<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=937215516-15122003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Dan,
related, but in its labeling unfortunately encouraged the gap by encouraging the
belief that one is inherently (as opposed to socially) better than the other.
Nor am I convinced that assessment instruments are the answer, unless by that
you mean finding a way to encourage teachers to to discover the complex language
systems pupils already control, and find a way to motivate them to expand this
control to other parts of the system (include e.g. writing).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=937215516-15122003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Bernard</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
owner-edling@ccat.sas.upenn.edu [mailto:owner-edling@ccat.sas.upenn.edu] <B>On
Behalf Of </B>Dan Douglas<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 15, 2003 6:42
PM<BR><B>To:</B> edling@ccat.sas.upenn.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Defining
issues in Ed Ling<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=3>Regarding the
re-examination of basic concepts defining educational linguistics, one such
would be Cummins' BICS/CALP distinction (which is related to what Bernard and
others have already mentioned as the "gap between school languages and home
languages", I think) We need a clearer understanding of precisely what
we mean by "school language" and "home language", and this would underlie our
need for up-to-date assessment instruments, particularly in bi/multilingual
contexts. <BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Dan <BR><BR>At 09:55 PM 12/14/2003 -0500,
you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">In a recent issue of Working
Papers in Ed Linguistics (18,2), the editors mull over proposed definitions
of our field:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">Spolsky's vision of educational
linguistics was that it would be a field of (applied) linguistics, much
like educational psychology or educational sociology are fields of their
disciplines proper, that "start[s] with a specific problem and then looks
to linguistics and other relevant disciplines for their contribution to
its solution" (1978: 2). <BR> <BR><BR>Following from a recent
discussion about definition, I'm drawing up a list of the top "problems"
in our field. When you consider educational linguistics overall,
what problems, theoretical or practical, most need to be tackled right now
and why? Is there a pressing need for a basic concept (such as
communicative competence) to be re-examined? What connections
urgently need to be made? <BR>The following is one example: I
suspect that educational linguistics could benefit from an integrated
model of sociolinguistic and cognitive approaches to SLA, not only to
refine theory but for the sake of solving specific teaching questions,
such as what ways are available to improve the grammatical accuracy of
second language students' writing? One such attempt is proposed by
Dwight Atkinson ["Toward a Sociocognitive Approach to Second Language
Acquisition." <BR>The Modern Language Journal 86 (4):
525-545.] </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Leslie<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite=""
type="cite"><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><X-SIGSEP>
<P></X-SIGSEP>Professor, TESL/Applied Linguistics Program<BR>Co-editor,
<I>Language Testing<BR></I>English Department<BR>Iowa State
University<BR>Ames, IA 50011, USA<BR>Phone: (515) 294-9365<BR>Fax: (515)
294-6814<BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>