Case Teaching Notes
for
“What Is Native Fluency? The Ambiguous Nature of Bilingualism and Its Ramifications for Writing Instruction”

Susan Behrens, Communication Sciences and Disorders, Marymount Manhattan College
Cindy Mercer, Academic Achievement, Marymount Manhattan College

Introduction / Background

The focus of this case study is the way differing views on native fluency and bilingualism have an impact on writing instruction in colleges. In the case, students read about the high school and college experiences of a young woman who moved to the United States from the Dominican Republic at age nine with a good deal of fluent, informal spoken English, but little skill in reading and writing formal, standard English. Students follow Maria as she wrestles with her identity as an English user and, along the way, encounter high school teachers and college professors wrestling with a lack of information about how students gain mastery of a language and literacy. The ambiguity of the term “bilingual” and the lack of informed strategies in college writing courses to deal with students with different degrees of proficiency in English lead to consequences at both the personal level and the educational level.

This case can be used with students studying linguistics. It would also be appropriate for science education students to explore such questions as do science classes require mastery of standard English, and what is the fate of a student weak in academic English.

Objectives

Upon completing this case study, students should be able to:

• List the complicating factors that make trying to define “bilingualism” and “native fluency” difficult.
• List and discuss the academic and emotional consequences for students whose teachers have vague and conflicting definitions of bilingualism.
• Develop a list of five recommendations to help students whose weak academic language skills appear to be barriers to academic success.
• Discuss the implications of this case for students’ future employment opportunities and social and emotional well being.

Major Issues

As more science educators consider writing across the curriculum and incorporate writing pedagogy into their classrooms, they might well encounter the scenario depicted in this case study. There are several important issues raised here. One is the fact that there is no universally agreed upon definitions of native fluency and bilingualism. Even among linguists, there are conflicting definitions. For example, while Bloomfield restricted the term to those possessing near native fluency, others, like McNamara, required only minimal competency in a second language (Kayser, 1995). So questions remain. Must a bilingual be fluent in all the modalities of language: speech, oral comprehension, reading, and writing? And what degree of fluency is adequate? Further, the person might be fluent in an informal but not formal style of the language. He or she might not have the competence to use the second language successfully in an educational setting. Some cases of bilingualism are ambiguous because the form of the second language the person possesses is not considered the standard dialect. So a person might “know” English, but it could be Ebonics. Or a person might “know” French and Haitian Creole French, but consider those two language forms the same thing, the latter an informal style of the former.

Finally, users of this case study will encounter the problems of writing pedagogy that does not look at the larger picture. The disparity between students’ command of academic English and college professors’ expectations can only be resolved through a clearer understanding of linguistic competencies. We need to realize that language skills are not an “all or nothing” acquisition, that language facility is something we work on throughout our lives. The upshot of this ignorance is a blame-game all around and ill-prepared students caught in the middle.

Classroom Management

This case study is divided into three parts: Part I—High School, Part II—College, and Part III—The Next Term. The case can be taught in a single three-hour class or over several class periods.

Part I—High School

Have the class read Part I aloud, then break them up into small groups to discuss questions 1 and 2. Right away, the groups will face the quesion, “What is bilingualism?” They should pool their opinions and look for similarities and differences. Students may entertain the idea of cultural differences and the distinction between formal and informal uses of language (that we do not use language the same way with friends and teachers; in conversation and in writing; in a letter and in an essay). At this point, have the whole class reconvene and ask for volunteers or select one or two students to serve as scribes and record on the board (or on poster paper) the groups’ definitions of bilingualism. Again, look for similarities and differences and note where members of the class are in disagreement about the criteria for native fluency.

Next, ask the groups about the reactions by Maria’s teachers, who see her passing high school tests and conversing with friends but silent in the classroom and inarticulate in her writing.

Part I of the case should take about 90 minutes.

For homework, students can be given the following assignment:

1. Look up the term bilingualism in at least three different types of sources: a dictionary, a language or linguistics dictionary, a web site, and a peer-reviewed journal. Notice discrepancies. Ask three people for their definitions. Is there any common ground to all the criteria you have collected?
2. Look up the terms register and style in a linguistics dictionary or textbook. Take note of when you, as an English user, switch between a school register and a home or work register, and when you go between formal and informal English.

The students’ answers to questions could form part of a follow-up lesson when the class meets next. Alternatively, they could be part of a writing assignment.

Part II—College

After completing Part I, which describes Maria’s experiences in high school, have the students in their groups read Part II, which describes her experiences in her college course WS 01. Ask students to assume the viewpoint of the instructor, Max. What was his teaching philosophy in this course? What was his approach to both native and non-native speaking students with weak academic English skills?

Have the students discuss the questions associated with this part of the case (questions 3 and 4) in their small groups. Question 3 asks students to consider why Maria and others might perceive enrollment in an ESL course to be embarrassing or stigmatizing. Question 4 asks students to evaluate the learning goals of Maria’s first college writing course and see how well it has served her needs.

At this point, students might want to research their own college’s policies about placement in writing courses and what resources are available for ESL students or students with learning disabilities.

This second part of the case should take about 30 minutes.

Part III—The Next Term

Still in their small groups, students should now move on to Part III of the case, which describes Maria’s experiences with First Year Seminar and Professor Clarkson. Students discuss questions 5–7 in their groups. They can also be asked to do some role-playing here, with some students taking the role of Professor Clarkson and others the role of the adjunct writing instructor, Max. Perhaps Dr. Clarkson could have a meeting with Max. Or they could both meet with the head of the Writing Center, Dr. Marc. How would the experiences of these three college teachers differ? What would be their plans for Maria?

Groups at this point should be prepared to come up with educational strategies for Maria. These plans would include her next steps in Dr. Clarkson’s class, but also her approach to college study in general. What resources should she ask for and what resources should the college offer? As a whole class, the plans should be compared. Again, here is an opportunity for role-playing here, with one or two students assigned the role of Maria, and others Dr. Clarkson, Max, and Dr. Marc. Other possible roles include a college dean, a parent of Maria, a linguist, a department chair, and a psychologist or a speech-language pathologist.

In closing, students should be encouraged to think about the larger ramifications of Maria’s situation. What other areas of society are impacted by bilingual citizens who are wrestling with labels, treatment, and language identity? Assignments for the follow-up class could involve specific impacts to the science community, to employment opportunities, etc.

This part of the case takes approximately 60 minutes to complete.

Possible Extensions of the Case

The following questions expand this case study into other areas of linguistics:

1. What is the relation of language and self-identity?
2. What are the benefits of bilingualism?
3. How do adult language learners differ from children raised in a bilingual environment?
4. Is there a difference between male and female language?

Answer Key

Answers to the questions posed in the case study are provided in a separate answer key to the case. Those answers are password-protected. To access the answers for this case, go to the key. You will be prompted for a username and password. If you have not yet registered with us, you can see whether you are eligible for an account by reviewing our password policy and then apply online or write to answerkey@sciencecases.org.

References

• Behrens, S.J., and A.R. Neeman. 2004. Focus on accent: A sociolinguistic perspective of diversity in the classroom. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education 20(2): 40–47.
• Kayser, H. 1995. Bilingualism, myths, and language impairments. In H. Kayser (Ed.) (1995) Bilingual Speech-language Pathology. San Diego: Singular Publishing, 185–206.
• Lippi-Green, R. 1997. English with an Accent. London: Routledge.
• MacNeil, R. 2005. Do You Speak American? Video. PBS. MacNeil-Lehrer Productions, Inc.
• Matthews, P. 2007. Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Obler, L.K., and K. Gjerlow. 1999. Language and the Brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Romaine, S. 1995. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Romaine, S. 2000. Language in Society, 2^nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Watt, R.J. 1999. The Social Construction of Standard English: Grammar Writers as a “Discourse Community.” In T. Bex & R.J. Watt (Eds.) Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge, 40–68.
• Wolfram, W., C.T. Adger, and D. Christian. 1999. Dialects in Schools and Communities. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Wei, L. 2006. Bilingualism. In K. Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics.Vol. 2. New York: Elsevier, 1–12.

Acknowledgements: This case was published with support from the National Science Foundation under CCLI Award #0341279. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Date Posted: November 4, 2008.

Copyright © 1999–2010 by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science.  Please see our usage guidelines, which outline our policy concerning permissible reproduction of this work.