1. Inclusivity and the Teaching of Writing: Pedagogies for Second Language Writers and Speakers of English Language Varieties
Staci M. Perryman-Clark, PhD
Associate Professor of English
Director of First-Year Writing
Associate Director, Office of Faculty Development

2. Session Goals
To increase awareness and understanding of linguistic diversity
To address implicit biases about students who speak different languages and/or varieties of English
To identify best practices in responding to student writing for speakers of other Englishes, languages, or language varieties
To provide additional tips for working with international students and second language writers (Ila M. Baker and Eva Copija, CELCIS)

3. Think, Pair, Share
What makes writing good?
What makes writing bad?

4. Implicit Biases about Language: English Superiority

5. A Few Myths about How English Works
Standard English/Edited American English should carry prestige in the academy. From a scientific standpoint, no language/language variety is better than the other; there are world Englishes spoken around the globe.
Broken English is a problem with communication. All languages and language varieties (dialects) have conventions and grammars. Varieties of English are not broken English; rather, they are linguistic systems in their own right.
Poor English leads to poor writing. Correctness may be a feature of good writing depending on the genre and rhetorical situation, but we cannot conflate writing correctly with good writing; nor can we conflate writing incorrectly with poor writing.

6. CCCC Students’ Right to Their Own Language (SRTOL)
Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC): The Flagship organization devoted to the study, practice, and teaching of writing
Membership passed a resolution in 1974 on the Students’ Right to Their Own Language
Historical context: the resolution was a response to open admissions movements in higher education, during the 1970s
Controversial at the time of adoption, but made significant progress in the ways that we think about student-writers of other language varieties

7. CCCC SRTOL Statement
We affirm the students' right to their own patterns and varieties of language -- the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style. Language scholars long ago denied that the myth of a standard American dialect has any validity. The claim that any one dialect is unacceptable amounts to an attempt of one social group to exert its dominance over another. Such a claim leads to false advice for speakers and writers, and immoral advice for humans. A nation proud of its diverse heritage and its cultural and racial variety will preserve its heritage of dialects. We affirm strongly that teachers must have the experiences and training that will enable them to respect diversity and uphold the right of students to their own language. (1974, p. 1)

8. SRTOL Implications: What can we do as educators?
Step One: Understand that Edited American English carries no superiority from a linguistic or scientific perspective, since it carries no correlation with intelligence. 
Step Two:  Dispel the myth of Edited American English as the only correct form of English by educating speakers and writers who make negative judgments and assumptions about intelligence based on language.
Step Three: Understand and use all languages and dialects effectively and purposefully depending on audience, purpose, and context. Effective communication depends on readers’ abilities to understand the text that is written. (Perryman-Clark, 2015)

9. SRTOL Implications: Responding to Student Writing
Shifting from error to conventions: What is an error in one linguistic system may be correct in another (e.gs. African American English speakers omit the s from plural nouns because the context already suggests plurality; many linguistic systems also use multiple negation [French – je ne pas d’oranges; African American English – I ain’t gotta be here no mo’!]).
Identify patterns of unconventional usage in English: Don’t try to correct every “error” a student makes; instead, identify patterns that differ from convention by showing students one or two examples from their papers, and then coaching them to look for additional examples of unconventional usage of an edited American English rule (e.g. omission of articles by Chinese or Arabic-speaking students).
Be patient: It’s very common for a student to make progress with one pattern of usage and regress in others. Still, focus on no more than one or two patterns at a time.

10. Moving from High Stakes to Low Stakes
Shift your evaluations and rubrics: Assign language conventions a lower percentage of a student’s final grade (e.g. 5%). Just because one identifies patterns of unconventional language and encourages students to edit and correct these patterns does not mean educators have to assign a lower score.
Assign multiple drafts and include opportunities for revision. Most students (like us) do not submit a polished first draft.
Encourage formal and informal opportunities for students to reflect on language practices. I assign linguistic literacy autobiographies and letters to the editor for students to engage these issues (see sample student essays).

11. Additional Resources
Matsuda, P. K., Cox, M., Jordan, J., & Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2006). Second-language writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook. Macmillan/NCTE.
Perryman-Clark, S., Kirkland, D. E., & Jackson, A. (2015). Students’ right to their own language: A critical sourebook. Macmillan/NCTE.
Perryman-Clark, S. (2015). Language, dialects, and the myth of edited American English. Teachers, Profs, Parents: Writers Who Care. Retrieved from myth-of-edited-american-english/.