on-task compliance and behaviour, are all affected by classroom relationships. However, the Baiyai team also fundamentally held that a good personal relationship alone does not guarantee or provide academic success for Aboriginal students. Teachers have a part to play. Their classroom responses play a deciding role as they work towards promoting productive pedagogical relationships. Such a process would be:

• an acknowledgment of the centrality of AE
• followed by an increased awareness of the features of AE
• reflection on the implications of AE for classrooms.

To this end it is necessary that teachers have access to appropriate, specific and contextual information, especially that which comes from Aboriginal people. Reflection on and changes to teaching practices need to confirm and extend the skills that Aboriginal students already have. Classrooms need to help students to successful learning in ways that maintain their cultural identity. When Aboriginal students fail to learn, it is important to question teaching strategies, rather than just blaming their ‘weaknesses’. Aboriginal students need to know their language is valued and that they are valued. This will help them grow as people and as learners.

Different tracks to an equal meeting place.

Lee Simpson has been an active member of her Indigenous community since childhood. At the time of publication in 1999 she was employed as a Koori Teaching Fellow at Charles Sturt University, after teaching with the NSW Department of School Education and has continued to be involved in and researching Indigenous educational issues, with a special interest in literacy and education outcomes of Indigenous students. Her more recent publications include the article ‘Teaching Indigenous Children: Listening to and Learning from Indigenous Teachers’ (2011) (.pdf 117 kB) in The Australian Journal of Teacher Education.

Dr Geoff Munns has had a long association with Indigenous Australian communities as both a teacher, school principal, researcher and academic. He has conducted ethnographic research in schools serving Indigenous Australian communities. He is currently an Adjunct Associate Professor in the University of Western Sydney School of Education.

Sue Clancy has been a literacy education lecturer on the Wagga Wagga campus of Charles Sturt University. Before moving to the tertiary setting she spent many years as a classroom teacher. She has worked in a range of settings developing programs to support young literacy learners. Her particular interest is to examine ways of implementing critical literacy in the early years of schooling.

This PEN was originally published in 1999 and republished in digital format in  2014

How this content relates to AITSL teacher standards

• Professional knowledge
• Professional practice
• Professional engagement