Defining issues in Ed Ling

[Bernard Spolsky]

Francis
That is a much better way to put it.  It seems that at the heart of the
problem is a weakness linguists have with language - we are better at
studying it than using it to tell people what we have found.  We call
ourselves "linguists" and complain that people think we mean we speak
languages; we advocate bilingual education, and complain that people vote
for teaching English, etc. So communicating with the stakeholders deserves
high priority.
Bernard

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-edling at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
[mailto:owner-edling at ccat.sas.upenn.edu] On Behalf Of Francis M Hult
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:28 AM
To: edling at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: Defining issues in Ed Ling


Perhaps 'market' was not an ideal word choice since it implies a product.  I
meant
to suggest that we need to consider (as a field) how to get stakeholders on
board with our approach--especially the folks who make important educational

decisions.  It seems to me that many in our field lament that our work is
not taken
into account in educational decision making.  I do think it crucial to
develop
working relationships with parents, students, teachers, and administrators
as well as
policymakers.  This would seem to involve some public relations.  What do
you think?

Francis


> > Francis
> Up to a point, and that point is where you say "how to market it." >
Bernard
> 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 Francis M Hult
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 8:15 PM
> To: edling at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> Subject: Re: Defining issues in Ed Ling
>
>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
>
>
>
>