Challenging Implicit Linguistic Biases in Teaching and Learning Across Disciplines Through Student-Faculty Partnerships

Alyssa G. Cavazos, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Ryan McBride, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Key Statement: Student-faculty partnerships can foster asset-based approaches in teaching and learning that challenge implicit linguistic bias and enhance students’ linguistically diverse resources.

Keywords: Student partnerships, Asset-Based Mindset, Language Resources

Introduction

In educational contexts, English is often privileged as the language of communication and instruction. The myth of linguistic homogeneity in higher education can negatively impact the learning experiences of all students as it implies there is one dominant language we use to communicate across contexts (Matsuda, 2012). Linguistic homogeneity may tacitly or overtly reify a deficit model of education—that students lack something and educators fill that void by providing “correct” alternatives to language usage (Bruton & Robles-Piña, 2009; Freire, 2000; Pineda, 2022). By viewing students’ linguistic backgrounds as a resource for learning, educators can work toward an asset-based mindset that reflects students’ lived experiences and realities more honestly (Yosso, 2005). Collaborating with students through student-faculty partnerships is one way to foster an asset-based mindset that draws on students’ linguistically diverse resources as tools for learning and growth in and beyond the classroom. Students as Learners and Teachers (SaLT) is an innovative teaching approach where students and instructors collaborate to improve educational experiences (Cavazos et al., 2024; Cook-Sather, 2020).

Modeled after the program at Bryn Mawr College, the student-faculty partnership program at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV), one of the largest Hispanic-Serving Institutions in the nation, aims to create educational spaces in direct response to students’ experiences, knowledge, and insights. The program fosters student agency in learning through solidarity, creates a sense of belonging and self-efficacy for students and instructors, integrates teaching approaches responsive to students’ learning needs, and builds a culture of openness to student feedback (Cavazos, 2024; Cavazos & Chapa, 2023; Cavazos et al., 2023). We share background about the student-faculty partnership program, define linguistic implicit biases, provide examples of how these biases manifest, offer recommendations for how to challenge them, and invite a dialogue through discussion questions.

Image courtesy of Unsplash.

Background

Student partners in the UTRGV student-faculty partnership program participate in weekly reflective and collaborative activities in response to readings, videos, podcasts, and testimonials informed by evidence-based teaching and learning practices, such as sense of belonging, relevance of curriculum, grading policies, representation, implicit bias, and reciprocal feedback on teaching and learning (Cavazos et al., 2024; Montenegro & Jankowski, 2017; Tinto, 2017; Winklemes, 2016). We draw on Anzaldúa (1999), Freire (2000), hooks (1994) among others to explore how student partners’ empathetic feedback on teaching materials encourage instructors across academic disciplines to reflect on their role in building critical consciousness among students within disciplinary and professional contexts. One theme on building critical consciousness explored in our program is the presence of implicit linguistic biases in course syllabi and assignment designs. We draw on Vershawn Ashanti Young’s (2010) “Should Writers Use They Own English,” which challenges the notion that students should not use their own language if it makes them “vulnerable to prejudice,” as he argues that attitudes—not language, dialect, or style—make individuals vulnerable to prejudice. Another resource that informs our program’s feedback to faculty members is Catherine Savini’s (2021) “10 Ways to Tackle Linguistic Bias in Our Classrooms.” Savini suggests that we ask ourselves what makes someone else’s writing unclear to us. Relevant and meaningful feedback on writing may vary between cultures, as language is also inextricably tied to culture. To better understand implicit linguistic biases in our teaching, we must partner with others, especially students, to gain perspectives on how we can model critical consciousness in curriculum design (Cavazos, 2024).

Findings

To better understand implicit linguistic biases, with approval from the Institutional Review Board, we conducted a thematic analysis of feedback provided to instructors informed by the following questions from our program’s feedback review lenses (Cavazos et al., 2024):

1. Who is and what languages are overrepresented/underrepresented in readings, guest speakers, and/or collaborations?

2. What does the language in the syllabus/assignment assume about students (e.g., access to resources, prior knowledge, literacy/language background, technology, etc.)?

We learned that feedback related to linguistic implicit biases usually centered on:

1. assumptions about relevant real-world contexts,

2. misconceptions about knowledge and abilities, and

3. rubric grading for grammar vs rhetorical intentions.

The feedback examples shared here are abbreviated for brevity. Pseudonyms are used to protect participant identities, and general references to disciplinary contexts are provided for confidentiality purposes.

Assumptions About Relevant Real-World Contexts

Instructors can design curriculum that is relevant to the real-world contexts in which students find themselves after graduation. Although assessments may focus on students' ability to recall course content in Standard English, their professional environments might require proficiency in multiple languages and dialects. In a review of a health professions course syllabus, student partner Jean Genie wrote:

Have you considered [...] language choices for turning in assignments? Are they only allowed to do assignments in English or are other languages welcome? [...] this might help them start thinking about what kind of patients they will be interacting with. [...] if a student is bilingual but feels like their secondary language can be stronger, that may be something they personally would like to work on.

Through this example, Ryan McBride (author) is reminded of his college roommate, Maya, who was training to be a medical assistant. A Spanish monolingual patient was picked up by the ambulance, and Maya, as the only English/Spanish bilingual, quickly and accurately translated in a fast-paced, high stress environment to save this patient’s life. This task required her to calm the patient and recognize the names of various medical tools, symptoms, and procedures in both languages. Without her, this patient wouldn’t have received proper and timely care. Being bilingual/multidialectal is seldom valued in the classroom despite the need in real-world contexts. When designing activities and assessments, how can we consider students’ languages and dialects—particularly how these skills may be relevant to their careers after they leave our classrooms?

Misconceptions About Knowledge and Abilities

When designing assignments, instructors may perpetuate implicit linguistic biases and misconceptions about students’ knowledge and abilities, which can influence how students perceive their skills, contributions, and sense of belonging in the classroom. In a review of a team-building survey for a STEM course, student partner Abel noticed that the instructor included a question about students’ language backgrounds framed through a deficit mindset: the question asked students to rate their English writing, speaking, and grammar skills, and assured them they would be placed in a group that could help them if they do not know English very well. Abel wrote:

For students [who] do not feel confident in English and are more confident in Spanish, reading the first part of the question [...] may raise concerns about being judged for their language background. How would you feel about rewording this so that their language background is framed as an asset rather than a deficit? You could consider asking “what languages other than English do you know?” [...] It can also foster a sense of belonging when students’ language is something to be celebrated and valued, not “fixed.” [...] How would you work with students [who] want to collaborate in Spanish because that makes them feel more confident or connected? Perhaps English monolingual [...] students could benefit from collaborating with peers from a diverse linguistic background.

McBride believes this instructor was well-intentioned and wanted to build a community of support for his students. This example demonstrates the critical need for educators to identify and confront implicit biases in their instructional design. What aspects are we trying to “fix” in our students, and how might these aspects actually be assets to their learning?

Rubric Grading for Grammar Versus Rhetorical Intentions

The criteria for success in an assignment can significantly impact students’ perceptions of their writing abilities before they begin working. To ensure students feel confident, grading rubrics should align with learning objectives and content taught in the course. In a review of a rubric for an Environmental Science assignment, a student partner, Jean Genie, wrote:

How could we make “quality of writing” more reflective of the degree of excellence based on what the student has learned? Is grammar being taught in this class? If so, please disregard. [...] The language used in the rubric would make me nervous as a student. [...] Seeing so many points being taken off for grammar I would already know that I [...] would be in serious trouble.  

When designing the criteria for success for an assignment, we can consider the rhetorical choices students make. Students may adapt their language, register, and/or style in response to their audience(s), especially in presentations, discussions, and group activities. This is key in developing communication skills that will benefit students in their future careers and professional lives.

Recommendations

We can resist linguistic homogeneity by becoming aware of linguistic justice work, identifying overt and tacit linguistic implicit bias in teaching and learning practices, and committing to revisions of these practices (Baker-bell, 2020; Lee, 2016). Specifically, we can

• Assess learning through iterative and guided practices with opportunities for feedback, revision, and redesign in relation to socio-cultural injustices in real-world contexts.

• Advocate for students’ linguistic agency and cultural assets as resources in writing and learning processes.

• Design assignments that develop students' critical awareness of language practices across various careers and communities, considering audience, purpose, and genre.

Acknowledgement: We wish to express our sincere gratitude to student partners who have engaged in thoughtful partnerships with faculty members to enhance teaching and learning spaces responsive to students' strengths and needs. We also wish to express our gratitude to the Title V Department of Education Puentes: A Cultural Wealth Model for Student Success research-based grant for support on these collaborative and partnership endeavors. 

Discussion Questions:

1. What biases and systemic inequities hinder students’ success and how might they be reflected in my discipline and teaching practices?

2. What are my students’ goals as learners, writers, and future professionals? Where in my teaching can I enact teaching practices that challenge linguistic biases and inequities?

3. How can I design purposeful assignments that build my students’ collective awareness of linguistic injustices and engage students in rectifying them? 

References

Anzaldúa, G. (1999). Borderlands/La Frontera: The new mestiza. Aunt Lute Books.

Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge. 

Bruton, A., & Robles-Piña, R. A. (2009). Deficit thinking and Hispanic student achievement: Scientific information resources. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 15, 41–48.

Cavazos, A. G. (2024). Conocimiento through spiritual activism: A self-reflexive approach to challenging deficit beliefs and reimagining the value of teaching in higher education. Texas Education Review, 12(2), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.26153/tsw/51993

Cavazos, A. G., & Chapa, L. (2023). Honrando voces diversas: A framework for equity-minded teaching partnerships. Journal of Latinos and Education, 22(5), 1984–1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2022.2077336

Cavazos, A. G., Chapa, L., & Cavazos-Vela, J. (2023) Exploring the impact of student-faculty partnership program at a Hispanic Serving Institution. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 42(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.2903

Cook-Sather, A. (2020). Respecting voices: How the co-creation of teaching and learning can support academic staff, underrepresented students, and equitable practices. Higher Education, 79, 885–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00445-w

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.

Lee, J. W. (2016) Beyond translingual writing. College English, 79(2), 174–195.

Matsuda, P. K. (2012). Let's face it: Language issues and the writing program administrator. Writing Program Administration, 36(1), 141–163.

Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017, January). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment. Occasional Paper No. 29. University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).

Savini. C. (2021). 10 ways to tackle linguistic bias in our classrooms. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/01/27/how-professors-can-and-should-combat-linguistic-prejudice-their-classes-opinion

Tinto, V. (2017). Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(3), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115621917

Pineda, S. (2022). Disrupting the deficit with Latinx cultural wealth: Creciendo en la excelencia. M.A. in Higher Education Leadership: Action Research Projects, 104. https://digital.sandiego.edu/solesmahel-action/104

Winkelmes, M. A., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, J. G., & Weavil, K. H. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students’ success. Peer Review: Transparency and Problem-Centered Learning, 18(1–2), 31–36.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

Young, V. A. (2010). Should writers use they own English? Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.17077/2168-569X.1095

About the Authors