Defining issues in Ed Ling

[Francis M Hult]

I agree that educational linguistics must be 'problem' (or issue) oriented, drawing
on multiple relevant fields to study and address those issues/problems.  At the same
time, I think we must be careful not to take concepts from disciplines without
considering if they are applicable to those issues and problems as is.  In fact, I
think the direction between educational linguistics and areas like
(socio)linguistics, anthropology, sociology, etc. runs in two ways (or at least it
should).  What I mean here is that we should feel free to be critical of
disciplinarily situated concepts, refining them or furthering them as our needs
warrant.  In this way, I don't see educational linguists as 'end users' of concepts
developed elsewhere.  We have a hand in developing concepts too.  In fact, it is
here where I see one of the major defining areas of educational linguistics (and
Dick mentioned this too): We need to craft a well-developed theory of language and
education.  In doing this, we must draw on relevant concepts from a variety of
disciplines but, in essence, we are doing so to enage in our own theory building.
Solid theory building for educational linguistics, of course, must inlcude the kind of
bridging Leslie suggests.  While we may each, as individual researchers, have
different points of interest and concentration we need to think holistically about
the field of educational linguistics and what it has to offer (and how to market it
convincingly to policymakers, educators, parents, students, and other
stakeholders).

Francis





> > I think there is a need for concepts like communicative concepts to be
(re) > examined and I like Leslie's proposed integrated model of sociolinguistic and
> cognitive approaches to SLA. However, while these are challenges for the
> field, it's unclear to me whether these are in the spirit of the "problems"
> referred to in the quoted material from Spolsky in WPEL 18(2). The
> investigation of theoretical problems such as these (comm competence etc.)
> might help to hone and/or strengthen the discipline and perhaps then help to
> solve real-world problems - problems like the gap between school languages and
> home languages and ways of improving grammatical accuracy in writing. For me,
> the quote means that we should begin with a problem that exists in the world
> and then apply the theoretical tools from fields like linguistics,
> sociolinguistics, sociology, anthropology, SLA, etc. in an attempt to solve
> the problem. In educational linguistics, the problems of greatest interest
> exist in and around formal and informal education. As Hornberger (2001, p.19)
> says, "The starting point is always the practice of education and the focus is
> squarely on (the role of) language (in) learning and teaching." Thus, we begin
> with an educational problem, one that concerns (the role of) language (in)
> learning and teaching, and look to our theoretical lenses to help solve the
> problem. My top problem would be the linguistic and cultural hurdles that
> language minority students face in schools and/or the fostering of
> multilingual education (policies) in schools. Related to this might be the
> preservation of minority languages around the world.
>
> Perhaps, as Leslie suggests, we have levels of problems, both educational and
> theoretical. Ideally, by working on the theoretical problems, we are
> developing better tools to solve the practical problems and perhaps vice
> versa.
>
>
> Quoting Bernard Spolsky <spolsb at mail.biu.ac.il>:
>
> > For me, I suspect, the "top problem" remains the gap between school
> > languages and home languages, and the lack of a theoretical model that can
> > form the basis for practical ways of overcoming the language barrier to
> > education facing so many pupils.
> > Bernard Spolsky   spolsb at mail.biu.ac.il
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-edling at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> > [mailto:owner-edling at ccat.sas.upenn.edu] On Behalf Of Leslie K Harsch
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 4:56 AM
> > To: edling at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> > Subject: Defining issues in Ed Ling
> >
> >
> > In a recent issue of Working Papers in Ed Linguistics (18,2), the
> > editors mull over proposed definitions of our field:
> >
> > >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).
> > >
> > >
> > > 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?
> > > 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."
> > > The Modern Language Journal 86 (4): 525-545.]
> >
> >
> > Leslie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>