Research supports the premise that adult language and literacy instruction should build on prior linguistic knowledge and the lived experiences of the students. Despite these widely held tenets, classroom practices often do not reflect these ideals, instead providing learning opportunities that are decontextualized and isolated from the students’ lives. Drawing on 18 months of qualitative data and based on principles of participatory action research, this ethnographic case study of a peer-taught, prison-based, adult language and literacy program, situated in a state-run, medium security prison in the Midwest of the United States, focuses on the role language ideologies played in shaping classroom practices and the marginalization of both students and instructors. This study found that language ideologies contributed to a curricularized approach to language and literacy instruction focused on teaching discrete linguistic features and lexical items. This curricularization of language positioned students as linguistically deficient and shaped deficit perspectives of the students in the classroom. Additionally, the curricularized approach in conjunction with racialized understandings of “native speakerism” marginalized instructors through influencing who was perceived as a viable language model in the classroom. These findings emphasize the need to move away from reified understandings of language and build on the situated ways students use language. Additionally, moving toward a curriculum focused on situated language practices provides opportunities for students and instructors to critically examine issues of power and privilege related to language.
AnejaG. (2016). (Non)native speakered: Rethinking (non)nativeness and teacher identity in TESOL teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 572–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.315
2.
ApplemanD. (2013). Teaching in the dark: The promise and pedagogy of creative writing in prison. English Journal, 102(4), 24–30.
3.
ApplemanD.CaligiuriZ.VangJ. (2014). End of the pipeline: Can the liberal arts liberate the incarcerated? In NocellaA. J.IIStovallD.ParmarP. (Eds.), Counterpoints, Vol 453. From education to incarceration: Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline (pp. 192–209). Peter Lang AG. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42982339?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
4.
AuerbachE. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586949
5.
AuerbachE. (2005). Connecting the local and global: A pedagogy of not-literacy. In AndersonJ.KendrickM.RogersT.SmytheS. (Eds.), Portraits of literacy across families, communities, and schools: Intersections and tensions (pp. 363–379). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612830
6.
AuerbachE.BurgessD. (1985). The hidden curriculum of survival ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 475–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586274
7.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
AvineriN.BlumS.JohnsonE.Brice-HeathS.Kremer-SadlikT. (2015). Invited forum: Bridging the “language gap.”Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 25(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12071
9.
AyalaJ. (2009). Split scenes, converging visions: The ethical terrains where PAR and borderlands scholarship meet. Urban Review, 41, 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-008-0095-9
10.
BerryP. (2018). Doing time, writing lives: Refiguring literacy and higher education in prison. Southern Illinois University Press.
11.
BigelowM.SchwarzR. (2010). Adult English language learners with limited literacy. National Institute for Literacy. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512297
12.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
13.
CammarotaJ.Berta-ÁvilaM.AyalaJ.RiveraM.RodríguezL. (2016). PAR entremundos: A practitioner’s guide. In ValenzuelaA. (Ed.), Growing critically conscious teachers: A social justice curriculum for educators of Latino/a youth (pp. 67–89). Teachers College Press.
DavisL. M.BozickR.SteeleJ. L.SaundersJ.MilesJ. N. V. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr266
16.
Education Justice Project. (2013, February23). Violence and incarceration community conversation. https://vimeo.com/60327633
17.
EmmeneckerK. (2003). Customized ESL program development for correctional education. Journal of Correctional Education, 54(2), 79–83.
18.
FineM.TorreM. E.BoudinK.BowenI.ClarkJ.HyltonD.MartinezM.WilkinsC. M.RiveraM.RobertsR. A.SmartP.UpeguiD. (2010). Changing minds: A participatory action research project on college in prison. In SolingerR.JohnsonP. C.RaimonM. L.ReynoldsT.TapiaR. C. (Eds.), Interrupted life: Experiences of incarcerated women in the United States (pp. 188–195). University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520944565-040
19.
FloresN.LewisM. C.PhuongJ. (2018). Raciolinguistic chronotopes and the education of Latinx students: Resistance and anxiety in a bilingual school. Language and Communication, 62, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.06.002
20.
FloresN.RosaJ. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
21.
GarcíaO.Torres-GuevaraR. (2009). Monoglossic ideologies and language policies in the education of U.S. Latinas/os. In MurilloE. G.JrVillenasS.GalvánR. T.MuñozJ. S.MartínezC.Machado-CasasM. (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 192–193). Routledge.
22.
GeeJ. (2011). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). Routledge.
GonzálezN.MollL. C.AmantiC. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613462
25.
GreenbergE.DunleavyE.KutnerM. (2007). Literacy behind bars: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy prison survey. U.S. Department of Education; Institute of Education Sciences; National Center for Education Statistics.
26.
IrvineJ.GalS. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In KroskrityP. (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, politics, and identities (pp. 35–84). School of American Research Press.
KroskrityP. V. (2006). Language ideologies. In DurantiA. (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 496–517). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996522.ch22
29.
KroskrityP. V. (2010). Language ideologies: Evolving perspectives. In JaspersJ.ÖstmanJ. O.VerschuerenJ. (Eds.), Society and language use: Handbook of pragmatics highlights (pp. 192–211). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.7.13kro
30.
KvaleS. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. SAGE.
MartínezR. (2010). Spanglish as literacy tool: Toward an understanding of the potential role of Spanish-English code-switching in the development of academic literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 45, 124–149. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40997087
33.
National Research Council. (2012). Improving adult literacy instruction: Options for practice and research. The National Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13242
34.
PallierJ. (2011). ESOL inside: Teaching ESOL in prison. Language Issues, 22(2), 81–86.
35.
PfaffJ. (2017). Locked in: The true causes of mass incarceration and how to achieve real reform. Basic Books.
36.
RamjattanV. A. (2015). Lacking the right aesthetic: Everyday employment discrimination in Toronto private language schools. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion, 34(8), 692–704. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-03-2015-0018
SchoenbergI. E.MaurerJ. (2006). Focus on grammar 2: An integrated skills approach. Pearson Education ESL.
40.
ValdésG. (2015). Latin@s and the intergenerational continuity of Spanish: The challenges of curricularizing language. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(4), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2015.1086625
41.
ValdésG. (2018). Analyzing the curricularization of language in two-way immersion education: Restating two cautionary notes. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(4), 388–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2018.1539886
42.
ValdésG. (2019). Curricularizing language: Implications for heritage language instruction. In FaircloughM.BeaudrieS. (Eds.), Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 255–270). Georgetown University Press.
43.
van de CraatsI.KurversJ.Young-ScholtenM. (2009). Research on low-educated second language and literacy education. In van de CrattsI.KurversJ.Young-ScholtenM. (Eds.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the inaugural symposium Tilburg 2005 (Vol. 6, pp. 7–23). LOT.
44.
WarrinerD. S. (2007). “It’s just the nature of the beast”: Re-imagining the literacies of schooling in adult ESL education. Linguistics and Education, 18(3-4), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2007.07.004
45.
WilsonA. (1999). There is no escape from third-space theory: Borderland discourse and the in-between literacies of prisons. In BartonD.HamiltonM.IvaničR. (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 54–69). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203984963
